Let's Talk Truth 
All Year Long
 Thank You John....
We are all going to miss you 
R.I.P....You did well and good

Locating Topic Material 

One of the other things you can do on this site is use the on site search engine to locate topic material. If I have anything posted about certain ideas, groups, news pieces or organizations etc. the search engine will locate the titles and pages where they can be found. You just type in some useful search term like “alternatives” or “The Matrix” or “Brave New World” etc and see what it finds for you. It usually takes a few minutes to do.

 

 
 On Stigma-
This one was sent to me as a creation by one of the "Less Than Thrilled" psychiatric survivours in Canada Clara Hughes he is NOT. I can also relate to much of what he is saying here. Margaret Trudeau I am Not.
The point is there are alway two sides to imperfect "help" and when one side is suppressed and invalidated we open ourselves up to dictatorships, and dictatorships abuse power as if it was their "right" to do so. 
 
 
 
 

Can All You Supposedly, "Normal" People HEAR Your Own Confessions?

  •  1/12/2015
  •   Lefave, Patricia
  •    views
This is going to go as part of my personal campaign pointing out the absurdities of the system, as a counterpoint/expansion to Bell Canada’s “Let’s Talk” Campaign promoted for January 28th. We could all use this as a means of PUBLICLY talking about the harm done by psychiatry and how the labelling itself creates the “stigma”. On January 28th Bell Canada Now Promotes a “Let's Talk” Campaign supposedly used to end “the Stigma” of “having” a mental illness. I Propose that We all Join in as those w...
 Read More

The System Will Not Tell You

  •  10/21/2013
  •   Lefave, Patricia
  •    views
This is the opposing viewpoint that people are intimidated into keeping silent about, because it does not promote the mental illness system and in fact has something negative to say about it. This was sent to me by a Canadian Psychiatric Survivour and though personally I can do without the language (I get to hear this all day on the bus as if it was the only adjective or adverb anyone knew) I can definitely relate to the sentiments expressed in this piece and so can many others who are on the ...
 Read More

Try Thinking About it

  •  2/2/2013
  •   Lefave, Patricia
  •    views
By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic  (who is “seeking your attention” on this matter)  ...Instead of just accepting your “training” without question.. To all of you determined to “help those people” You are “those people” and “those people” are YOU. It is only the circumstances that are slightly skewed or “different.” I am one of “those people” who does not want your current brand of “help.”[1] So I am Talking Back, just like a naughty child you will no doubt feel you must “correct.” Da...
 Read More

The Collective Level

  •  2/18/2012
  •   Lefave, Patricia
  •    views
Psycho-Spiritual Experience and Generic Meaning By Patricia Lefave....Monophrenic How do does that translate into concrete reality on an individual level? Well, all words have multiple meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. This is equally true for ALL people, not just those of us who have experienced altered states, for one reason or another.  So I found the best context to be a generic one, to start with, that we can all use, and then we can see it as individuals fro...
 Read More

Please Watch the Tone of Your Posts

  •  2/13/2012
  •   Lefave, Patricia
  •    views
On the Public Board I want to say that I would like everyone to keep the language and the potential slanderous remarks well toned down OK? I really want to keep this board up without any threats from people with power to change that. I know people are angry, resentful and frustrated for many legitimate reasons but please speak from your OWNpersonal experience and how you felt about it and not from other people's stories or gossip. If you have not read the PDF files above regarding the use of...
 Read More

Last Nights News February 2012

  •  2/3/2012
  •   Lefave, Patricia
  •    views
Researchers are searching diligently for the cause of “mental illness.” They are doing this by searching through the brains they have kept in jars for just the telltale “anomalies” that show the differences between the “normal” and the “abnormal.” They wear white coats and check thin slices of the brains of people like me, now deceased and no longer complaining, many of whom who “thought” they have been “harmed by others” or who “think” they were child sexual abuse victims and, as Freud told us....
 Read More

Current Blog Article: Can All You Supposedly, "Normal" People HEAR Your Own Confessions?

