Yup, first they try to keep Bob Whitaker from talking, and now they've decided that Will Hall may not include coming off drugs at his workshop. A workshop about choice in regard to drugs, where you may not talk about coming off?? Sounds sort of meaningless, I'd say. "Alternatives" my ass!
Here's the press release:
MENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCE CENSORSHIP
Coming Off Medications Workshop Censored at 'Alternatives 2010' Mental Health Conference
Alternatives, the mental health consumer/survivor conference with more than 1,000 participants annually, has withdrawn its previous approval for a workshop on coming off psychiatric medications.
The workshop, based in a pro-treatment choice, harm-reduction philosophy, was to share information about continuing, reducing, or coming off medications. After approving the workshop in June, the National Empowerment Center, which organizes the conference to be held in Anaheim California, made a last-minute decision to change the title and description to remove any reference to coming off medications. Will Hall, an internationally-recognized schizophrenia survivor and radio host who was set to lead the workshop, decided that he could not go along with the decision and will not be attending the conference. "Coming off medications is a topic vital to wellness and recovery, and should not be censored," he said.
The controversial move by the National Empowerment Center comes in the wake of a recent similar decision to bar Robert Whitaker, a Pulitzer finalist investigative journalist whose work spotlights medication dangers and growing evidence that non-drug alternatives work better for some patients. Whitaker was restored as a conference keynote speaker only after mental health advocates mobilized quickly on the internet to challenge the decision.
The annual Alternatives conference is organized by consumer/survivor groups and federally funded. With workshops ranging from wellness, youth, housing, employment, advocacy and diversity issues, Alternatives is the country's most prominent gathering for mental health consumers, who attend from all US states and as far away as Guam. Medication issues, however, have consistently been excluded from the program.
Hall, who works as a therapist, says he is not anti-medication and does not give medical advice, but instead educates individuals, families, and health care providers to make more informed choices. "People are caught between pro-drug marketing by pharmaceutical companies and the anti-drug message of some activists. We need honest and unbiased information about psychiatric medications, including assessing drug risks and discussing how to come off drugs safely when they aren't right for you. Many people find medications helpful, but there are huge dangers involved, and sometimes it's better to reduce medication or slowly go off."
After several hospitalizations and a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder schizophrenia, Hall has been medication-free for more than 17 years. He says a combination of holistic health, support groups, and spiritual practice nurtured his recovery from mental illness, but believes that "each person's path to recovery is different. My work fills a great need for information, and it's a shame this topic is censored at a national conference that claims to be dedicated to
wellness and calls itself 'Alternatives.'"
Hall is the author of the Harm Reduction Guide to Coming Off Psychiatric Medications, published by mental health peer groups The Icarus Project and Freedom Center. The guide, available freely on the internet, has been distributed to more than 15,000 people and is available in Spanish and German translations.
http://theicarusproject.net/HarmReductionGuideComingOffPsychDrugs
--
http://www.willhall.net
http://www.madnessradio.net/coming-off-medications-workshop-censored
Showing posts with label oppression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oppression. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Accutane vs. Geodon. More on double standards
I watched this vid the other day, 1:43 into it. That was all I needed to see, or hear: "None of us would like it , if one of our children were to die at a young age, especially if it was for taking a medication that was for the treatment of pimples." -Doug Bremner.
Right. Certainly, none of us would like that. And sure as hell it was about time, and the only right thing to happen, when Accutane was pulled from the market last year. And although Hoffmann - LaRoche claimed other reasons to have prompted the decision to pull Accutane, concerns about the safety of the drug, also, and not least, voiced by Doug Bremner, without doubt were crucial to this decision. So, hats off to Doug Bremner's courage!
Anyhow, here's what I simply can't get my head around: if it is so outrageous as, among others, Doug Bremner thinks it is, and as it, indeed, is, that a drug that potentially causes depression and suicidal ideation/behavior as a side effect is used to treat acne, how come it is fully acceptable that drugs, medical treatments, with the side effect profile of Geodon are used to treat what isn't even scientifically proven to be an illness, a medical condition, at all? How come it isn't only acceptable, but apparently even desirable, if I understand Doug Bremner correctly - and it seems I do, since he didn't protest my comparison of his Mark Becker post to Fuller Torrey/TAC propaganda - to be able to force people to take these drugs?
So far, in Denmark there has been filed one complaint about Zyprexa causing diabetes. The complaint was dismissed. Explanation: "schizophrenia" is a far more severe disease than diabetes. So, if you suffer from "schizophrenia", you'll have to live with a side effect of the severity of diabetes. In fact, "schizophrenia", according to the "experts", such as Doug Bremner, must be worse than death. Because, unless you get run over by a bus and killed, or something along those lines, you, eventually, will die from taking drugs like Geodon or Zyprexa. On average, about 25 years earlier than you would have died not taking these drugs. So did the person who filed the complaint here in Denmark, who died from complications related to diabetes, which he had developed thanks to taking Zyprexa.
So, what we've got are drugs for the treatment of something that is not scientifically proven to be a disease, that actually, according to the scientific, psychiatric (!), research that has shown non-medical approaches like Soteria or Open Dialog to produce recovery rates of about 85%, vs. the drugs' 0%, with much greater probability is an emotional, existential problem, than that it is a medical one, that do not only have death as a possible, but, if taken long-term, as advocated by Doug Bremner and most of his colleagues, certain side effect. That is, looking at the scientific facts, any risk-benefit analysis of these drugs clearly tells us that the risks are way out of proportion compared to the benefits. Far more out of proportion than for a drug like Accutane.
Still, there is a public outcry, not least from Doug Bremner himself, for a ban of a drug like Accutane, while there, at the same time, is a just as loud, if not louder, public outcry, not least from Doug Bremner himself, in favor of forced "treatment" with a drug like Geodon.
If it was for Big pHARMa's profit to be at stake alone, I bet, someone like Doug Bremner would be one of the first to go for a ban of neuroleptics. But there is more, much more, at stake than Big pHARMa's profit when it comes to psych drugs. Pimples, acne, don't challenge society's status quo, they don't challenge the collective mass-psychosis that is called modern western civilization to the same extent as existential crises do. Indeed, society, Doug Bremner included, doesn't fear anything, not even death, and not even "if one of our children were to die at a young age", as much as it fears "schizophrenia", that is the confrontation with its own dysfunctionality. "Schizophrenia" begins where the courage to face oneself ends.
Right. Certainly, none of us would like that. And sure as hell it was about time, and the only right thing to happen, when Accutane was pulled from the market last year. And although Hoffmann - LaRoche claimed other reasons to have prompted the decision to pull Accutane, concerns about the safety of the drug, also, and not least, voiced by Doug Bremner, without doubt were crucial to this decision. So, hats off to Doug Bremner's courage!
Anyhow, here's what I simply can't get my head around: if it is so outrageous as, among others, Doug Bremner thinks it is, and as it, indeed, is, that a drug that potentially causes depression and suicidal ideation/behavior as a side effect is used to treat acne, how come it is fully acceptable that drugs, medical treatments, with the side effect profile of Geodon are used to treat what isn't even scientifically proven to be an illness, a medical condition, at all? How come it isn't only acceptable, but apparently even desirable, if I understand Doug Bremner correctly - and it seems I do, since he didn't protest my comparison of his Mark Becker post to Fuller Torrey/TAC propaganda - to be able to force people to take these drugs?
So far, in Denmark there has been filed one complaint about Zyprexa causing diabetes. The complaint was dismissed. Explanation: "schizophrenia" is a far more severe disease than diabetes. So, if you suffer from "schizophrenia", you'll have to live with a side effect of the severity of diabetes. In fact, "schizophrenia", according to the "experts", such as Doug Bremner, must be worse than death. Because, unless you get run over by a bus and killed, or something along those lines, you, eventually, will die from taking drugs like Geodon or Zyprexa. On average, about 25 years earlier than you would have died not taking these drugs. So did the person who filed the complaint here in Denmark, who died from complications related to diabetes, which he had developed thanks to taking Zyprexa.
So, what we've got are drugs for the treatment of something that is not scientifically proven to be a disease, that actually, according to the scientific, psychiatric (!), research that has shown non-medical approaches like Soteria or Open Dialog to produce recovery rates of about 85%, vs. the drugs' 0%, with much greater probability is an emotional, existential problem, than that it is a medical one, that do not only have death as a possible, but, if taken long-term, as advocated by Doug Bremner and most of his colleagues, certain side effect. That is, looking at the scientific facts, any risk-benefit analysis of these drugs clearly tells us that the risks are way out of proportion compared to the benefits. Far more out of proportion than for a drug like Accutane.
Still, there is a public outcry, not least from Doug Bremner himself, for a ban of a drug like Accutane, while there, at the same time, is a just as loud, if not louder, public outcry, not least from Doug Bremner himself, in favor of forced "treatment" with a drug like Geodon.
If it was for Big pHARMa's profit to be at stake alone, I bet, someone like Doug Bremner would be one of the first to go for a ban of neuroleptics. But there is more, much more, at stake than Big pHARMa's profit when it comes to psych drugs. Pimples, acne, don't challenge society's status quo, they don't challenge the collective mass-psychosis that is called modern western civilization to the same extent as existential crises do. Indeed, society, Doug Bremner included, doesn't fear anything, not even death, and not even "if one of our children were to die at a young age", as much as it fears "schizophrenia", that is the confrontation with its own dysfunctionality. "Schizophrenia" begins where the courage to face oneself ends.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
"Are you riding yet, or are you still rolling?"
I found this at Wu Wei Verlag's website, a German publisher specializing in, among other things, publications critical of our culture's increasing violence and abusiveness in the field of equitation, which especially the "Rollkur" *) - which means forcing the horse to bend his neck to a point where his nose almost touches his chest, an unnatural position and extremely damaging especially to the horse's upper vertebrae (though in a broader sense damaging to his entire body and soul) - is an expression of.
The text says: "Are you riding yet, or are you still rolling?" It reminded me of what one of my trainers used to say, that the motto of dressage competitions should be "Look what I'm NOT able of!"
Any parallels to the mh system? Well, if you ask me, the whole mh system is an expression of what its professionals are NOT able of, and one could ask them: "Are you helping people yet, or are you still oppressing them?"
Via Camera-Obscura
_______________
*)The English term is hyperflexion.
The text says: "Are you riding yet, or are you still rolling?" It reminded me of what one of my trainers used to say, that the motto of dressage competitions should be "Look what I'm NOT able of!"
Any parallels to the mh system? Well, if you ask me, the whole mh system is an expression of what its professionals are NOT able of, and one could ask them: "Are you helping people yet, or are you still oppressing them?"
Via Camera-Obscura
_______________
*)The English term is hyperflexion.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
The OPUS Trials - comparing drug "treatment" to drug "treatment"
Here you can find an overview in English over the research I referred to in both yesterday's post and this one from March 16.
While you scroll down to the "Funding" section at the bottom - and I'll get back to why you might want to have a look at this section -, don't be fooled by the charts. It's the figures that count, not the bars or lines. And the figures tell us that OPUS indeed works significantly better than "treatment" as usual. Well, at least in regard to "treatment adherence", "compliance" that is, and in regard to indoctrinating parents/family - which, on its part, certainly contributes to the higher "treatment adherence" achieved in an OPUS-setting compared to "treatment" as usual. Otherwise, thus also in regard to outcomes, differences are rather insignificant.
As I suspected in my previous post, the research was only and solely designed to compare OPUS to "treatment" as usual, and thus did not follow up on people who decided to take another, potentially more promising, route to recovery, than OPUS or "treatment" as usual. While these people seem to make up a considerable amount in both groups. Almost half of the initial participants in the study did not respond to the five-year-follow-up interview. Some of them certainly because they've become wiser than to remain uncritically cheerful about the received "treatment" in the meantime.
