What about psychiatry?

[Pirate Utopian]

I've seen some things on this Communist website a while back who critised psychiatry.
Now I never really cared much for psychiatry and the like, so I never really got to seeing why somebody would oppose psychiatry or even care about it.

1. Does anyone here oppose psychiatry?
2. If so/not why?
3. Would you consider psychiatry indivualistic?

Discuss.

[Whitten]

I dont oppose it but its not an op[tion I would consider for myself.

[which doctor]

I certainly think there's a lot wrong with the field today, but I still encourage psychiatry and am considering a career in academic medicine for myself. I disagree with all the labeling, personality disorders, overmedication, etc.

[whoknows]

There is a lot of endogentic depression in my family. And as I have always been an outsider, the only persons who seem to want to hang with have been (I just can spell sorry) sc-it-zo-phrenics. even to the point of loving a couple so I like psychiatry. It should be free on demand as should abortion. That would really cut down on the numbers of persons becoming drugies because they are self-medicating themselfs with C-I drugs.
The problem with the profession seems to be that it is looked down on in medical schools, and the best students don't think of it as 'real' medicine. Therefore you get a few really really good and deticated MDs (and you have to be an MD to do this) and then a whole lot of second raters. And just how are you going to know which is which when you need one?

[Vargha Poralli]

Well I have made a thread about it some time ago (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60566&st=0) and it has an intresting discussion about Marxism and Psychoanalysis.


2. If so/not why?


Exactly not my opinion but from a comrade in that thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60566&view=findpost&p=1292236653)


Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:45 pm
Hello Com. G. Ram,
I will have to look for the materials on marxism and psychology, especially from an anti-psychiatry perspective because much of the theory that has been written on it has been written from a "post-structuralist" marxist theoretical perspective. I mean the main theorist that I appreciate is Felix Guattari. His work is very difficult to understand but is available in India. In particular I would suggest that you read the two volumes that he wrote with Gilles Deleuze entitled, "Capitalism and Schizophrenia"

The difference between psychoanalysis and psychology has to do with scientific questions of presuppositions, examination and methodology. The psychoanalytic approach is largely predicated on a constructivist arguement that situated neurosis and psychosis are caused due to conflicts within the psyche at different stages of mental and physical development. Thus, through a series of different methodologies the psychoanalyst attempts to help the analysand reconcile these mental conflicts. Psychology however, argues that the disorder is caused due to chemical and synaptic imbalances in the brain, thus requiring medication.

It has been argued by many that although the methodologies and conclusions that are drawn from these fields is different, that the pathological model employed by both school is deeply flawed due to epistemological mis-assumptions and are both oppressive systems. In recent years there has been a plethora of historical information and gathered that actually demonstrates the means by which psycho- sciences have been used to oppress and suppress largely the working class, the dispossessed, peoples with different sexualities, racialized and gendered people, and often people on the left like communists.

The point made here is under capitalist control psychiatry can be abused. So caution is needed in approaching it and there should be no hesitation to oppose it when it is abused.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It's fine in principle, but is obviously vulnerable to problems. I mean, you're really playing with people's minds, you need to be totally sure of yourself.

Anyone see the scientologists "Exhibition"? It was called Psychiatry: An Industry Of Death.

They really, really hate psychiatrists for some reason. Even blame the holocaust and concentration camps on them.

-Alex

[redcannon]

i support psychiatrists. obviously, it has its problems, but what is so bad about helping people with harsh mental conditions?

[Yazman]

i support psychiatrists. obviously, it has its problems, but what is so bad about helping people with harsh mental conditions?

They don't help them, they label them with a "sickness" and then put them onto medication.

Most psychological problems are psychological problems (there are exceptions like schizophrenia however).

[RevMARKSman]

They don't help them, they label them with a "sickness" and then put them onto medication.

Most psychological problems are psychological problems (there are exceptions like schizophrenia however).



Yeah, and medication never works, and since OCD people say their OCD "protects" them from "germs," they shouldn't be put onto medication even though they have ridiculous and unfounded fears.


...So much for materialism.

Psychological disorders ARE psychological, and the "psyche" is the brain, which is a physical, material entity. Medication alters the levels of certain hormones and chemicals in the brain, causing different emotions. For example Zoloft prevents seratonin from being destroyed, treating chronic depression.
"Personality disorders" however are defined idealistically, so if people are a bit strange (maybe avoidant/loners) they automatically are labelled "avoidant personality disorder" when they're not believing anything ridiculous, they just don't really like being around people.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:42 am


The point made here is under capitalist control psychiatry can be abused. So caution is needed in approaching it and there should be no hesitation to oppose it when it is abused.
ANY TECHNOLOGY CAN BE PUT TO HARMFULL USE BY ANY SYSTEM.

[whoknows]

lot of fools on this page

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Psychiatry is about as helpful as the bible.

[LSD]

1. Does anyone here oppose psychiatry?

Probably.

There's a certain tendency among neophite lefitst towards a sort of juvenile nihilism in which any "smashing" is ipso facto nescessarily revolutioanry.

And on a board that represents as diverse a spectrum as this one -- and that scews to such a young demographic -- that particular tendency cannot help but to be represented.