Comments

i need to tell this, truth is something thatwe humans invented just as we are thinking it is, for most of us is trust just something that we feel thats true but everyone, dont think that this world is telling youtruth, this world full of humans that dontsee, those who are just acting like smart and knows shit about real world how hard it is to live, just think... is it ok that a lot of people,childrens have nothing to eat?? And what all those smart idiots doing? They are just sitting there and watching them dying like they are animals, racism is untold truth, everything is based on lie, its reversed, lie is truth...everything that humans made is lie

only one is truth and answer to everything thats time?? Time is the answer for everything just think about how the world was created, there are lot of ways

some are saying that it was just cuz of meteors, some are saying that God created it , but think what if we are not supossed to live this whats called “live?” What if we are just lying to ourselfs that this is right?? What if we just fuck things up from the very beginning? What are we suppose to do? Shouldnt we stay together?

shouldnt we erase racism? Shouldnt this world finally stop lying to us? What gives them premission to lie about our lives???who are they to tell us that if we wont do what they want we will be throwed out of system? Ill tell you truth?? They are trying to get on that level where everything is possible, where they can be limitless, where they can do everything in the blink of an eye, in the state of God, and they are lying to us just cuz they cant do it alone, they need us to do it, they are trying to change what cant be changed, they are trying to make a robots from us, we are located on every single step we do,

they know everything about us, they know too mutch, thats the truth... they dont want to accept it, but yeah it is, they are lyiers , lying about how perfect will world be when they will acomplish to destroy it, open your eyes, wolrd is not for us to destroy it, world is my home, world is your home everyones so please dont destroy it just live in a peace, actually im the biggest idiot in this world, but i can see,i can see that they are just lying

lying about all medicines, lying about food, about moon about wolrd about everything we thought its true, they trying to say that we evolved from apes but guys if we evolved from apes then why are apws still here???? Thats ridiculous!!! Think dont let them take over you, we have one live, so dont let them change and take that whats yours ! No one can tell you stop singing !! You can fly if u want to!!

run out of houses and do what you want!

world is one , we are one!!

and black,broun,white,yellow even green if i have to say it this way!! We are one!

and we always will be! Skin is skin but everyone haves heart, everyone wants to feel love, everyone wants to wake up and feel free, everyone ! Not just those who are acting smart!! We are one !

remember never forget that, if u let them change your life, you wont live, you will just do the same thing whole live

so open your eyes and think ??

thanks for those people who are actually doing something good for this world and telling true truth????

your welcome guys

 John  5/19/2018

 Reply

---Reply posted by Patricia on 5/20/2018
Well thank you John for your long comment on this. I agree with much of what you say here in that we ARE all "one." I also think that we are both "one AND many" at the same time and that this is not a contradiction at all. I have kind of boiled this down to one common problem. a personal boundary problem. I think if we ALL understood that we are all the same AND also all unique/different, (which means we are the same thing if you know what I mean..) we would all learn what boundaries REALLY were and the world would straighten itself out, on a collective level, because of it. I live and hope.
Patrica, site owner.. and no guys here at all.....except as visitors and contributors.


Would you like to be notified when new forum topics or posts are made?
Lefave, Patricia
Psychiatrists and “Underlying” Causes

Psychiatrists tend to look for underlying causes. Personally I think that most of the underlying causes they find are off the mark and often quite a bit of a stretch. One of the underlying causes which they don't like to see even when it is suggested to them by the identified patients themselves, is that of dysfunctional relating and a variety of abuses of many kinds and degrees that we don't seem to want to talk about much as that is part of the old longstanding “No One Must Be Blamed” Game. Psychiatrists generally prefer to blame the brain we use to think with rather than the thoughts we come up with as an alternate reality to explain it all AWAY. To me it is more often like trying to 'fix' the software by using a sledgehammer to the hardware. You make those thoughts go away but at what cost to the CPU?

 

Has this kind of analogy occurred to others reading this?

 


Lefave, Patricia

 

Families can sometimes be closer to the “patient” physically than anyone else and yet still have no idea who the patient really IS, often because the labelling blocks that. The psychiatrized generally, myself included tend to get treated as psychiatrists and others SUGGEST they should be and what we say and do is heard THROUGH that filter. It is also true that some families, not all of none, can be the patient's problem in the first place. It is also true that what my SEEM unusual is not so strange at all if seen and understood in the proper context. Many people who seem normal smiling and friendly are seriously deranged but know how to act “as if.”. Ted Bundy in the US pops to mind. So I believe that context and real investigation of  situations matters and it is a very rare case when  the things the identified patient says about what has happened to them is taken at face value. Psychological isolation and constant invalidation in, and of, itself can break people and CAUSE what is perceived as a self contained madness, without relationship to external reality. This is just wrong to me and part of what must change for everyone's sake, including families and others.