Of course, it is very nice that the dosage of neuroleptics in an OPUS setting, presumably thanks to the massive indoctrination and rat training offered by OPUS, is kept about 20% lower than in a "treatment" as usual setting. Nevertheless, this still is no reason to get over-the-top enthusiastic about OPUS as people in "treatment" as usual settings often are senselessly overdrugged, meaning that people in OPUS settings are just a little less overdrugged, and, well, as there still is a looong way from a little less overdrugged to the barely drugged at all of alternatives like Soteria or Open Dialog.
Did you scroll down to the "Funding" section? If so, you'll maybe remember that I referred to Merete Nordentoft as the Danish Fuller Torrey. Yup, also The Stanley Medical Research Institute funded this research project. Is it any wonder that drug-free, non-medical alternatives were of no interest to the researchers, and that learning to live with a chronic illness through OPUS is hailed to be as good as it can get?...
Best buddies
(How I wish I had Photoshop!)
While you scroll down to the "Funding" section at the bottom - and I'll get back to why you might want to have a look at this section -, don't be fooled by the charts. It's the figures that count, not the bars or lines. And the figures tell us that OPUS indeed works significantly better than "treatment" as usual. Well, at least in regard to "treatment adherence", "compliance" that is, and in regard to indoctrinating parents/family - which, on its part, certainly contributes to the higher "treatment adherence" achieved in an OPUS-setting compared to "treatment" as usual. Otherwise, thus also in regard to outcomes, differences are rather insignificant.
As I suspected in my previous post, the research was only and solely designed to compare OPUS to "treatment" as usual, and thus did not follow up on people who decided to take another, potentially more promising, route to recovery, than OPUS or "treatment" as usual. While these people seem to make up a considerable amount in both groups. Almost half of the initial participants in the study did not respond to the five-year-follow-up interview. Some of them certainly because they've become wiser than to remain uncritically cheerful about the received "treatment" in the meantime.
Of course, it is very nice that the dosage of neuroleptics in an OPUS setting, presumably thanks to the massive indoctrination and rat training offered by OPUS, is kept about 20% lower than in a "treatment" as usual setting. Nevertheless, this still is no reason to get over-the-top enthusiastic about OPUS as people in "treatment" as usual settings often are senselessly overdrugged, meaning that people in OPUS settings are just a little less overdrugged, and, well, as there still is a looong way from a little less overdrugged to the barely drugged at all of alternatives like Soteria or Open Dialog.
Did you scroll down to the "Funding" section? If so, you'll maybe remember that I referred to Merete Nordentoft as the Danish Fuller Torrey. Yup, also The Stanley Medical Research Institute funded this research project. Is it any wonder that drug-free, non-medical alternatives were of no interest to the researchers, and that learning to live with a chronic illness through OPUS is hailed to be as good as it can get?...
Best buddies
(How I wish I had Photoshop!)
Friday, 2 April 2010
Mental Helse Akershus (Norway) is mocking survivors
A regional branch of the Norwegian organization Mental Helse, Mental Helse Akershus (Akershus is Norway's most populated region after Oslo), plans to have a public arrangement in support of Norwegian psychiatry on the 8th of May 2010. The 8th of May 1945 is the day the German troop's occupation of Norway ended with Germany having surrendered unconditionally. The day is officially celebrated in Norway as "Frigjøringsdagen", liberation day.
Considered that it is no longer a secret that innumerable people experience psychiatric "help" in every regard as an assault on their fundamental rights and freedoms as human beings, considered that psychiatric "help" indeed more often than not comes along in the shape of incarceration, humiliation, and oppression, an official arrangement in support of a system that systematically does these things to people, and, metaphorically speaking, systematically occupies its victims, their bodies, their minds and their souls, held on a day that celebrates liberation from oppression is a slap in the face of each of these victims, and an outright statement of disrespect towards not just the Norwegian, but the international survivor movement.
E-mail Mental Helse Norge at post@mentalhelse.no and/or Mental Helse Akershus at akershus@mentalhelse.no, and elinor.flo@mentalhelse.no, and ask them, politely but firmly, to show some respect, and move the arrangement to another date.
Via Jan Olaf
Considered that it is no longer a secret that innumerable people experience psychiatric "help" in every regard as an assault on their fundamental rights and freedoms as human beings, considered that psychiatric "help" indeed more often than not comes along in the shape of incarceration, humiliation, and oppression, an official arrangement in support of a system that systematically does these things to people, and, metaphorically speaking, systematically occupies its victims, their bodies, their minds and their souls, held on a day that celebrates liberation from oppression is a slap in the face of each of these victims, and an outright statement of disrespect towards not just the Norwegian, but the international survivor movement.
E-mail Mental Helse Norge at post@mentalhelse.no and/or Mental Helse Akershus at akershus@mentalhelse.no, and elinor.flo@mentalhelse.no, and ask them, politely but firmly, to show some respect, and move the arrangement to another date.
Via Jan Olaf
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Trauma Survivor
Description at YouTube:
"Elemental Ireland
Those termed "psychiatric patients" are in fact trauma survivors. Many who find themselves caught in the net of bio-psychiatry are responding to the abnormal circumstances of a traumatic childhood; the hated child, the abandoned child, the neglected child, the exploited child, the defeated child and the silenced child, to name a few.
Exploring 'The Roots of Violence' by Alice Miller. This video contains quotes by Alice Miller and by Elemental Ireland.
'For some years now, there has been proof that the devastating effects of the traumatization of children take their inevitable toll on society - a fact that we are still forbidden to recognise (a fact that is commonly denied). This knowledge concerns every single one of us and - if disseminated widely enough - should lead to fundamental changes in society; above all, to a halt in the blind escalation of violence'. Alice Miller
Having recently discovered Alice Miller, as a parent I found her work a welcome challenge. She has made me think deeply both about the way I parent and society's attitudes to children. It is a matter of urgency for me to heal my own wounded inner-child, so I can parent my children in the best possible way. She has tapped into great truths that I knew deep down but was afraid to voice to myself and in public. A good website exploring Alice Miller's work is Daniel Mackler's iraresoul. Daniel has made an excellent film called 'Take These Broken Wings' about recovery from (so-called) schizophrenia without medication.
Many trauma survivors are terrified and find it difficult to trust. They struggle with repressed rage and anger. Many are further punished for being trauma survivors by coercion and forced 'treatment'. They are further battered and broken by bio-psychiatry.
In most cases, the trauma survivor is silenced three times; firstly by their families, then by society and then by bio-psychiatry.
Wouldn't this make you angry?"
Some time ago, I lent Derrick Jensen's A Language Older Than Words to a friend. Earlier this week, I got it back: "I couldn't read past the first pages. Too painful to read about all this violence and abuse." Yeah. It certainly is a lot less painful to close your eyes to reality. It just won't change anything.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Primal therapeutic oppression - Arthur Janov knows what you need!
Yesterday, my attention was drawn to the comment section of this post on this NYT-article on modern lobotomy at Mr. Arthur Janov's - yup, the Arthur Janov - blog.
My attention was drawn to the blog of the guru of the 1970ies screaming-hype by a comment on a blog post about, and this is somewhat important, Liberation psychology - by the way an awesome piece by Bruce Levine, and if you haven't yet, go read it! - at a Norwegian blog.
In his article about Liberation psychology, Levine states with Jesuit priest, therapist and activist Ignacio Martín-Baró:
"The prevailing psychology, (...), is not politically neutral, but favors maintaining the status quo. Reducing human motivations to the maximization of pleasure fits neatly into the dominant culture. Martin-Baró astutely observed that most prevailing psychology schools of thought—be it psychoanalytic, behavioral, or biochemical—accept the maximization of pleasure as the motivating force for human behavior, ignoring other human motivations, including the need for fairness and social justice. Prevailing psychology’s focus on individualism, he wrote, 'ends up reinforcing the existing structures, because it ignores the reality of social structures and reduces all structural problems to personal problems.' "
So, you might say the prevailing paradigm in today's psychology pathologizes suffering as an individual flaw - and it doesn't matter if this flaw is seen as biological, existential, spiritual or whatever else in nature - rather than viewing it as an expression of a very healthy discontent with and rebellion against a thoroughly oppressive culture.
Bruce Levine writes:
"Aldous Huxley predicted, 'And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.' Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not comply with authority are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric drugs that make them care less about their boredom, resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and manageable."
Psych labels and the inevitably following "treatment" have indeed become our time's most employed means of oppression. Political, societal, and individual oppression.
Now have a look at this comment by Arthur Janov:
"There are many many reasons why we cannot take some people; those who really need a living arrangement supervised or controlled as is the case with psychotics."
Us and them, yup. The "psychotics", the lesser-than-human beings, who, because they are "psychotic" and thus lesser-than-human, need to be supervised and controlled, i.e. oppressed.
Since I've managed to see through and quite successfully ward off most attempts to oppress, retraumatize, and consequently silence me, that I, too, found myself subjected to in therapy, since I actually beyond the attempts to oppress, retraumatize and silence me also was as lucky as to receive some real help from my therapist, making it possible for me to find my own language and voice my discontent with and rebellion against the ongoing oppression in society, I left the following comment at Janov's blog:
" 'They need a supervised life.'
Wow wow wow! Mind-boggling to witness therapists know just exactly what it is their clients need!
As it may be true that, while going through acute crisis, most 'psychotic' (whatever that term means) people need a secure environment where they can be safe from (further) assault and trauma, 'secure' doesn't mean 'secured', as in 'supervised'. Or why not simply 'controlled', as in 'Let's lock 'em up and throw away the key!'??
How about a little more respect for the person in crisis, and his/her own knowledge of what s/he needs?
Marian, Denmark, blogger and expert on her own needs" (Janov likes to know about his commenters' location and profession)
Well, what of course I should have written isn't "their clients" but "people". As this is what therapists, Arthur Janov included, usually have the arrogance to assume, that their "expertise" entitles them to know what everybody else, not just their particular clients, needs. - Let's recapitulate here: arrogance is a response to fear.
Arthur Janov, like many other therapists, doesn't take "psychotics". But while he himself prefers to think, that he can't take these lesser-than-human beings because he can't provide the control they, like a ferocious wild animal, in his opinion are so much in need of, in truth he, as it will seem to me, can't take them because he lacks the self-control he'd need in order to be able to provide a safe and spacious enough place for people in extreme states of mind where they can liberate themselves from society's oppression, and fully come into being.
And while I think, it is better for a therapist to admit that s/he doesn't have the amount of self-control, -awareness, and -respect to deal with the whole range of human experiences, the extremes included, than to pretend to be able to deal with the extremes when the contrary is the case - these are the therapists who claim the professional expertise, providing the power to label, drug and, whenever perceived as convenient, commit people, to be more important than true empathy and respect -, which inevitably will lead to the person in crisis being retraumatized, I also think that s/he probably isn't fit to be a therapist at all, when s/he feels frightened by the extremes of the human experience to an extent that makes him/her call for "supervision", control and thus retraumatizing oppression. If you can't deal with the whole range of human experiences, but need to apply "supervising", controlling, and thus oppressing measures to the extremes, that means, you can't deal with anything that isn't "supervised", controlled, and thus oppressed by external powers. And that renders you an oppressor yourself.
In another comment Janov replies to someone who's written a letter to the author of the NYT-article:
"Well Walden good work and now let me know if he ever responds. I seriously doubt it."
Janov published my comment, and that's something I guess. But so far, His Greatness Arthur Janov hasn't had much to say to me so impertinently disturbing the worshipping of him at his blog, and I seriously doubt that he's going to have. But, of course, I'm also one of these lesser-than-human beings, a ferocious wild animal, who, had only a "supervised", controlled life been provided for me, never had had the impertinence to disturb the worshipping of His Greatness in the first place... In case Janov surprises me, I'll let you know...
