25 GOOD REASONS WHY PSYCHIATRY MUST BE ABOLISHED

Jimbo,

just try and let it go ok...not everything needs to be rehashed over and over! The group seems to be in some good discussions here....lets try and stick w/ that ok?

Sorry guys, my high-speed is having major problems (Comcast had a huge DNS server crash last week and they still haven't worked out all of the kinks). I was offline most of yesterday and up until this point tonight.

Let me clarify that I have never once stated that there are not major problems with psychiatry today. In fact, I agree with those of you who say that the system needs to be reformed.

The point that I am arguing is that psychiatry does not need to be abolished. Abolishing the whole field would be rather counter-productive, to say the least.

Angel,
Although I suffer from a various assortment of mental illnesses (the reason why I became interested in the field in the first place), schizophrenia (the correct spelling, I do believe  :wink: ) is not one of them. Um, as far as suffering, comparitavely, I would consider schizophrenia a more severe affliction than cyclothymia (which, for those of you that are curious, is basically a mild form of bipolar disorder) or obsessive compulsive personality disorder, however, just becuase your diagnosis is less severe than schizophrenia does not mean you do not suffer just as much. Everyone is different, and everyone's disorder manifests in different ways.

No offense is taken, I think that it is great that you are interested!

Shrink resistant,
Rosenhan's study is quite the interesting one, indeed. One point, however, is that the experiment was conducted in the early '70s, and I do feel that the field has progressed somewhat since then. But the fact still remains that many psychiatrists are incompetent or simply do not really care. I do not think that psychiatric diagnosis is inaccurate, it is simply humans making mistakes (in the diagnosis process). We are not all perfect (and as in we I mean humans AND MH profs.).

One point of advice that I must offer. Although you must trust your therapist to a certain degree, in order for him to even try to help you, never put 100% faith in them. They can make mistakes, they can be wrong. It happens. Also, many times (and I have experienced this 1st hand) a patient will not be honest or up front about many things, which could very easily lead to a misdiagnosis. The diagnosis process is quite the complicated one, and any I am outraged at any person who calls themselves a professional, then proceeds to make a diagnosis in 5 minutes. That is absurd.

Many times, I will not even give a label to my patient. It actually can be quite harmful, especially in cases such as ASPD or NPD (Anti-social personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder), among others. Why? Becuase they can find people that they can relate to, and when they see it on paper, it becomes moreacceptable to them. It then is much more difficult to help them discontinue their negitave behavior patterns, becuase they have a specific name they can blame for it. Woah, off topic, sorry.

Sean,
Unfortunately, I have heard the same about BPD. As a joke, but nonetheless... it is scary. There are so many "disorders" that it is hard to be 100% right all of the time. We are sometimes unsure of ourselves, as well.

I'm quite tired, but I will be able to touch on the points I have forgotten tommorow (if my damned internet would function properly).

Thanks,
Mr. Yowler

Angel,
Although I suffer from a various assortment of mental illnesses (the reason why I became interested in the field in the first place), schizophrenia (the correct spelling, I do believe ) is not one of them. Um, as far as suffering, comparitavely, I would consider schizophrenia a more severe affliction than cyclothymia (which, for those of you that are curious, is basically a mild form of bipolar disorder) or obsessive compulsive personality disorder, however, just becuase your diagnosis is less severe than schizophrenia does not mean you do not suffer just as much. Everyone is different, and everyone's disorder manifests in different ways.

No offense is taken, I think that it is great that you are interested!

Sorry (to all here)...I always seem to have trouble spelling this disorder; I mean no offense when I do! Sometimes I get it right and sometimes I know i mess it up

I too would consider cyclothymia and OCPD, what I deal w/; less severe then schizophrenia...in other words my symptoms don't compare to what those w/ schizophrenia can have occur for them. You hit it exactly right...I may not deal w/ the types of symptoms and emotions that someone diagnosed w/ schizophrenia deals w/ ....in some ways things could be considered more or less severe. But no matter what the symptoms are that we all deal w/ inside those diagnoses...yes...we all suffer in our own right. No...I just always feel like I have to explain that "hey...this is what I'm considered to be dealing w/....so since my experieines are different....I may not always clearly understand what people dealing w/ this particular illness deal w/ and my aim is to better understand that. Simply...because I care.

I mean I don't think anyone ever really says "gee....wish I could have your illness instead of mine"!!! They all SUCK!!!