 

I also don't have any particular problem with “blaming” since patients are routinely blamed while most people pretend they are not. Often it is the patient who is being accused falsely, and blamed, and not the ones who are to blame. Blame means “to hold accountable. “ I think it is more important that we focus on who or what IS accountable and why these things happen and they DO “ and happen”stop being so afraid of “blaming.' I would also like to get past blaming “nature” as this suggests that we are ALL powerless and hopeless, patient and families alike, and I don't believe that and in fact, believe we have some more growing up to do, including family members, who are very often in more “denial” than the “identified patient” ever was.

I also believe this is much more of a psycho-social problem than an individual one. It is just that the current system focuses almost exclusively on the individual as a self contained “disease” process and I believe this is the wrong way to see it and the wrong way to be going with it. 

When psychiatry denies that society mocks, ridicules and laughs at those they define as “crazy” for defining that experience as it IS, psychiatry traps the patient in the invalidating diagnosis and WORSE, supports and enables the abusers which keeps them and their obnoxious behaviour going without end.

Yes I too have found that the British system is more 'friendly” such as it is than the US or Australia but Canada, is now moving right into the American model so I fear fort the generation  growing up now which is going to have a much harder time having their truth heard if this is not interrupted... which is another part of the reason I am doing this public exposure of my own case and building this website.

As far as the “line of normality” goes, no one has to do or say anything much that is “abnormal” one can say something another does not understand or perhaps does not like and that seems to be enough to get a “covert” operation going of those determined to 'save' you whether you really want or need to be 'saved' or not. We don't call it the “Psychiatric Faith for nothing!

I think there IS a kind of escape possible. It is by pointing out the weirdos, who call us weirdos, while the real weirdos who are doing it, are denying they do that. Now THAT'S what I call WEIRD!
I think most psychiatrists and others who compare this to “diabetes” DO mean well.  I even had contact with several psychiatrists I actually liked as human beings and could probably have been real friends with under different circumstances...BUT the saying applies here...”the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” So I am trying very hard to rip up the pavement.

Psychosis is an event, not a permanent condition. I also know that some people are told they were psychotic when in fact, they have never experienced such an altered state of consciousness at all. 
We also need to look at definitions like non standard behaviour and see how MUCH of this is defined with no context at all.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this here Colin. I think you are actually much “nicer” about it than I am.

Barrass-Brough, Colin
Regarding the role of the family of a person identified as mentally ill I think the important point is that the family are closer to the patient (as he may become) than other people and also have concern to do something rather than nothing. Of course others may come into contact with the person behaving in an unusual way but unless the behaviour is particularly outageous they will respond either with indifference or certainly with something less than full-blown intervention. Persons often become patients in early adulthood when the parents may still have expectations of instructing their son's or daughter's behaviour so that if he turns out wayward or at variance with his peers they may feel duty-bound to find some sort of intervention for him. I don't myself see that there is necessarily any blame in this on either side: it's just the way nature works for some parents who have been used to looking out for their son or daughter to continue longer than is strictly justified. And of course more likely for them to find intervention based on standards of society as they are unlikely to have thought out for themselves the rights and wrongs of psychiatrization.
I am more inclined to think it blameworthy of society - or actually individuals making up society - to find non-standard behaviour which is no way aggressive or threatening to be unacceptable (or laughable). From the sound of it treatment by 'society' based on a diagnosis of unusual ways of carrying on is more likely to be legally enforced in the USA or Australia than in Britain (and I don't know enough about Canada), but still anywhere it is natural for people living within the bounds of a normal life to look askance at those of their fellows who do not toe the line of normality: I almost find it blameworthy but still I see there's no escaping it. Not only the mentally ill but people with obvious physical disabilities too are too often pointed out as weirdo.
I have heard the comparison of mental illness with diabetes several times and again my honest belief is that those who make such a comparison mean well. The main thrust of it is that diabetes needs to be treated through a constant régime of medication, and doctors - most of them - think of psychosis the same way. Also there should be no stigma attaching to mental illness as there is none in diabetes. Of course there are many points in which the comparison falls down and (as I implied) a better way of understanding the experience in society of someone diagnosable as mentally ill is to compare it with the experience of physically disabled people. Whether a particular individual is diagnosable as mentally ill is of course open to argument and the range of severity - measured by how non-standard the individual's behaviour is (which I think one could actually measure statistically) - is a very wide range.