_______________
Cross-published on Beyond Meds.
My attention was drawn to the blog of the guru of the 1970ies screaming-hype by a comment on a blog post about, and this is somewhat important, Liberation psychology - by the way an awesome piece by Bruce Levine, and if you haven't yet, go read it! - at a Norwegian blog.
In his article about Liberation psychology, Levine states with Jesuit priest, therapist and activist Ignacio Martín-Baró:
"The prevailing psychology, (...), is not politically neutral, but favors maintaining the status quo. Reducing human motivations to the maximization of pleasure fits neatly into the dominant culture. Martin-Baró astutely observed that most prevailing psychology schools of thought—be it psychoanalytic, behavioral, or biochemical—accept the maximization of pleasure as the motivating force for human behavior, ignoring other human motivations, including the need for fairness and social justice. Prevailing psychology’s focus on individualism, he wrote, 'ends up reinforcing the existing structures, because it ignores the reality of social structures and reduces all structural problems to personal problems.' "
So, you might say the prevailing paradigm in today's psychology pathologizes suffering as an individual flaw - and it doesn't matter if this flaw is seen as biological, existential, spiritual or whatever else in nature - rather than viewing it as an expression of a very healthy discontent with and rebellion against a thoroughly oppressive culture.
Bruce Levine writes:
"Aldous Huxley predicted, 'And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.' Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not comply with authority are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric drugs that make them care less about their boredom, resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and manageable."
Psych labels and the inevitably following "treatment" have indeed become our time's most employed means of oppression. Political, societal, and individual oppression.
Now have a look at this comment by Arthur Janov:
"There are many many reasons why we cannot take some people; those who really need a living arrangement supervised or controlled as is the case with psychotics."
Us and them, yup. The "psychotics", the lesser-than-human beings, who, because they are "psychotic" and thus lesser-than-human, need to be supervised and controlled, i.e. oppressed.
Since I've managed to see through and quite successfully ward off most attempts to oppress, retraumatize, and consequently silence me, that I, too, found myself subjected to in therapy, since I actually beyond the attempts to oppress, retraumatize and silence me also was as lucky as to receive some real help from my therapist, making it possible for me to find my own language and voice my discontent with and rebellion against the ongoing oppression in society, I left the following comment at Janov's blog:
" 'They need a supervised life.'
Wow wow wow! Mind-boggling to witness therapists know just exactly what it is their clients need!
As it may be true that, while going through acute crisis, most 'psychotic' (whatever that term means) people need a secure environment where they can be safe from (further) assault and trauma, 'secure' doesn't mean 'secured', as in 'supervised'. Or why not simply 'controlled', as in 'Let's lock 'em up and throw away the key!'??
How about a little more respect for the person in crisis, and his/her own knowledge of what s/he needs?
Marian, Denmark, blogger and expert on her own needs" (Janov likes to know about his commenters' location and profession)
Well, what of course I should have written isn't "their clients" but "people". As this is what therapists, Arthur Janov included, usually have the arrogance to assume, that their "expertise" entitles them to know what everybody else, not just their particular clients, needs. - Let's recapitulate here: arrogance is a response to fear.
Arthur Janov, like many other therapists, doesn't take "psychotics". But while he himself prefers to think, that he can't take these lesser-than-human beings because he can't provide the control they, like a ferocious wild animal, in his opinion are so much in need of, in truth he, as it will seem to me, can't take them because he lacks the self-control he'd need in order to be able to provide a safe and spacious enough place for people in extreme states of mind where they can liberate themselves from society's oppression, and fully come into being.
And while I think, it is better for a therapist to admit that s/he doesn't have the amount of self-control, -awareness, and -respect to deal with the whole range of human experiences, the extremes included, than to pretend to be able to deal with the extremes when the contrary is the case - these are the therapists who claim the professional expertise, providing the power to label, drug and, whenever perceived as convenient, commit people, to be more important than true empathy and respect -, which inevitably will lead to the person in crisis being retraumatized, I also think that s/he probably isn't fit to be a therapist at all, when s/he feels frightened by the extremes of the human experience to an extent that makes him/her call for "supervision", control and thus retraumatizing oppression. If you can't deal with the whole range of human experiences, but need to apply "supervising", controlling, and thus oppressing measures to the extremes, that means, you can't deal with anything that isn't "supervised", controlled, and thus oppressed by external powers. And that renders you an oppressor yourself.
In another comment Janov replies to someone who's written a letter to the author of the NYT-article:
"Well Walden good work and now let me know if he ever responds. I seriously doubt it."
Janov published my comment, and that's something I guess. But so far, His Greatness Arthur Janov hasn't had much to say to me so impertinently disturbing the worshipping of him at his blog, and I seriously doubt that he's going to have. But, of course, I'm also one of these lesser-than-human beings, a ferocious wild animal, who, had only a "supervised", controlled life been provided for me, never had had the impertinence to disturb the worshipping of His Greatness in the first place... In case Janov surprises me, I'll let you know...
_______________
Cross-published on Beyond Meds.
Monday, 12 October 2009
"Psykisk sårbar" - "Mentally vulnerable". The new, politically correct term in Denmark
There's a new trend emerging here in Denmark. The politically correct term for people in emotional distress is no longer "mentally ill" (psykisk syg) or "insane" (sindssyg - yup, both the "experts" and the media have a preference for this truly value neutral term, especially when it comes to "the schizophrenics"), it is "mentally vulnerable". Beautiful, huh? Like renaming the house slave as housekeeper, or lobotomy as psycho-surgery... Everybody of course just loooves this new term. It sounds so empathetic, so loving and caring, doesn't it?
One of those who are at the leading edge concerning this linguistic revolution is former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, who recently launched one more amazing website (check out the vid - and cry; no need to speak Danish btw, his facial expression says it all) for, yeah, "mentally vulnerable" people and their relatives.
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, whose daughter suffered from "depression", and eventually felt so respectfully listened to, also by her father, that she couldn't bear it anymore - certainly because of the "illness" - and ended her life, now wants to compensate for this tragic loss by publicly pleading the "mentally vulnerables' " cause. As we all know, these, uhm, people don't really have a voice of their own (that's probably why Poul Nyrup didn't hear the least, although his daughter screamed and shouted right into his ears), so they need every NAMI-parent available to speak for them.
"Schizophrenia is a persistent and serious mental illness," it reads on Poul Nyrup's brand new website. Among a whole bunch of other lies. It seems, Poul Nyrup is in dire need of a Truth Injection. Maybe I'll take pity on him and e-mail him one, one of these days. Being no more "mentally vulnerable" than anybody else, and thus able to speak for myself. But frankly I fear, Poul Nyrup's condition is rather persistent and serious, with treatment-resistant denial being one of the core symptoms.
One of those who are at the leading edge concerning this linguistic revolution is former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, who recently launched one more amazing website (check out the vid - and cry; no need to speak Danish btw, his facial expression says it all) for, yeah, "mentally vulnerable" people and their relatives.
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, whose daughter suffered from "depression", and eventually felt so respectfully listened to, also by her father, that she couldn't bear it anymore - certainly because of the "illness" - and ended her life, now wants to compensate for this tragic loss by publicly pleading the "mentally vulnerables' " cause. As we all know, these, uhm, people don't really have a voice of their own (that's probably why Poul Nyrup didn't hear the least, although his daughter screamed and shouted right into his ears), so they need every NAMI-parent available to speak for them.
"Schizophrenia is a persistent and serious mental illness," it reads on Poul Nyrup's brand new website. Among a whole bunch of other lies. It seems, Poul Nyrup is in dire need of a Truth Injection. Maybe I'll take pity on him and e-mail him one, one of these days. Being no more "mentally vulnerable" than anybody else, and thus able to speak for myself. But frankly I fear, Poul Nyrup's condition is rather persistent and serious, with treatment-resistant denial being one of the core symptoms.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
"Search inside your heart..."
Facebook group "The incarceration of John"
Conference "Recovery: A Human Right"
My YouTube-comment: "What is traumatizing to human nature? The very normal though also very unnatural circumstances, that alienate it from itself. Unfortunately, violence is just all too normal in our culture. Biopsychiatry being a kind of meta-violence, as it violates those, who react to our culture's violence. (...)"
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Mari Boine - A voice against oppression
Mari Boine - Gula Gula
Norwegian-Sami singer Mari Boine on the oppression of the Sami people and their culture, including the Yoik, the traditional Sami chanting:
Norwegian-Sami singer Mari Boine on the oppression of the Sami people and their culture, including the Yoik, the traditional Sami chanting:
Monday, 20 July 2009
Psychiatry and politics
One more reply to Will:
No need to apologize! As mentioned, I'm not an angel, me neither. And I've actually enjoyed this conversation too. I like conversations with people, who are open-minded. BTW, Gianna is right. There is a whole lot of judgement and anger, even hatred, out there. On both sides. I recently read a comment on a Norwegian blog, that stated that about 90 per cent of this world's population were traumatized, in one way or the other. It's certainly just an estimation, but in my opinion a very realistic one. Unfortunately. And if trauma isn't made conscious and worked out it gets acted out. Which means war. Like in the war against terrorism, the war against drugs, the war in Iraq,... you name it.
On juge un société à la manière dont elle traite ses fous. -Lucien Bonnafé
Of course it is society that makes psychiatry possible. And I want to emphasize, that I distinguish between the mental health system and psychiatry. It goes without saying: psychiatry was established in order to pathologize certain, unwanted behaviors and ideas, that couldn't be criminalized. Pathologizing behaviors and ideas means to declare them null and void. This quote from Jani's father's blog is one of the most obvious illustrations of what medically diagnozing behavior and ideas aims at: "With schizophrenics, you always have to try to rationalize with them. You have to try and point out where their thinking is irrational. It doesn’t work right then and there but the hope is that it will sink in over time and that Jani will learn to question her own thoughts." (my italics)
BTW, there lies an interesting contradiction in psychiatry's practice of pathologizing and declaring certain thoughts to be "irrational", while no one ever seems to doubt the report of "symptoms" by the identified "patient" to be other than rational.
Well, the thing is, that "psychosis", "schizophrenia", is a reaction to having one's thoughts and feelings declared null and void (because they're unwanted). I dare say, that every single individual who has experienced "psychosis" as a result of psychological trauma (and usually physical abuse involves psychological trauma as well) - in contrast to those, whose "psychotic" symptoms are a reaction to purely biological stressors, food allergies, adverse reactions to drugs, etc. - has had their own thoughts and feelings invalidated in one or the other way. To an extent, that eventually makes them doubt the value of their own, genuine thoughts and feelings themselves. And the moment one's true self starts to protest this invalidation, psychiatry steps in, and accomplishes what others weren't able to accomplish. Because they couldn't scientifically prove one's thoughts and feelings to be without value. Psychiatry can. Or, it claims to be able to. The invalidation of one's personality is scientifically, and thus, taken the status of science in our society into account, indisputably and irrevocably justified. That's why psychiatry has to be a (medical) science. Religion doesn't have that power anymore in our society today. Although it once had: what psychiatry is to our modern society, the Inquisition was to Pre-Enlightenment society. Notice that psychiatry emerges about at the same time as society enters the age of Enlightenment, and the Inquisition comes to an end.
When more and more people turned away from religion as the truth, and instead enthusiastically embraced science, the Inquisition was no longer an acceptable tool to control and oppress unwanted behavior and ideas. It needed to be replaced by a tool, that at least on the surface gave the impression of being scientific in order to be acceptable to an enlightened society.