MrYowler wrote:
Shrink resistant,
Rosenhan's study is quite the interesting one, indeed. One point, however, is that the experiment was conducted in the early '70s, and I do feel that the field has progressed somewhat since then.

I strongly disagree on this Yowler. In the 1900, the brain boys of that day all got together and voted on what constituted a mental illness. (Theses were the early days of eugenics). These early brain boys claimed (without proof) that what they now 'decreed' as mental illnesses had biological or genetic etiologies.

Well, here we are in 2005 and guess what? There’s still no known etiology (cause) for any mental illness. What advances are you talking about Yowler? The fundamental claim from psychiatry that thought feelings and behavior have a medical etiology is still yet to be proven.

The only advances I see are the economic advances of psychopharmacology based on lies.

That was me.

Anyway I have some more to say.

Yowler,

Are you stating that their have been advances made in the diagnosis process?

If so what?

The Support Coalition International hungerstrikers put the question of the existence of any reliable diagnostic exam for any mental illness. The American Pyschiatric Association in their reply said they have no such test.....

Rosenhan's study is as relevant today as it was in the 70's.

I hate to just give you links, but heres my proof.

http://pages.nyu.edu/~er26/toxicmind.html
http://www.pendulum.org/articles/articl ... omyth.html

just one small example~

"Their imaging studies show that the thalamus, a control center for routing signals to and from various parts of the brain, is smaller than normal in the brains of schizophrenia patients. A malfunctioning thalamus could contribute to the unfiltered flood of sensory stimulation that schizophrenia patients experience in hallucinations and delusions."

"depressed patients have abnormally high blood flow in the amygdala, a brain region important for emotional behavior."


and...
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/schiz ... search.htm

"Revolutionary scientific advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, genetics, and brain imaging have provided some of the greatest insights into the complex organ that is the seat of thought, memory, and emotion. Thanks to these new tools, the scientific evidence that mental illnesses are brain disorders now exists."


~Yowler

Sorry, forgot to login.

Very funny Yowler.

You are joking of course........... web pages of research theories.

Heres the Surgeon Generals Report on Mental Illness.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/m ... /home.html

Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (1999) is explicit about the absence of any findings of specific pathophysiology:

p. 44: "The diagnosis of mental disorders is often believed to be more difficult than diagnosis of somatic, or general medical, disorders, since there is no definitive lesion, laboratory test, or abnormality in brain tissue that can identify the illness."

p. 48: "It is not always easy to establish a threshold for a mental disorder, particularly in light of how common symptoms of mental distress are and the lack of objective, physical symptoms."

p. 49: "The precise causes (etiology) of mental disorders are not known."

p. 51: "All too frequently a biological change in the brain (a lesion) is purported to be the 'cause' of a mental disorder ... [but] The fact is that any simple association -- or correlation -- cannot and does not, by itself, mean causation."

p. 102: "Few lesions or physiologic abnormalities define the mental disorders, and for the most part their causes remain unknown."

I hope you know who the Surgeon General, what his job entails and who reports to him?

Yowler,

Being a professional, I'm sure you understand my amusement at your links.

I look forward to your reply to my Surgeon General Report post.

I must admit, that was quite a lackluster post, with no real links to entertain you. I apologize sincerely. However, advances do stem from these "research theories." As far as the Surgeon General Report, I pulled some quotes.

"The past 25 years have been marked by several discrete, defining trends in the mental health field. These have included:

The extraordinary pace and productivity of scientific research on the brain and behavior;
The introduction of a range of effective treatments for most mental disorders;"

and

"Mind is not possible without the remarkable physical complexity that is built into the brain, but, in addition, the physical complexity of the brain is useless without the sculpting that environment, experience, and thought itself provides. Thus the brain is now known to be physically shaped by contributions from our genes and our experience, working together. This strengthens the view that mental disorders are both caused and can be treated by biological and experiential processes, working together. This understanding has emerged from the breathtaking progress in modern neuroscience that has begun to integrate knowledge from biological and behavioral sciences."

Although it may not be "proven" yet, there is strong reason to believe that the cause of mental illness is "biological process". The fact that the fundemental claim (as you call it) is yet to be proven does not necessarily make it false. What other etiology is proven? None. There are, however, proven "biochemical alterations that accompany mental disorders." (General's report) These are what pharmacological therapies are focusing on correcting.

More later,
Mr. Yowler