Lefave, Patricia

 

 

Part 2 for Colin
and anyone else who wants to add to the discussion 

 

The words used in describing the patients “reality” are always chosen by others to reflect the beliefs of those others who see themselves as sane, or normal, or above the mind of the identified patient. Descriptions like “putting up with the IP” implies that it is always the patient who is behaving badly in some way.  But often, the person is psychiatrized for complaining about something done TO him or her by others and it is automatically assumed that those 'others' who are not upset must be “normal” and not the problem. The public however is trained to treat the labels given as proof of the weirdness or dangerous behaviour of the labelled one. They do not know that you don't have to have DONE anything other than say something not understood, or perhaps not liked, by someone else and that this is enough in many cases to allow others to take over control of your life. That group agreement you speak of, about the nature of the problem, is often a big part OF the problem. Another assumption is that if the identified patient is said to be exhibiting “divergent behaviour” , virtually everyone around will accept that assessment no questions asked.  This is especially true because the thoughts, complaints or “behaviours” will be seen as in relation to NOTHING other than the i.p.'s own BRAIN. Diagnoses isolate and contain those diagnosed. Those who want any kind of acceptance often have to agree to ACCEPT the diagnosis to get it. We all know the meaning of “non-compliant” now don't we? BAD PATIENT-BAD!

 

It might not be so difficult to get others to change their ways if those others could actually SEE and HEAR their “ways” which is n part, what I am trying to do with my website. And yes once labelled, it opens the doors to abuse by many others for who is going to believe that “Nut case” anyway...right? As you say also when people are told to look for something by authority, they tend to find what they are being told to look for and this has something to do with an old dysfunctional need to please authority.

 

As far as the drug effects go, I found Haldol extremely depressing in itself and although on only a small dosage, it seemed to build up over a period of time. It was described for me once as a little “something to reduce your awareness.” THAT it did but that was not considered to be a good thing by me. But then, I knew that my reality WAS reality and not a “dream” of mine. You would think that more psychiatrists would notice the improvement in thinking with the drug reduction and that it would cause them to wonder about their own judgements a bit more. I am drug free, have been for many years and yet I can walk, talk and chew bubble gum as well as any of my old psychiatric team ever could! (HA!)

 

Hopefully now if enough of us who don't agree with bio psych get pushed out of the groups of people who do, we will not b pushed into the cold anymore as there will be a whole group of other people in warm coats with hot chocolate waiting for us...yeah!

I also think it is pretty much impossible to identify an “incorrect” psychiatric diagnosis since the majority of them are based on ambiguous abstract ideas suggested by the patient as something written in the DSM by the doctors as a “symptom.” Like “thinking you have been harmed by others.” Maybe on Mars no one is ever harmed by “others” but on Earth this happens all the time. The problem is that psychiatry has little, or no, interest in any actual evidence.  Maybe if we could get more cops to investigate our “claims” a lot less people would be getting incarcerated for their “thoughts.” I even wonder if some of the numbers of the falsely “diagnosed”  aren't larger because psychiatry is getting more and more subtle in what they label as symptomatic.  For example did you know that if middle aged women   believe it is possible that someone admires them or is on their side in something from afar this must mean such a woman is “crazy.” I wonder what sexist male wrote that one? If you have never read Dr. Paula Caplan's  book, “They Say You're Crazy” do find a copy and give it a read.  It is about the construction of the DSM.

 

I believe that the idea that human distress is a self contained disease process “just like Diabetes,” without any relationship to other people, or external reality is the worst idea psychiatry ever came up, with STARTING with the phenomenon they decided to call “schizophrenia.” Even the radical groups that want to change the system to treat the IP's better mostly accept the existence of a self contained illness as the starting point. Doing that causes everyone involved to rethink it BASED on that premise. But if the premise is wrong, no real solution will ever be found. I believe that we MUST look at this as the effects of a sick society on an isolated, or excluded and invalidated, individual and as the problem of one person who is chosen to contain the “sickness” for everyone around them so that all others can convince themselves they are “normal”...and absolutely “blameless.”

 

Lefave, Patricia

Well Colin, 
do not believe that psychiatrists are any more “objective” than anyone else and in fact, they may well be more subjective since they hear what they expect to hear because of their training to do so.