Psychiatry is one of society's tools to enforce our culture's ideology on people. Probably the most effective one. Where educational institutions for example have great but nevertheless limited influence on individual perception, psychiatry's influence is virtually unlimited. Any kind of being in this world can be defined a mental illness (cf. homosexuality, or being a runaway slave), and while it wouldn't occur to anyone to remove real illnesses like the flu or cancer from the ICD, or to add any diagnoses that lack scientific proof of being an illness to it, psychiatric diagnoses are added to and removed from the DSM faster than you can say "DSM"... always perfectly in line with current cultural norms and values.
Now you'll maybe object, and say that people do suffer and need help. I agree. But the help people really need, is to have their suffering validated, not invalidated. To blame individual biology for suffering, that is caused by cultural norms and values, is to invalidate the suffering.
The vast majority of people I know, I myself included, know that they suffer and are in need of help. It isn't true that they lack insight by definition. The only idea they lack insight in regard to, is the idea that they would suffer from a brain disease and would need medical treatment. Non-psychiatric alternatives like Soteria don't need to force anybody, or lock as much as one single door. Because, in contrast to psychiatry, they validate people's suffering, so people stay voluntarily. Just as I didn't cancel, was late for, or missed out on one single therapy session. Because I felt that both my suffering and my being in general was validated. Not entirely - for example, I experienced being referred to as a "patient" as an invalidation - but enough to have me stay.
As for psychotherapy in general, and your experience in particular, that I've heard countless parallels to over time, it is dominated by psychiatry's (society's) ideology. That is, it doesn't validate the individual in crisis and his/her (human) experience. It pathologizes both. And once you and your (human) experience are declared pathological, it can't be you, but has to be the therapist, who knows all the answers. It doesn't work out for the individual in crisis, but it does for society. Society prefers to put up with a growing number of people on disability, people who aren't chronically ill, but chronically denied their true answers, their true selves, to being confronted with these true answers.
No need to apologize! As mentioned, I'm not an angel, me neither. And I've actually enjoyed this conversation too. I like conversations with people, who are open-minded. BTW, Gianna is right. There is a whole lot of judgement and anger, even hatred, out there. On both sides. I recently read a comment on a Norwegian blog, that stated that about 90 per cent of this world's population were traumatized, in one way or the other. It's certainly just an estimation, but in my opinion a very realistic one. Unfortunately. And if trauma isn't made conscious and worked out it gets acted out. Which means war. Like in the war against terrorism, the war against drugs, the war in Iraq,... you name it.
On juge un société à la manière dont elle traite ses fous. -Lucien Bonnafé
Of course it is society that makes psychiatry possible. And I want to emphasize, that I distinguish between the mental health system and psychiatry. It goes without saying: psychiatry was established in order to pathologize certain, unwanted behaviors and ideas, that couldn't be criminalized. Pathologizing behaviors and ideas means to declare them null and void. This quote from Jani's father's blog is one of the most obvious illustrations of what medically diagnozing behavior and ideas aims at: "With schizophrenics, you always have to try to rationalize with them. You have to try and point out where their thinking is irrational. It doesn’t work right then and there but the hope is that it will sink in over time and that Jani will learn to question her own thoughts." (my italics)
BTW, there lies an interesting contradiction in psychiatry's practice of pathologizing and declaring certain thoughts to be "irrational", while no one ever seems to doubt the report of "symptoms" by the identified "patient" to be other than rational.
Well, the thing is, that "psychosis", "schizophrenia", is a reaction to having one's thoughts and feelings declared null and void (because they're unwanted). I dare say, that every single individual who has experienced "psychosis" as a result of psychological trauma (and usually physical abuse involves psychological trauma as well) - in contrast to those, whose "psychotic" symptoms are a reaction to purely biological stressors, food allergies, adverse reactions to drugs, etc. - has had their own thoughts and feelings invalidated in one or the other way. To an extent, that eventually makes them doubt the value of their own, genuine thoughts and feelings themselves. And the moment one's true self starts to protest this invalidation, psychiatry steps in, and accomplishes what others weren't able to accomplish. Because they couldn't scientifically prove one's thoughts and feelings to be without value. Psychiatry can. Or, it claims to be able to. The invalidation of one's personality is scientifically, and thus, taken the status of science in our society into account, indisputably and irrevocably justified. That's why psychiatry has to be a (medical) science. Religion doesn't have that power anymore in our society today. Although it once had: what psychiatry is to our modern society, the Inquisition was to Pre-Enlightenment society. Notice that psychiatry emerges about at the same time as society enters the age of Enlightenment, and the Inquisition comes to an end.
When more and more people turned away from religion as the truth, and instead enthusiastically embraced science, the Inquisition was no longer an acceptable tool to control and oppress unwanted behavior and ideas. It needed to be replaced by a tool, that at least on the surface gave the impression of being scientific in order to be acceptable to an enlightened society.
Psychiatry is one of society's tools to enforce our culture's ideology on people. Probably the most effective one. Where educational institutions for example have great but nevertheless limited influence on individual perception, psychiatry's influence is virtually unlimited. Any kind of being in this world can be defined a mental illness (cf. homosexuality, or being a runaway slave), and while it wouldn't occur to anyone to remove real illnesses like the flu or cancer from the ICD, or to add any diagnoses that lack scientific proof of being an illness to it, psychiatric diagnoses are added to and removed from the DSM faster than you can say "DSM"... always perfectly in line with current cultural norms and values.
Now you'll maybe object, and say that people do suffer and need help. I agree. But the help people really need, is to have their suffering validated, not invalidated. To blame individual biology for suffering, that is caused by cultural norms and values, is to invalidate the suffering.
The vast majority of people I know, I myself included, know that they suffer and are in need of help. It isn't true that they lack insight by definition. The only idea they lack insight in regard to, is the idea that they would suffer from a brain disease and would need medical treatment. Non-psychiatric alternatives like Soteria don't need to force anybody, or lock as much as one single door. Because, in contrast to psychiatry, they validate people's suffering, so people stay voluntarily. Just as I didn't cancel, was late for, or missed out on one single therapy session. Because I felt that both my suffering and my being in general was validated. Not entirely - for example, I experienced being referred to as a "patient" as an invalidation - but enough to have me stay.
As for psychotherapy in general, and your experience in particular, that I've heard countless parallels to over time, it is dominated by psychiatry's (society's) ideology. That is, it doesn't validate the individual in crisis and his/her (human) experience. It pathologizes both. And once you and your (human) experience are declared pathological, it can't be you, but has to be the therapist, who knows all the answers. It doesn't work out for the individual in crisis, but it does for society. Society prefers to put up with a growing number of people on disability, people who aren't chronically ill, but chronically denied their true answers, their true selves, to being confronted with these true answers.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Another reply to Will
Here's another reply to Will at WillSpirit:
My way to union with the great consciousness... I'm still on my way, Will. I haven't arrived there yet. Like you, I've had certain experiences, epiphanies, peak experiences... I've even spent longer periods of time in a state of inner peace. But I've not attained that state of mind once and for all. I know, that such a place exists, because I've been there. But if being there was a constant thing, at least my Danish blog would look a lot different from what it does. Probably also this one, although it usually isn't quite as pugnacious as the Danish one.
This is something, I thought I'd write a post on its own about, but I may as well at least mention it here and now. For a long time, I've felt sort of an obligation to frequently comment on news articles and stuff on my Danish blog. There are no other blogs commenting critically on what's going on specifically in the field of psychiatry in Danish. And surprisingly many people have told me, they have difficulty navigating and reading sites in English or American. The mh system in this country hasn't only a monopoly when it comes to treatment, but also in regard to which information gets out, and which doesn't... To a far greater extent than in English -speaking countries. Go figure...
One aspect of this is that I found myself constantly confronted with lies, prejudice, ignorance, cynicism, ... in short: violence, exhibited by the news articles etc. I had to read in order to comment on them. Another is that the same violence regularly tried to make it to my comment field, respectively made it to my mail inbox. It is toxic, and it is extremely contagious. It goes straight for the ego, and if you don't watch out, the ego will take control and start a war. Especially if you've been a victim of violence before. You can observe it all over the mh blogosphere. Egos trying to get at each other, acting out their personal trauma. And repeating it, over and over again. Guess, who gets hurt...
I'm certainly no saint. I've engaged in several wars lately. Increasingly belligerent. Acting out and repeating past trauma. It gives a very short-lived, superficial satisfaction to make someone one's enemy and bash them, with some scathing irony for instance. But when the moment of satisfaction is over, it does nothing but hurt. And then you need another moment of satisfaction. And another one, and another one... I've actually suffered a whole lot, recently. Enough to have me reconsider the future of my blogs, and my engagement in the mh-debate on the internet in general. That's what suffering is good for. To bring about change.
Well, drugs. Drugs certainly can open some doors. Hallucinogens especially. And they don't altogether have the sedating, deadening effect that neuroleptics have. However, they altogether alienate oneself from oneself to a certain extent. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiRvnfrs8UM - BTW a channel I recommend, SFJane.
As for me, I didn't have to clear my brain of pharmaceuticals. I spent my youth moving in what you might call "alternative" circles, where natural drugs like marijuana etc. weren't regarded a big problem, while everybody was highly suspicious of any kind of chemicals. In addition, psychoanalytical theories were the thing. I didn't even know, that psychiatry - or rather: the pharmaceutical industry - had come up with a concept of emotional distress being brain diseases, before I saw myself confronted with the "news" in context with my last crisis in 2004. It had always been a matter of fact to me, that whatever the problem, it certainly was a reaction to one's environment. The massive propaganda everywhere of course had me doubt this matter of fact for a while. It just didn't add up, it made no sense. What made sense, was reading Laing's The Divided Self, and what I remembered from Joanne Greenberg's I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, which I'd read as a teen.
Well, and then add to that the controlled and oppressed individual's pronounced desire for freedom and self-determination on the one hand, and her just as pronounced suspiciousness towards any authority that tries to take control and oppress on the other. Of course my reaction was: "I alone know what's best for me. No one and nothing messes with my mind but I myself." Luckily, this was respected. So, the only drugs I still will have to clear my brain of are caffeine and nicotine...
I've tried a benzo, once (apart from a suicide attempt that involved valium, but that's a different story). Nasty. Very very nasty. And it would have been even more nasty to experience that amount of loss of control, if it had happened during crisis. That is, during a period of time, where my true self openly rebelled against being controlled and oppressed. - Does psychiatric "treatment" worsen "symptoms"? It certainly does. Maybe not always, but often enough. Involuntary "treatment" by definition.
Last but not least, I was sort of intuitively convinced, that taking anything to numb out the pain would be extremely counterproductive, as I was determined as hell to find out, what the meaning was. And how were I supposed to figure out the meaning, when the pain was gone?
"A major objection to the use of the anti-psychotic drugs in acute crisis situations is that because they are such powerful central nervous system suppressants they may well have the effect of preventing crisis resolution. They are powerful enough to abort a psychological process, which if supported and understood, would resolve itself in the context of a relationship," Loren Mosher says here.
The "symptoms" I experienced were indeed signposts, that showed me, clearly and unmistakably, whenever I was on the right track, trying to figure out what had caused what was going on. Without having them show me the way, the whole therapeutic process would have been a grope in the dark, unlikely to lead anywhere, since I was the only one who had the answers to all of my questions. In spite of what many people seem to expect, therapists obviously aren't there to know and tell their clients all the answers. Their only task is to suggest different angles from which to look at the questions, so that one of these angles hopefully may reveal the answer.
Numbing "symptoms" with neuroleptics leaves the client dependent on the therapist coming up with the answers, which actually is, what I see happen all over the place. - A Norwegian blog-neighbour of mine once was told by her therapist: "You know, the problem with you is that you resist being formed." Of course, my Norwegian blog-neighbour did the only reasonable thing, and ended the relationship with this "therapist". - Very convenient for society. But it won't do for the client, as it doesn't provide anything but, at best, just another false ego-identification.
So, in fact I embraced my "symptoms", because I knew, they were showing me the way out of my suffering.
I understand, that not everybody at any time has the opportunity to do as I did. The circumstances were without doubt in my favor. I had the space around me, that allowed me to "freak out" whenever I needed to, and I had someone, who supported me (almost) unconditionally. Most people unfortunately don't have that today. But that does far from mean, that they shouldn't have it. If I say, drugs are okay to use, I indirectly approve of the current paradigm of "care". I can't do that.
Basically, what I would like people to realize is that it doesn't matter what kind of label, how "serious" the problem, drugs simply aren't the answer, other than as a very short-term emergency solution, and never against the will of the person in crisis. I'd like to see the very common misconception eradicated, that there would be people, whose suffering is too severe to be met other than by (massive and long-term) drugging. There aren't. Everybody has the potential to recover, and no one should ever be prevented from it. Actually, it is often those, who suffer the most, and who seem to be "lost cases", who make the most remarkable recoveries. Given they get the right support. Because their extreme suffering also means an extreme incentive to change, and extremely clear signposts on the way to change. This is, what I reacted the most to in your initial post. That some people would need to be drugged. They don't. This, and the idea that all someone would be able to achieve, was learning to live with a chronic illness. It is not a chronic illness.
Compared to what is perceived as "normal" - and "normal" does not equal to "natural", "normal", in contrast to "natural", is a cultural construct - I certainly have "issues", still today. I'm still sensitive to noise, "noisy" visual perceptions, I still hear voices, I haven't abandoned but re-interpreted my "delusions". Does that make me an ill person? I don't think so. I think, it actually makes me more natural, so to speak, than I would be if I were perfectly adjusted to our normality. To me it's a strength, not an illness. Although it also is a lot more challenging to live in our "normal" and increasingly alienated from (human) nature world, and be naturally sensitive, than I imagine it to be for someone, who's sufficiently alienated from their own human nature and nature in general to be regarded well-adjusted to society, I wouldn't want to trade off that sensitivity for any amount of well-adjustment. I wouldn't want to trade off my true self, my true nature, for just another false ego-identification, that inevitably would lead to crisis again and again. In the end, if people think, I'm "weird" because I hug a tree, or have conversations with garden spiders, that's their problem, not mine.
I do understand and respect people who choose long-term medication when indeed they don't have a choice. That people aren't given a choice, is what I can't and won't condone.
My way to union with the great consciousness... I'm still on my way, Will. I haven't arrived there yet. Like you, I've had certain experiences, epiphanies, peak experiences... I've even spent longer periods of time in a state of inner peace. But I've not attained that state of mind once and for all. I know, that such a place exists, because I've been there. But if being there was a constant thing, at least my Danish blog would look a lot different from what it does. Probably also this one, although it usually isn't quite as pugnacious as the Danish one.
This is something, I thought I'd write a post on its own about, but I may as well at least mention it here and now. For a long time, I've felt sort of an obligation to frequently comment on news articles and stuff on my Danish blog. There are no other blogs commenting critically on what's going on specifically in the field of psychiatry in Danish. And surprisingly many people have told me, they have difficulty navigating and reading sites in English or American. The mh system in this country hasn't only a monopoly when it comes to treatment, but also in regard to which information gets out, and which doesn't... To a far greater extent than in English -speaking countries. Go figure...
One aspect of this is that I found myself constantly confronted with lies, prejudice, ignorance, cynicism, ... in short: violence, exhibited by the news articles etc. I had to read in order to comment on them. Another is that the same violence regularly tried to make it to my comment field, respectively made it to my mail inbox. It is toxic, and it is extremely contagious. It goes straight for the ego, and if you don't watch out, the ego will take control and start a war. Especially if you've been a victim of violence before. You can observe it all over the mh blogosphere. Egos trying to get at each other, acting out their personal trauma. And repeating it, over and over again. Guess, who gets hurt...
I'm certainly no saint. I've engaged in several wars lately. Increasingly belligerent. Acting out and repeating past trauma. It gives a very short-lived, superficial satisfaction to make someone one's enemy and bash them, with some scathing irony for instance. But when the moment of satisfaction is over, it does nothing but hurt. And then you need another moment of satisfaction. And another one, and another one... I've actually suffered a whole lot, recently. Enough to have me reconsider the future of my blogs, and my engagement in the mh-debate on the internet in general. That's what suffering is good for. To bring about change.
Well, drugs. Drugs certainly can open some doors. Hallucinogens especially. And they don't altogether have the sedating, deadening effect that neuroleptics have. However, they altogether alienate oneself from oneself to a certain extent. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiRvnfrs8UM - BTW a channel I recommend, SFJane.
As for me, I didn't have to clear my brain of pharmaceuticals. I spent my youth moving in what you might call "alternative" circles, where natural drugs like marijuana etc. weren't regarded a big problem, while everybody was highly suspicious of any kind of chemicals. In addition, psychoanalytical theories were the thing. I didn't even know, that psychiatry - or rather: the pharmaceutical industry - had come up with a concept of emotional distress being brain diseases, before I saw myself confronted with the "news" in context with my last crisis in 2004. It had always been a matter of fact to me, that whatever the problem, it certainly was a reaction to one's environment. The massive propaganda everywhere of course had me doubt this matter of fact for a while. It just didn't add up, it made no sense. What made sense, was reading Laing's The Divided Self, and what I remembered from Joanne Greenberg's I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, which I'd read as a teen.
Well, and then add to that the controlled and oppressed individual's pronounced desire for freedom and self-determination on the one hand, and her just as pronounced suspiciousness towards any authority that tries to take control and oppress on the other. Of course my reaction was: "I alone know what's best for me. No one and nothing messes with my mind but I myself." Luckily, this was respected. So, the only drugs I still will have to clear my brain of are caffeine and nicotine...
I've tried a benzo, once (apart from a suicide attempt that involved valium, but that's a different story). Nasty. Very very nasty. And it would have been even more nasty to experience that amount of loss of control, if it had happened during crisis. That is, during a period of time, where my true self openly rebelled against being controlled and oppressed. - Does psychiatric "treatment" worsen "symptoms"? It certainly does. Maybe not always, but often enough. Involuntary "treatment" by definition.
Last but not least, I was sort of intuitively convinced, that taking anything to numb out the pain would be extremely counterproductive, as I was determined as hell to find out, what the meaning was. And how were I supposed to figure out the meaning, when the pain was gone?
"A major objection to the use of the anti-psychotic drugs in acute crisis situations is that because they are such powerful central nervous system suppressants they may well have the effect of preventing crisis resolution. They are powerful enough to abort a psychological process, which if supported and understood, would resolve itself in the context of a relationship," Loren Mosher says here.
The "symptoms" I experienced were indeed signposts, that showed me, clearly and unmistakably, whenever I was on the right track, trying to figure out what had caused what was going on. Without having them show me the way, the whole therapeutic process would have been a grope in the dark, unlikely to lead anywhere, since I was the only one who had the answers to all of my questions. In spite of what many people seem to expect, therapists obviously aren't there to know and tell their clients all the answers. Their only task is to suggest different angles from which to look at the questions, so that one of these angles hopefully may reveal the answer.
Numbing "symptoms" with neuroleptics leaves the client dependent on the therapist coming up with the answers, which actually is, what I see happen all over the place. - A Norwegian blog-neighbour of mine once was told by her therapist: "You know, the problem with you is that you resist being formed." Of course, my Norwegian blog-neighbour did the only reasonable thing, and ended the relationship with this "therapist". - Very convenient for society. But it won't do for the client, as it doesn't provide anything but, at best, just another false ego-identification.
So, in fact I embraced my "symptoms", because I knew, they were showing me the way out of my suffering.
I understand, that not everybody at any time has the opportunity to do as I did. The circumstances were without doubt in my favor. I had the space around me, that allowed me to "freak out" whenever I needed to, and I had someone, who supported me (almost) unconditionally. Most people unfortunately don't have that today. But that does far from mean, that they shouldn't have it. If I say, drugs are okay to use, I indirectly approve of the current paradigm of "care". I can't do that.
Basically, what I would like people to realize is that it doesn't matter what kind of label, how "serious" the problem, drugs simply aren't the answer, other than as a very short-term emergency solution, and never against the will of the person in crisis. I'd like to see the very common misconception eradicated, that there would be people, whose suffering is too severe to be met other than by (massive and long-term) drugging. There aren't. Everybody has the potential to recover, and no one should ever be prevented from it. Actually, it is often those, who suffer the most, and who seem to be "lost cases", who make the most remarkable recoveries. Given they get the right support. Because their extreme suffering also means an extreme incentive to change, and extremely clear signposts on the way to change. This is, what I reacted the most to in your initial post. That some people would need to be drugged. They don't. This, and the idea that all someone would be able to achieve, was learning to live with a chronic illness. It is not a chronic illness.
Compared to what is perceived as "normal" - and "normal" does not equal to "natural", "normal", in contrast to "natural", is a cultural construct - I certainly have "issues", still today. I'm still sensitive to noise, "noisy" visual perceptions, I still hear voices, I haven't abandoned but re-interpreted my "delusions". Does that make me an ill person? I don't think so. I think, it actually makes me more natural, so to speak, than I would be if I were perfectly adjusted to our normality. To me it's a strength, not an illness. Although it also is a lot more challenging to live in our "normal" and increasingly alienated from (human) nature world, and be naturally sensitive, than I imagine it to be for someone, who's sufficiently alienated from their own human nature and nature in general to be regarded well-adjusted to society, I wouldn't want to trade off that sensitivity for any amount of well-adjustment. I wouldn't want to trade off my true self, my true nature, for just another false ego-identification, that inevitably would lead to crisis again and again. In the end, if people think, I'm "weird" because I hug a tree, or have conversations with garden spiders, that's their problem, not mine.
I do understand and respect people who choose long-term medication when indeed they don't have a choice. That people aren't given a choice, is what I can't and won't condone.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
And people tell me, I'm paranoid, when I say it's all about shutting people up...
Here is one of the most striking examples to illustrate the true purpose of psych labels, I've seen so far. I only wonder, if the author of the comment ever has given the possibility of her own scheme of things being that of a diseased brain, and thus more than questionable, a thought. As far as I know, the person is psychiatrically labelled herself.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Help us stop further human rights violations in Denmark! Help us free Abdulle!
I stole this from Jan Olaf's blog:
Jan Olaf writes: "The mental violations which the psychiatric system causes to persons are much more hidden than many other physical violations other systems do to other persons – but the mental violations caused by the forced psychiatric system are very real, they also – indeed!"
"Before you can exploit someone you have to silence them." -Derrick Jensen. By far the most efficient way to silence someone is to label them "insane". More efficient than directly murdering them: murdering their words. And then you can proceed to murder the person herself, while no one will listen to her protesting anymore. Psychiatry is totalitarianism's most efficient tool.
Abdulle Ahmed is a young man, refugee from the civil war in Somalia, who has become victim of Danish totalitarianism. No one, not even those among you, who, unlike me, believe in "mental illness" to be real diseases, can seriously claim the following time line to reflect the history of a person with a "mental illness":
• 1991 - Together with his family, Abdulle comes to Denmark, 11 years old. He lives a normal life, and only dreams about getting an education and a good life.
• 1996 - Abdulle suffers from back pain. His physician can't find out what causes it.