As far as the lack of support goes for the psychiatrized...I think that is changing as we are talking to each other in a way that was not really possible before the net existed. I feel way more connected to many psychiatrized people than I do to those near me physically. It has definitely decreased the feeling of being forced into isolation and silenced. I also think that getting it “right” is pretty much a myth since the diagnostic labels are based on ambiguous abstractions and also forced treatment is becoming pretty much the norm in North America and Australia, not at all unusual and part of the reason I am speaking out despite being warned a few times not to do so. Or more like BECAUSE I have been warned against it. No one and no group of people should ever have this kind of unquestioned power.

What is scary is not that diagnoses are “malicious” but that those who are delivering them in ten to fifteen cost effective minutes, have NO sense at ALL of doing anything wrong. THAT is what is truly scary and also what many of the psychiatrized find hard to believe is NOT in the awareness of those with such power. I also don't share your faith in “the Family” as a mythically “good” group of people and I am sure that many institutionalized people would agree. Though most members may be all right and many ignorant or deceived, there are SOME family members who could care less what happens to a family member who gets labelled and incarcerated for telling the TRUTH about what has happened to them. That too is reality but it is a reality that most “normal” people really don't want to have to see or deal with much.

It would be nice to think that patients are regarded as problems ONLY if they were trouble makers” but the definition is open to “interpretation.” it is the “interpretation” of vague ideas that is often the problem in the first place. Some patients for example, who suggest assertiveness with good boundaries to other patients become regarded as “troublemakers” by hospital staff because unquestioning “compliance” is threatened by a suggestion of self direction. Patients are routinely treated like “naughty children” being “corrected by others assumed to be more integrated personalities for no other reason than they work there. Yet many staffers are among the most dysfunctional people you may ever meet anywhere. The idea that group of people can be nicely and easily separated into the same and the insane via their status or label is often a big part of the problem. In fact, it is often a repeat of the familial problem that brought them into the situation in the first place

Am I saying that it is ALWAYS the family? No. Of course not. But I AM saying that sometimes it is and it is also sometimes family member that is not understood by the rest of the family members.

I have more to answer in relation to your post here but this is all the time I have right now.
More soon and thanks for your long and thought out response.
Pat

Barrass-Brough, Colin
It's difficult to say what is objectively real and in practice what happens is a number of people - sometimes a large number - agree among themselves and those who don't agree are left out in the cold. Psychiatrists regard themselves as objective and certainly in the right because they have the support of their fellows. Mental patients are for the most part individualistic and in the nature of it lack support from a coherent body of allies. As far as I can assess in most of the western world there are procedures for finding out psychiatrists who get it wrong and make an incorrect diagnosis and certainly it is so if treatment is compelled on the patient. The number of malicious diagnoses must surely be very small and much smaller than in past centuries when rich husbands or family members more generally were able to consign unwanted wives (or family members) to lunatic asylums if they showed any eccentricity of choice at all.
And why should identified patients be regarded as problematic at all? Unorthodoxy has many benefits such as through introducing diversity into choices made by people regarded as a statistical mass: it would be a terrible thing if everyone chose exactly the same way to behave, for example in things they might buy or places they might live. A patient is regarded as a problem if he is a trouble-maker, that is if his behaviour is not only outlandish but outrageous from the point of view of the many (or, it must be admitted, from the point of view of the individual psychiatrist if he finds it difficult to cope).
I don't really know if the patient should be regarded as only part of the problem the rest of the problem being the people he relates to or interacts with. If they can't put up with him they still agree with each other and put up with each other and the identified one is still out in the cold. Surely it would be more difficult to get all the others to change their ways than hope to get the one to alter his.
I agree that being labelled as mentally ill (and particularly as schizophrenic) puts one in a position impossible to escape and makes it very much more likely that future divergent behaviour will be diagnosed as ill behaviour. It is indeed rather like a witch hunt in that fear people have of the mentally ill makes it likely that a witch once diagnosed will in future continue to be hounded, and observers will be on the look-out for divergent behaviour. I agree too that a highly charged reaction (of fear or disbelief) from the one accused will make it much more likely he will be found guilty.
I know from experience that psychiatric drugs can make you feel just awful and it isn't only what are thought of as side-effects. The primary action of dopamine-blocking drugs is to reduce the amount of thinking going on (supposedly to reduce the unorthodox or outlandish thinking) and the result of too high a dosage can be complete emptiness in the life of the patient a person for whom the thinking life was before treatment of great significance to him. All I can say is that in my own case a reduction in dosage has made it much easier to tolerate drug treatment.