• 1997 - in March. Abdulle again turns to his physician because of back pain, and is prescribed Zyprexa, which he takes believing it's a pain killer. Abdulle has an adverse reaction to Zyprexa. He's convulsing and suffers from nausea. A doctor is sent for, who admits Abdulle to hospital.
• 1997 - Abdulle is admitted, though not to a somatic ward but a psychiatric one [remember: the adverse reaction is caused by Zyprexa, an "antipsychotic"...], where he's administered electroshock without the knowledge of his family.
• 2001 - Abdulle's family is told he'll soon be discharged, and come home.
• 2001 - Abdulle is not discharged. On the contrary, he has an argument with staff [he continuously rejects the idea that he would be "mentally ill", while staff keeps on trying to convince him, leading to several clashes with staff throughout time with this one being of the louder kind] which results in him being court ordered to receive "treatment" on November 8.
• 2001 - eleven days after the court order is released, on November 19, an order of dangerousness is issued against Abdulle, who is transferred to "Sikringen Nykøbing Sjælland", a secured psychiatric hospital.
• 2007 - the court order for "treatment" is extended.
• Since, Abdulle has been incarcerated at "Sikringen". He's been restrained daily for several years [years, yep!], and forced to take huge amounts of psych drugs, so that he today no longer is capable of walking, hardly can speak, is shaking all over and got his teeth ruined.
(translated from Danish, LAP's newsletter, 06-25-09)
Clearly, Abdulle, who was labelled with "schizophrenia" by the "experts", never suffered from anything else than an adverse reaction to Zyprexa, prescribed to him off-label for back pain. To diagnose "schizophrenia" under these circumstances, to me amounts to incompetence of criminal dimensions. Nevertheless, the "experts" reject to admit their mistake and to release Abdulle. On the contrary, the responsible shrink, Benedikte Volfing, has restricted visits by Abdulle's family to him to half an hour once a week, because his family doesn't believe in Abdulle's "mental illness" either, and thus undermines the "trust in the staff", that according to Benedikte Volfing is decisive to recovery, she has denied Abdulle's brother Mohamud, who is Abdulle's legal guardian, to see him for two and a half months, which according to Danish law is illegal, and tried to get Mohamud replaced by another less concerned guardian, and she plans to further up the dose of neuroleptics Abdulle is on, and stated that it might be necessary to try out new, unapproved substances on Abdulle. This is murder!!! This woman, not Abdulle, is dangerous!
Never mind the absolutely mind-blowing amount of xenophobia that lies in a statement like that neuroleptics "simply aren't effective in Africans". Has it ever occurred to anyone among the "experts" that these poisons might not work, because the diagnosis is bull, and nothing but another disgusting act of discrimination?! And has it ever occurred to anyone among them, to try and stop poisoning people with these substances, when the latter obviously don't "work", even make the drugged-up person worse, "more aggressive", as Benedikte Volfing says to Politiken?!
What has happened and is happening to Abdulle - and everybody else in a similar situation - is a gross violation of human rights, it's a crime, a crime against humanity. It's got nothing to do with help and care. It's all about power tripping and social control.
Last week, I sent an e-mail to the Danish politician Sophie Løhde, who recently proposed a bill for involuntary outpatient "treatment" to become legal in Denmark too. A bill that is widely supported by our government, and thus is very likely to be passed in the near future.
In my e-mail, I expressed my view, that Danish politicians' support of involuntary outpatient "treatment" to me seems to rather be based on a wish for more social control than a true wish to help people in crisis. I asked Sophie Løhde to correct me, if my view is wrong. So far, Sophie Løhde has chosen not to correct me... But well, I signed the e-mail as someone who's "fully recovered thanks to the fact, that I had received 100 per cent drug-free help". And that of course, in the eyes of someone like Sophie Løhde, makes me an "insane" person, whose words by definition are to be ignored.
What is more is that members of the youth organization of the Danish conservative party recently proposed to ban people on benefit, disability included, from voting. A proposal, also the youth organization of "Venstre", the party in power, has been into. Just so you get a picture of the tone in this country - democracy??? -, and don't think, I'm exaggerating grossly when I talk about social control and discrimination, and choose to post a vid like the one above to illustrate what is going on in this country.
Please help us fight human rights violations in Denmark! Help us free Abdulle!
Sign the petition for the release of Abdulle here: http://onlineunderskrift.dk/Vis/Skriv%20Under/FREEABDULLE, and become a fan of Freeabdulle on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Freeabdulle/70553338778
If you live in Denmark, join the demonstration for the immediate release of Abdulle Ahmed from the psych prison on Monday, 6th of July (Abdulle's birthday), at 1.00 pm, Slotsholmsgade 10 - 12 (behind "Børsen"), Copenhagen.
Visit the website, Abdulle's family has set up to support him here.
"...If Martin Luther Was Living, He Wouldn't Let This Be."
_______________
P.S.: "Parental Discretion Advised"??? Wouldn't it be better to let kids know the truth about our civilization, that it is abusive to the core, that it, also, killed Michael Jackson?! Instead of pretending everything to be just fine, and thus protecting the abusers??
Jan Olaf writes: "The mental violations which the psychiatric system causes to persons are much more hidden than many other physical violations other systems do to other persons – but the mental violations caused by the forced psychiatric system are very real, they also – indeed!"
"Before you can exploit someone you have to silence them." -Derrick Jensen. By far the most efficient way to silence someone is to label them "insane". More efficient than directly murdering them: murdering their words. And then you can proceed to murder the person herself, while no one will listen to her protesting anymore. Psychiatry is totalitarianism's most efficient tool.
Abdulle Ahmed is a young man, refugee from the civil war in Somalia, who has become victim of Danish totalitarianism. No one, not even those among you, who, unlike me, believe in "mental illness" to be real diseases, can seriously claim the following time line to reflect the history of a person with a "mental illness":
• 1991 - Together with his family, Abdulle comes to Denmark, 11 years old. He lives a normal life, and only dreams about getting an education and a good life.
• 1996 - Abdulle suffers from back pain. His physician can't find out what causes it.
• 1997 - in March. Abdulle again turns to his physician because of back pain, and is prescribed Zyprexa, which he takes believing it's a pain killer. Abdulle has an adverse reaction to Zyprexa. He's convulsing and suffers from nausea. A doctor is sent for, who admits Abdulle to hospital.
• 1997 - Abdulle is admitted, though not to a somatic ward but a psychiatric one [remember: the adverse reaction is caused by Zyprexa, an "antipsychotic"...], where he's administered electroshock without the knowledge of his family.
• 2001 - Abdulle's family is told he'll soon be discharged, and come home.
• 2001 - Abdulle is not discharged. On the contrary, he has an argument with staff [he continuously rejects the idea that he would be "mentally ill", while staff keeps on trying to convince him, leading to several clashes with staff throughout time with this one being of the louder kind] which results in him being court ordered to receive "treatment" on November 8.
• 2001 - eleven days after the court order is released, on November 19, an order of dangerousness is issued against Abdulle, who is transferred to "Sikringen Nykøbing Sjælland", a secured psychiatric hospital.
• 2007 - the court order for "treatment" is extended.
• Since, Abdulle has been incarcerated at "Sikringen". He's been restrained daily for several years [years, yep!], and forced to take huge amounts of psych drugs, so that he today no longer is capable of walking, hardly can speak, is shaking all over and got his teeth ruined.
(translated from Danish, LAP's newsletter, 06-25-09)
Clearly, Abdulle, who was labelled with "schizophrenia" by the "experts", never suffered from anything else than an adverse reaction to Zyprexa, prescribed to him off-label for back pain. To diagnose "schizophrenia" under these circumstances, to me amounts to incompetence of criminal dimensions. Nevertheless, the "experts" reject to admit their mistake and to release Abdulle. On the contrary, the responsible shrink, Benedikte Volfing, has restricted visits by Abdulle's family to him to half an hour once a week, because his family doesn't believe in Abdulle's "mental illness" either, and thus undermines the "trust in the staff", that according to Benedikte Volfing is decisive to recovery, she has denied Abdulle's brother Mohamud, who is Abdulle's legal guardian, to see him for two and a half months, which according to Danish law is illegal, and tried to get Mohamud replaced by another less concerned guardian, and she plans to further up the dose of neuroleptics Abdulle is on, and stated that it might be necessary to try out new, unapproved substances on Abdulle. This is murder!!! This woman, not Abdulle, is dangerous!
Never mind the absolutely mind-blowing amount of xenophobia that lies in a statement like that neuroleptics "simply aren't effective in Africans". Has it ever occurred to anyone among the "experts" that these poisons might not work, because the diagnosis is bull, and nothing but another disgusting act of discrimination?! And has it ever occurred to anyone among them, to try and stop poisoning people with these substances, when the latter obviously don't "work", even make the drugged-up person worse, "more aggressive", as Benedikte Volfing says to Politiken?!
What has happened and is happening to Abdulle - and everybody else in a similar situation - is a gross violation of human rights, it's a crime, a crime against humanity. It's got nothing to do with help and care. It's all about power tripping and social control.
Last week, I sent an e-mail to the Danish politician Sophie Løhde, who recently proposed a bill for involuntary outpatient "treatment" to become legal in Denmark too. A bill that is widely supported by our government, and thus is very likely to be passed in the near future.
In my e-mail, I expressed my view, that Danish politicians' support of involuntary outpatient "treatment" to me seems to rather be based on a wish for more social control than a true wish to help people in crisis. I asked Sophie Løhde to correct me, if my view is wrong. So far, Sophie Løhde has chosen not to correct me... But well, I signed the e-mail as someone who's "fully recovered thanks to the fact, that I had received 100 per cent drug-free help". And that of course, in the eyes of someone like Sophie Løhde, makes me an "insane" person, whose words by definition are to be ignored.
What is more is that members of the youth organization of the Danish conservative party recently proposed to ban people on benefit, disability included, from voting. A proposal, also the youth organization of "Venstre", the party in power, has been into. Just so you get a picture of the tone in this country - democracy??? -, and don't think, I'm exaggerating grossly when I talk about social control and discrimination, and choose to post a vid like the one above to illustrate what is going on in this country.
Please help us fight human rights violations in Denmark! Help us free Abdulle!
Sign the petition for the release of Abdulle here: http://onlineunderskrift.dk/Vis/Skriv%20Under/FREEABDULLE, and become a fan of Freeabdulle on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Freeabdulle/70553338778
If you live in Denmark, join the demonstration for the immediate release of Abdulle Ahmed from the psych prison on Monday, 6th of July (Abdulle's birthday), at 1.00 pm, Slotsholmsgade 10 - 12 (behind "Børsen"), Copenhagen.
Visit the website, Abdulle's family has set up to support him here.
"...If Martin Luther Was Living, He Wouldn't Let This Be."
_______________
P.S.: "Parental Discretion Advised"??? Wouldn't it be better to let kids know the truth about our civilization, that it is abusive to the core, that it, also, killed Michael Jackson?! Instead of pretending everything to be just fine, and thus protecting the abusers??
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Advance directives legally binding in Germany
All the while Danish politicians recently have agreed to make more human rights violations in the shape of involuntary outpatient "treatment" happen in this country, because it is "ethically irresponsible that some very sick individuals can't get treatment because they lack insight", uhm yahhh, their German colleagues have had a moment of true enlightenment, and have made psychiatric advance directives legally binding.
So, from now on, if you live in Germany and have an advance directive, any psychiatric "treatment" your advance directive lists as unwanted by you, becomes bodily assault, and any detention on a locked ward against your will becomes deprivation of liberty in the eye of the law.
But read for yourself, here's the press release:
(This press release was translated and forwarded by Rene Talbot - please snowball this message in e-mail lists and newsgroups)
Finally, coercive psychiatry can be put to a stop!
In Germany a new advance directive („PatVerfue“) makes it possible
Berlin, 18/6/2009
After years of discussion, today a new law on the legal rules for advance directives has finally been adopted by the German parliament.
The legislature has clearly and with votes from all political parties agreed to make valid the will of the patient and by doing so also the self-determination in any situation against any medical and state paternalism, regardless of the type and stage of an illness.
The time finally belongs to the past that others - doctors and judges - define what the supposedly "objective" best interests of a person are and what should be undertaken or refrained from, against his/her declared will, with regard to these supposedly "objective" best interests of a person! This will have far-reaching effects with regard to court ordered guardianship: For the first time there is the chance that guardianship may no longer be enforced against the wishes and needs of the person in question and thus guardianship now has the potential to be transformed into a service that is loyal to the person in question.
The patient‘s will is now to be regarded as being legally binding in medical decisions, as already promised in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany and for over 60 years in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Each case of "medical" treatment against the written and actual will of a "patient" thereby becomes bodily assault and incarceration in a locked ward becomes deprivation of liberty.
On this occasion we would therefore like to make known our specific form of an advance directive, the PatVerfue, with a built-in representation agreement, in which any torture-like bodily harm in the form of unwanted psychiatric treatment and any deprivation of liberty whatsoever due to a slanderous pseudo-medical psychiatric diagnosis is legally binding excluded. The associations publishing this form have joined forces to help this parliament´s promise to be accepted in the judiciary. It is this promise with which the validity of basic, civil and human rights for all, also for the psychiatrically slandered, hopefully becomes reality. By supporting and encouraging all those with a PatVerfue who would nevertheless be incarcerated and endure coercive treatment and/or are threatened with these acts, to create precedents at all judicial levels Germany, it is our aim to make the PatVerfue „watertight“ ["waterproof" I suppose is meant] in the courts. Our aim is that in the future all judges be made to adhere to this new law, to accept the patient‘s will without restrictions and to implement it with their decisions.
Our proposed form of an advance directive prohibits all psychiatric diagnoses from the outset. We do not believe in the existence of these so-called "mental illnesses", because there is no objective criteria to prove them. The PatVerfue thus ensures the self determination of the person against psychiatrists trying to deny his or her free will, by claiming that they have an illness-incurred lack of „insight or the ability to behave in the light of this insight ".
Today is for us a day of joy!
The rigid implementation of this law would mean the end of forced psychiatry in Germany.
An illogical fact remains, however, in that psychiatric diagnoses and treatment against the declared will of a person can only be staved off by a PatVerfue and - to the contrary - is not excluded at all.
Actually, each psychiatric - just as with any medical - treatment should only be made with the "informed consent" of the individual, i.e. it is explicitly a g r e e d to by the person after extensive consultation on the pros and cons thereof.
Thus, with the entry into force of the law, unfortunately a prior legally binding refusal of psychiatric coercive measures is only possible for those who already know that a PatVerfue is a loophole to prevent coercive psychiatry.
This is therefore the right occasion for a broad information campaign to make the PatVerfue public, so that increased use widens the loophole into a "door out of coercive psychiatry".
At www.PatVerfue.de information and the appropriate form is now free to download for noncommercial users.
Publisher of the PatVerfue: Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Psychiatrie-Erfahrener: die-bpe.de, Irren-Offensive: antipsychiatrie.de, Landesverband Psychiatrie-Erfahrener Berlin-Brandenburg: psychiatrie-erfahrene.de, Landesverband Psychiatrie-Erfahrener NRW: psychiatrie-erfahrene.nrw.de, Werner-Fuss-Zentrum: psychiatrie-erfahrene.de, Antipsychiatrische und betroffenenkontrollierte Informations- und Beratungsstelle: weglaufhaus.de/beratung.
To celebrate this day of joy, the Werner-Fuss-Center publicly invites everybody to a barbecue at 8 p.m. today on the kleinen Bunkerberg in the Volkspark in Friedrichshain in Berlin. Please bring something with to celebrate.
_______________
Meanwhile, the Danish version of involuntary outpatient "treatment" will make it possible to also drug up people, who are not psychotic, who do not suffer of any "symptoms", if only one or the other self-appointed "expert" at some point of time has assessed the person to be "very sick". That is, you risk to get drugged up with substances, that provenly are harmful, not only but also in a way that can make you "psychotic", when actually you are recovering or even recovered... Can it get less respectful to peoples' human rights, and more maliciously oppressive?? I don't think so.
Concerning the reaction from the only Danish user/ex-user/survivor organization, LAP - oh, sorry, wrong link, this is the right one, or is it?... - I suggest to send even more loving kindness along with its "Oh please, don't!"-press releases, as that definitely will make an impression on Danish politicians. Just as it obviously does make a huge impression on Darth Vader in "The environmentalist version of Star Wars"...
Well, although I couldn't join the Germans at their party in Berlin, you bet I celebrated. Here's to the Germans!
So, from now on, if you live in Germany and have an advance directive, any psychiatric "treatment" your advance directive lists as unwanted by you, becomes bodily assault, and any detention on a locked ward against your will becomes deprivation of liberty in the eye of the law.
But read for yourself, here's the press release:
(This press release was translated and forwarded by Rene Talbot - please snowball this message in e-mail lists and newsgroups)
Finally, coercive psychiatry can be put to a stop!
In Germany a new advance directive („PatVerfue“) makes it possible
Berlin, 18/6/2009
After years of discussion, today a new law on the legal rules for advance directives has finally been adopted by the German parliament.
The legislature has clearly and with votes from all political parties agreed to make valid the will of the patient and by doing so also the self-determination in any situation against any medical and state paternalism, regardless of the type and stage of an illness.
The time finally belongs to the past that others - doctors and judges - define what the supposedly "objective" best interests of a person are and what should be undertaken or refrained from, against his/her declared will, with regard to these supposedly "objective" best interests of a person! This will have far-reaching effects with regard to court ordered guardianship: For the first time there is the chance that guardianship may no longer be enforced against the wishes and needs of the person in question and thus guardianship now has the potential to be transformed into a service that is loyal to the person in question.
The patient‘s will is now to be regarded as being legally binding in medical decisions, as already promised in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany and for over 60 years in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Each case of "medical" treatment against the written and actual will of a "patient" thereby becomes bodily assault and incarceration in a locked ward becomes deprivation of liberty.
On this occasion we would therefore like to make known our specific form of an advance directive, the PatVerfue, with a built-in representation agreement, in which any torture-like bodily harm in the form of unwanted psychiatric treatment and any deprivation of liberty whatsoever due to a slanderous pseudo-medical psychiatric diagnosis is legally binding excluded. The associations publishing this form have joined forces to help this parliament´s promise to be accepted in the judiciary. It is this promise with which the validity of basic, civil and human rights for all, also for the psychiatrically slandered, hopefully becomes reality. By supporting and encouraging all those with a PatVerfue who would nevertheless be incarcerated and endure coercive treatment and/or are threatened with these acts, to create precedents at all judicial levels Germany, it is our aim to make the PatVerfue „watertight“ ["waterproof" I suppose is meant] in the courts. Our aim is that in the future all judges be made to adhere to this new law, to accept the patient‘s will without restrictions and to implement it with their decisions.
Our proposed form of an advance directive prohibits all psychiatric diagnoses from the outset. We do not believe in the existence of these so-called "mental illnesses", because there is no objective criteria to prove them. The PatVerfue thus ensures the self determination of the person against psychiatrists trying to deny his or her free will, by claiming that they have an illness-incurred lack of „insight or the ability to behave in the light of this insight ".
Today is for us a day of joy!
The rigid implementation of this law would mean the end of forced psychiatry in Germany.
An illogical fact remains, however, in that psychiatric diagnoses and treatment against the declared will of a person can only be staved off by a PatVerfue and - to the contrary - is not excluded at all.
Actually, each psychiatric - just as with any medical - treatment should only be made with the "informed consent" of the individual, i.e. it is explicitly a g r e e d to by the person after extensive consultation on the pros and cons thereof.
Thus, with the entry into force of the law, unfortunately a prior legally binding refusal of psychiatric coercive measures is only possible for those who already know that a PatVerfue is a loophole to prevent coercive psychiatry.
This is therefore the right occasion for a broad information campaign to make the PatVerfue public, so that increased use widens the loophole into a "door out of coercive psychiatry".
At www.PatVerfue.de information and the appropriate form is now free to download for noncommercial users.
Publisher of the PatVerfue: Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Psychiatrie-Erfahrener: die-bpe.de, Irren-Offensive: antipsychiatrie.de, Landesverband Psychiatrie-Erfahrener Berlin-Brandenburg: psychiatrie-erfahrene.de, Landesverband Psychiatrie-Erfahrener NRW: psychiatrie-erfahrene.nrw.de, Werner-Fuss-Zentrum: psychiatrie-erfahrene.de, Antipsychiatrische und betroffenenkontrollierte Informations- und Beratungsstelle: weglaufhaus.de/beratung.
To celebrate this day of joy, the Werner-Fuss-Center publicly invites everybody to a barbecue at 8 p.m. today on the kleinen Bunkerberg in the Volkspark in Friedrichshain in Berlin. Please bring something with to celebrate.
_______________
Meanwhile, the Danish version of involuntary outpatient "treatment" will make it possible to also drug up people, who are not psychotic, who do not suffer of any "symptoms", if only one or the other self-appointed "expert" at some point of time has assessed the person to be "very sick". That is, you risk to get drugged up with substances, that provenly are harmful, not only but also in a way that can make you "psychotic", when actually you are recovering or even recovered... Can it get less respectful to peoples' human rights, and more maliciously oppressive?? I don't think so.
Concerning the reaction from the only Danish user/ex-user/survivor organization, LAP - oh, sorry, wrong link, this is the right one, or is it?... - I suggest to send even more loving kindness along with its "Oh please, don't!"-press releases, as that definitely will make an impression on Danish politicians. Just as it obviously does make a huge impression on Darth Vader in "The environmentalist version of Star Wars"...
Well, although I couldn't join the Germans at their party in Berlin, you bet I celebrated. Here's to the Germans!
Thursday, 16 April 2009
A language of one's own
I came to remember an anecdote from my past today, reading a short reply to a post on a mailing list. If you're on the list, you'll maybe recognize, but it doesn't really matter where, or who, or what about exactly. What matters is that the original post had something disturbing about it, just like there always had seemed to be something disturbing about the posts by this list-member, while I couldn't quite make out, what that something was.
The reply I read today had me remember the following incident, that by no means was an isolated one, but because of one little detail maybe the most intriguing one of its kind.
I was in my early twenties, was living and studying at Munich at that time, but used to spend the holidays at my mom's. It were the summer holidays, my mom and I had went to town, shopping. A guy in his forties came walking towards us in the street, he said hello to my mom, they both stopped and started small-talking. I'd never seen that guy before, and my mom introduced me. It turned out, he was a business-aquaintance of my father's.
The guy asked, what I was doing, and my mom told him I was studying theatre theory at Munich. "That must be exciting," he said, making this little, but also very obvious turn towards me, "isn't it?" There I was, all blank in my head. As usual, my mom "saved" the situation, answered in my place, and then changed the subject. While I couldn't but notice a trace of resignation in the way, the guy turned his attention back towards my mom.
"He asked me," I said to my mom when we'd went on on our way a couple of minutes later. "Why do you always have to answer in my place, whenever someone asks me about something that concerns me?!" "Well," she said, "I don't understand why you're so upset. You obviously didn't know what to say, and we can't have people wait for you to find out, can we?"
She was right. I didn't know what the heck to say. I never knew. Because she'd never given me a chance to find out.
This is one way to make sure, your kids won't have a language of their own.