Lefave, Patricia

Answer to Colin Part 2

Yet we all know that some “people do harm others,” that some people do not so so out of reason, or accidentally, but because it makes them feel powerful and “superior” to do so. That is what reality is really like and all anyone has to do to see that, is pick up a newspaper anywhere, on any day, and look. Yet psychiatrists ROUTINELY make judgements about people they do not even know, based on ambiguous abstractions used in absolute terms. This often happens in ten to fifteen cost effective minutes and once labelled, very, very few will remove it and admit that they were wrong. Even if someone does, they do NOT contact all the other people whom they told otherwise, when they originally defined the “subject” as insane. After all, how would that reflect on THEM?

So what I would like to do here is rise above the “nature or nurture arguments about what is what, and look more at who is whom, and how relating as superiors to inferiors, rather than as equal human beings CHANGES the MEANING of everything that is going on. That happens BECAUSE of the premise used which goes unquestioned, or the put another way, because of the prefab filter THROUGH which the evaluators, of the identified patient's reality, are perceiving and hearing it.

I do think there are many perception/reaction problems, generally speaking, but I do not believe they all, or always, belong to the identified patient. Suggesting that of course usually gets answered with mocking and ridicule...which is then denied to exist...of course, since it would not be reasonable to people who are “normal” to behave that way......

As far as automatic drugging goes..that may be “easy” for psychiatrists but what does it do for the “subject” who is telling the truth that is never believed, is trapped in the system, and has no escape.  Again, there is an assumption of “them and us” in this in absolute terms. I remember reading a case history[1] years ago about a psychiatrist who tried taking the drugs they were forcing into a patient who had said he felt like the drugs were going to kill him. So the psychiatrist took the drugs for just a short time and then told his colleagues. “He is telling the truth...I feel just AWFUL.

The response? “Well that is because those drugs weren't MEANT for YOU.”

That is the “them and us” split that allows the doctor to feel “just awful” while denying that the patient feels the same thing. When “we” say we feel just awful, “we” mean it, but when “they” say the same thing, “they” are just “seeking attention.” The same group dynamic exists in dysfunctional families as well and is accepted as “normal”.

Also the patient's thinking may well have been DEFINED as “faulty” when in fact, all that he or she was doing in the first place was telling the truth about an  experience, but once the labelling is done, there is no looking back.

Many people learn to go along with their treatment and show others what they want to see and hear because the patient KNOWS there is no escape possible. But is that a “good” result for either the identified patient or society?

And let's get something else stated openly here. The identified patient does not have to have DONE anything. You can get to be “the patient” just by saying something someone does not understand or perhaps does not like. The idea that all psychiatrized people must be controlled because we are all sitting, precariously balanced on the edge of committing murder and mayhem out of complete irrationality, related to nothing at all, is inflammatory and fear based.

There are a lot of assumptions in your last paragraph there. I used to work inside a psychiatric hospital, B.C.E.[2] and frankly many of those labelled “schizophrenic” were a whole helluva lot nicer people than many of those who assumed themselves to be their “superiors,” and many of them had a lot more insight into their own lives and other people's motivations and experiences than those, charged with the job of taking care of them, had into their own. I used to say that some days you could not tell the patients from the staff without a program. 

Psychiatrists also have complex human minds. Perhaps the “unravelling” should start there under controlled conditions. They might be surprised about what they find there, were they to look. Of course if it turned out that it looked bad, and threatened to undermine their authority, I'm sure they would decide to do the expedient thing and keep it all “in the family” ...you might say...



[1]  I can't tell you where I read this as it was decades ago...

[2]  B.C.E. Before Control Effort

Lefave, Patricia

Well Colin,

For starters, I am not accepting that this is always a problem located within the identified patient in the first place. Being “upset” can't be reduced to brain chemistry and called a “bad” thing anymore than failing to be upset by acting out on surrogates, while smiling sweetly, can be considered to be a 'good” thing.

I think the main problem is the reductionism and a view that continues to see the patient as a self contained problem without relationship to others, life events, or external reality. Seeing human beings that way is nonsensical from the start.

Is it nature or nurture, for example, that causes psychiatrists to go for a view of themselves as objective observers, outside the relationship rather than what they really are: imperfect participants who often fail to see the truth of situations... just like anyone else? The idea that there is a group of people who understand those “others” better than any of those “subjects” could possibly understand themselves, or life, is awfully stilted to me. It is also (ironically) not realistic.