The reply I read today had me remember the following incident, that by no means was an isolated one, but because of one little detail maybe the most intriguing one of its kind.
I was in my early twenties, was living and studying at Munich at that time, but used to spend the holidays at my mom's. It were the summer holidays, my mom and I had went to town, shopping. A guy in his forties came walking towards us in the street, he said hello to my mom, they both stopped and started small-talking. I'd never seen that guy before, and my mom introduced me. It turned out, he was a business-aquaintance of my father's.
The guy asked, what I was doing, and my mom told him I was studying theatre theory at Munich. "That must be exciting," he said, making this little, but also very obvious turn towards me, "isn't it?" There I was, all blank in my head. As usual, my mom "saved" the situation, answered in my place, and then changed the subject. While I couldn't but notice a trace of resignation in the way, the guy turned his attention back towards my mom.
"He asked me," I said to my mom when we'd went on on our way a couple of minutes later. "Why do you always have to answer in my place, whenever someone asks me about something that concerns me?!" "Well," she said, "I don't understand why you're so upset. You obviously didn't know what to say, and we can't have people wait for you to find out, can we?"
She was right. I didn't know what the heck to say. I never knew. Because she'd never given me a chance to find out.
This is one way to make sure, your kids won't have a language of their own.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Reply from Kevin Siers
Thanks everyone for your comments on my previous post. In the meantime, I got a reply from Kevin Siers, where he writes, that his intention was not to scapegoat people in emotional distress, and that he didn't design the cartoon "with a professional's understanding of what mental illness is."
Well, that's the big problem here. That there a) is no true understanding of what "mental illness" is, and that b) the only "understanding" that the cartoon reflects, is the misunderstanding, promoted by the mh system, and distributed by the mainstream media - the Charlotte Observer, for instance. The problem is, that, while everybody is busy scapegoating the "mentally ill", they too are kept from becoming aware of the real terror: the terror of our society itself.
So, what we've got here, is Joe Public's ignorance and the consequential prejudice - that inevitably scapegoats, intended or not. How did Albert Camus put it: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." Ignorance, unawareness, unconsciousness... What we've got here, is an excellent example of the evil our unconscious society continuously does, in the name of good.
Now, Kevin Siers also writes, that our letters to him "continue to be food for thought." I certainly do hope so! It truly is time, both for him and society in general, to wake up and face its own violence. Otherwise, we will never be able to prevent the terror from happening, no matter how restrictive gun laws.
Well, that's the big problem here. That there a) is no true understanding of what "mental illness" is, and that b) the only "understanding" that the cartoon reflects, is the misunderstanding, promoted by the mh system, and distributed by the mainstream media - the Charlotte Observer, for instance. The problem is, that, while everybody is busy scapegoating the "mentally ill", they too are kept from becoming aware of the real terror: the terror of our society itself.
So, what we've got here, is Joe Public's ignorance and the consequential prejudice - that inevitably scapegoats, intended or not. How did Albert Camus put it: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." Ignorance, unawareness, unconsciousness... What we've got here, is an excellent example of the evil our unconscious society continuously does, in the name of good.
Now, Kevin Siers also writes, that our letters to him "continue to be food for thought." I certainly do hope so! It truly is time, both for him and society in general, to wake up and face its own violence. Otherwise, we will never be able to prevent the terror from happening, no matter how restrictive gun laws.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Don't
Three video clips about the real violence - and some thoughts about delusions.
Something I notice, again and again, is that more often than not it is people, who've experienced the violence close up themselves, who've experienced it in a very concentrated form, who achieve an awareness and an understanding of it, like Derrick Jensen or R.D. Laing for instance have achieved it.
It really seems, that one has to get to a point where it becomes unbearable, before one has the courage to let go of all the delusions and to face reality. And the more I think abut it, the more it seems to me, that working in the mh system actually is the ultimate protection against having to face reality and having to let go of the delusions. Unconsciously as close to enlightenment as one possibly can get without actually achieving it. And at the same time, consciously, light years away from it. The ultimate insanity: normality.
Something I notice, again and again, is that more often than not it is people, who've experienced the violence close up themselves, who've experienced it in a very concentrated form, who achieve an awareness and an understanding of it, like Derrick Jensen or R.D. Laing for instance have achieved it.
It really seems, that one has to get to a point where it becomes unbearable, before one has the courage to let go of all the delusions and to face reality. And the more I think abut it, the more it seems to me, that working in the mh system actually is the ultimate protection against having to face reality and having to let go of the delusions. Unconsciously as close to enlightenment as one possibly can get without actually achieving it. And at the same time, consciously, light years away from it. The ultimate insanity: normality.
Saturday, 28 March 2009
"Look, even the mentally ill themselves do believe in it!"
This is something, I think I'll never quite get:
Once more, I got into a, luckily very short, but nevertheless, discussion with a person, who identifies as, well, yeah, a consumer, suffering from "manic depression", and, of course, the pills were no less than godsend.
The discussion: Danish psychiatry has made a film, Åbenhed gør stærk - om skizofreni i familien (Strength through openness - about schizophrenia in the family) technically, formally, obviously very much like Daniel Mackler's Take These Broken Wings - cross cutting between sequences of interviews with respectively two young people, Helle and Emil, labelled with "schizophrenia", their relatives, some friends, and, of course, professionals, especially one consultant psychiatrist from the OPUS-project. In regard to the "message" on the other hand, the Danish film, not surprisingly, tells the opposite of what Daniel Mackler's film tells. "Schizophrenia" is a chronic biological brain disease, due to defective genes, that cause abnormalities in brain structure, and the best treatment option is lifelong medication with "antipsychotics".
And the family? Well, it's important to assure the relatives, that it is not their fault. It's all just defective genes. But, of course, it is also very important to involve the relatives, and psycho-educate them - about biological brain diseases, what else?! - so that they can support "treatment" compliance. And when all this is in place, voilà, what a success story! Never mind, that one of the two young people in the film is in need of assisted housing, as she can't take care of herself due to the drugs' side effects. And never mind, that both face a future on disability, and dependent on the system for the rest of their, approximately 25 years shorter than average, life.
Now, during the past couple of weeks I've noticed numerous hits on my Danish blog, search terms "film about schizophrenia", and since I imagine, that it is the above described botched job people are looking for, and not necessarily Daniel Mackler's or Leo Regan's film, I combed the net for reviews, and wrote my own "not-quite-a-review", always just looking to meet the public's needs and desires... Not-quite-a-review, because I haven't seen the film myself, and I don't intend to, since I won't pay as much as one cent for crap like that. I actually won't give as much as one cent for whatever it might be that supports biopsychiatry. Not if I can help it.
And, yeah, right, I do a hatchet job on the film, slamming its message totally as being oppressive, discriminating, and disempowering, calling the "expert's factual information" for a bunch of lies with no scientific evidence to support it, and the filmmakers for fraudulent when they choose to interview a couple of colonized consumers and their just as colonized relatives, only and solely to, as I see it, give the impression that psychiatry's hopeless message is the one and only truth: "Look, even the mentally ill themselves do believe in it!"
The thing is, that even though the film tries to make the viewer believe, that Helle's and Emil's words are their very own words, they are not. They are the system's words. - Actually, this borders to abuse of these two young people. Colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates the original. In order to exploit. Psychiatric colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates its victims' thoughts, emotions and language in order to exploit its victims' capability to talk, making them repeat its own ideology like a parrot. That. is. abuse.
Well, the pain in the neck I am, I let both the filmmakers, the "expert", and the three people, whose hurrays I've based my own review on, know about it. One of them reacts, so far. The "manic depressive" consumer, I mentioned above. She doesn't react commenting on my blog, but by e-mail. Somewhat resentful at the fact, that not all people agree with her on psychiatry and its pills being a godsend, and that some people dare to question that having insight and being "treatment" compliant would be the road to recovery, as she wants to have it in her review of the film.
Now I wonder: what's in for someone like her, that she defends an industry, that ruins people's lives in droves, just to make a profit? I mean, she doesn't make a profit by doing so, as far as I can see. Apart from the purely idealistic profit of a false ego-identification, that is: "I'm manic depressive! I suffer from a real disease!" Does that rotten ego-identification really mean so much more than the lives of millions of people?? I just can't but keep on wondering...
Once more, I got into a, luckily very short, but nevertheless, discussion with a person, who identifies as, well, yeah, a consumer, suffering from "manic depression", and, of course, the pills were no less than godsend.
The discussion: Danish psychiatry has made a film, Åbenhed gør stærk - om skizofreni i familien (Strength through openness - about schizophrenia in the family) technically, formally, obviously very much like Daniel Mackler's Take These Broken Wings - cross cutting between sequences of interviews with respectively two young people, Helle and Emil, labelled with "schizophrenia", their relatives, some friends, and, of course, professionals, especially one consultant psychiatrist from the OPUS-project. In regard to the "message" on the other hand, the Danish film, not surprisingly, tells the opposite of what Daniel Mackler's film tells. "Schizophrenia" is a chronic biological brain disease, due to defective genes, that cause abnormalities in brain structure, and the best treatment option is lifelong medication with "antipsychotics".
And the family? Well, it's important to assure the relatives, that it is not their fault. It's all just defective genes. But, of course, it is also very important to involve the relatives, and psycho-educate them - about biological brain diseases, what else?! - so that they can support "treatment" compliance. And when all this is in place, voilà, what a success story! Never mind, that one of the two young people in the film is in need of assisted housing, as she can't take care of herself due to the drugs' side effects. And never mind, that both face a future on disability, and dependent on the system for the rest of their, approximately 25 years shorter than average, life.
Now, during the past couple of weeks I've noticed numerous hits on my Danish blog, search terms "film about schizophrenia", and since I imagine, that it is the above described botched job people are looking for, and not necessarily Daniel Mackler's or Leo Regan's film, I combed the net for reviews, and wrote my own "not-quite-a-review", always just looking to meet the public's needs and desires... Not-quite-a-review, because I haven't seen the film myself, and I don't intend to, since I won't pay as much as one cent for crap like that. I actually won't give as much as one cent for whatever it might be that supports biopsychiatry. Not if I can help it.
And, yeah, right, I do a hatchet job on the film, slamming its message totally as being oppressive, discriminating, and disempowering, calling the "expert's factual information" for a bunch of lies with no scientific evidence to support it, and the filmmakers for fraudulent when they choose to interview a couple of colonized consumers and their just as colonized relatives, only and solely to, as I see it, give the impression that psychiatry's hopeless message is the one and only truth: "Look, even the mentally ill themselves do believe in it!"
The thing is, that even though the film tries to make the viewer believe, that Helle's and Emil's words are their very own words, they are not. They are the system's words. - Actually, this borders to abuse of these two young people. Colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates the original. In order to exploit. Psychiatric colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates its victims' thoughts, emotions and language in order to exploit its victims' capability to talk, making them repeat its own ideology like a parrot. That. is. abuse.
Well, the pain in the neck I am, I let both the filmmakers, the "expert", and the three people, whose hurrays I've based my own review on, know about it. One of them reacts, so far. The "manic depressive" consumer, I mentioned above. She doesn't react commenting on my blog, but by e-mail. Somewhat resentful at the fact, that not all people agree with her on psychiatry and its pills being a godsend, and that some people dare to question that having insight and being "treatment" compliant would be the road to recovery, as she wants to have it in her review of the film.
Now I wonder: what's in for someone like her, that she defends an industry, that ruins people's lives in droves, just to make a profit? I mean, she doesn't make a profit by doing so, as far as I can see. Apart from the purely idealistic profit of a false ego-identification, that is: "I'm manic depressive! I suffer from a real disease!" Does that rotten ego-identification really mean so much more than the lives of millions of people?? I just can't but keep on wondering...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