The real problem, as I see it is up a level: that the question of “nature or nurture” is ALWAYS focused on, and directed AT, the identified patient and there is no consideration given at all, even for a moment, to applying the SAME standards to those doing the debating ABOUT those “subjects.” If you are defined as the “subject”, you can “admit” you are ill, or you can “deny” you are ill, which will only prove you are MORE “ill” since you are denying it...but , if you are the “objective observer” the question is never even suggested let alone answered. It is also never suggested to the observers that they could “admit” they are wrong or “deny” they are wrong[1]...since “objective observers” can't BE wrong in their own opinion. Some other objective observers just might diagnose THAT as “grandiosity.”

The instant the “subject” walks in the door, it is a forgone conclusion that the subject must be “ill”[2], in one way or another and the objective observer is the sanest human that ever lived and so the ONLY thing left to do is to categorize the “sick” one according to an abstract, ambiguous and marvellously malleable rule book called the DSM. In it, people who “think they have been harmed by others” are crazy because it says so in the book, written by those who consider themselves to be the sanest humans who ever lived, and who are therefore above all judgement to the contrary.

end of part 1



[1]  If they “admit” they are wrong, at least they know they are sick. But if they deny they are wrong than they are even sicker because they don't know it, or won't admit to it. This is another example of a tautological argument employed to make the one using it “right” no matter what. Both psychiatry and all dysfunctional groups are full of these.

[2]  And it MUST be a physical “illness” of some sort since a doctor is “treating” it....

Barrass-Brough, Colin
Really this is a particular aspect of the nature versus nurture question, and the truth many scientists must agree lies in an interaction of the two, that is nature with nurture, hardware with software. I think the reason psychiatrists these days treat the hardware (that is they treat the nervous system with drugs which alter it physically) is that this is the most direct approach and the easiest given lack of funding and lack of finesse or cleverness in the mental healthcare system these lacks going hand in hand. Of course the result of this most direct methodology as many patients know is subjugation and suppression of the capacity to think of the one being treated: in altering his faulty and certainly unwanted ways of thinking (unwanted in ordered society) the entirety of his thinking is stopped or (depending on dosages) much reduced. This is the more so when quick results demand the use of high dosages and when the psychiatrist does not have the finesse to tailor dosages for the long term. If dosages are properly tailored (and as the word implies the dosage required depends on the individual response of each particular patient, and it is obvious to everyone that mental patients vary among themselves most individualistically) then the patient is more likely to go along with the treatment as he can retain in his life some of his natural creativity and life will be for him less empty.
In a better world there would be funding for treatments auxiliary to drug treatment, and then life could be less empty for patients because they could be guided according to some species of therapy in such a way as to stimulate the use of their mental resources even if they each individually find fewer insights and less of creative interest is generated within their own mind. Of course to develop good auxiliary treatments is not easy and even among patients who have been rich enough to pay for personal psychiatry not that much has been found to help them (speaking of schizophrenic patients specifically). Lack of finesse in psychiatry has the added burden of the necessary difficulty in questions of unravelling such a complex thing as the human mind.

Lefave, Patricia

Psychiatrists tend to look for underlying causes. Personally I think that most of the underlying causes they find are off the mark and often quite a bit of a stretch. One of the underlying causes which they don't like to see even when it is suggested to them by the identified patients themselves, is that of dysfunctional relating and a variety of abuses of many kinds and degrees that we don't seem to want to talk about much as that is part of the old longstanding “No One Must Be Blamed” Game. Psychiatrists generally prefer to blame the brain we use to think with rather than the thoughts we come up with as an alternate reality to explain it all AWAY. To me it is more often like trying to 'fix' the software by using a sledgehammer to the hardware. You make those thoughts go away but at what cost to the CPU?

 

Has this kind of analogy occurred to others reading this?

 

 

Pat's Disclaimer: the posts of other participants on this public board do not necessarily express my own personal beliefs, experiences or opinions. I agree with some things expressed by others as they experienced it, with some ideas for change and not with some others. However, I do believe in the right to the honest expression of experiences with some simple limits, delivered in a non threatening manner. If we all offer our ideas and suggestions, others may find something they can use too for their own recovery and growing well being. I also believe that the best support can come from those who got all the way through their own experience and managed to come out the other side of it. We can't always see where we are heading, but we can see where we have been. Talking about it openly and honestly just may help BOTH the talker and the listener. So welcome to a place of mutual support with good boundaries part of the mutual goal. Maybe we can create a better way or relating and communicating by our own example. It is worth a try.

000514140