The rational answer, however, is no. No reasonably progressive can "oppose" psychiatry in and of itself. He might have complaints with how the psychiatric fields is presently constituted or managed.

But to challenge the nescessite for mental health treatment is pure misanthropy of the most infantile variety.


They don't help them, they label them with a "sickness" and then put them onto medication.

That's what dermatologists do too, but I don't see anyone complaining about it.

Again, I think this speaks to a latent idealism present in any discussion of the brain or the "mind". Our mind is so essential to our identity that we are instinctively retiscent to accept the material reality that, for all its wonder and subjective supremecy, at our core we are nothing more than electrical signals passing from neuron to neuron.

And sometimes those signals can screw up.

And as someone who's taken a fair share of medications, both legal and otherwise, I can tell you that those medications can have an enormous bearing on how one percieves the world.

Not always, of course, but often.

And why wouldn't they? After all, the notion that the brain cannot malfunction and/or that such malfunctions cannot be localized is an entirely absurd notion. It's deeply counter-materialist to assert that all behaviours and thoughts are nescessarily "choices" as it assumes that human consciesness has some sort of metaphysical "uniqueness" to it.

Well, it doesn't. Our "minds" are nothing more than electrical signals in our brains. Sometimes they fisfire, sometimes they are cross-wired. Now, we are nowhere near having a solid enough understanding to tackle these problems directly, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Psychiatry isn't perfect by a longshot, but for the moment, it's easily the best we've got.


Most psychological problems are psychological problems (there are exceptions like schizophrenia however).

Again, I think that it's artificial to say that biological and psychological are seperate issues. Our brains are phsysical organs. So regardless of where depression or anxiety comes from it has a biological manifestation.

Are SSRIs or tricyclics the best way to adjust that biology? Maybe not, but they're the best we've got now. And while some studies do show that they are marginally effective, others show that at least in select groups, they are reasonably functional.

As I see it, the only "problem" with psychopharmaceuticals is that the expense is crippling. That's not a problem with psychiatry, however, it's a problem with capitalism.

If Paxil or Zoloft or Prozac doesn't work for you, don't take it. But in a money-less society, there would be no harm in trying it out.

There is also some rather convincing evidence that a good deal of orthomolecular treatments are far more effective than standard psychopharmaceuticals or even "talk therapy". But because there's no money to be made, no one's really interested in investigating.

Again, it's a problem of capitalism, not the "evils" of psychiatry.


Psychiatry is about as helpful as the bible.

Except, unlike "evil spirits" or the "will of God", the blanket term "mental illness" does not propose a cause.

It's merely a recognition that something is wrong. An assesment which, incidently, most people suffering from mental illness would agree with.

This idea that most mentally ill people don't know that their ill is a complete myth. Almost every single entry in the DSM lists "causing distress" as one the required elements.

If somone spends all their time in bed and never sees anyone and is happy about it, that's no one's business but their own. But if they're miserable and are in such constant mental anguish that the only escape they can think of suicide, that's when psychiatry can help.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Umm, i think most people are actually mentally ill, its nothing thats rare at all. Considering how medication is given out for almost everything.

Why though, do you suppose it is most prevalent in the wealthiest members of the wealthiest nation on earth?

The majority of the nations, and the majority of the people in those nations actually have REAL shit to deal with.

Suggesting that "oh poor rich American, you cant sleep at night? its because your ill!! you are depressed?? its because your ill!! lets just give you medication, surely that wil fix it all up"

I say no! That's simply petty bourgeois idealism, that they are "ill" independent of their surroundings and so therefore this can be medicated.

Psychiatry is petty bourgeois mysticism, medication is the application of science towards fixing something that's wrong with a person. Mood altering drugs and stuff might work that's fine, but it still petty bourgeois because its a profession that focuses on the individual.



Except, unlike "evil spirits" or the "will of God", the blanket term "mental illness" does not propose a cause.

It's merely a recognition that something is wrong. An assesment which, incidently, most people suffering from mental illness would agree with.

This idea that most mentally ill people don't know that their ill is a complete myth. Almost every single entry in the DSM lists "causing distress" as one the required elements.

If somone spends all their time in bed and never sees anyone and is happy about it, that's no one's business but their own. But if they're miserable and are in such constant mental anguish that the only escape they can think of suicide, that's when psychiatry can help.


You have just substituted your psychiatrist, with a degree for your rabbi or priest with an ordainment.

Its the same thing, psychiatry and religion both give answers for individual suffering to a heartless world.

Nothing can really change from it. We should reject it like we reject theism.

[LSD]

Umm, i think most people are actually mentally ill, its nothing thats rare at all.

Actually that's definitionaly false. Psychopathology is typically defined by its aberration from the norm, therefore it is impossible for "most people" to be clinically mentally ill.


Why though, do you suppose it is most prevalent in the wealthiest members of the wealthiest nation on earth?

For the same reasons that cancer is; you have to be reasonably affluent to get diagnosed.

Someone who can't even afford to eat sure as hell can't afford a psychiatric diagnosis and so while I have no doubt that there are millions of people suffering from all manner of mental illness all over the "south", most of them will never know it.

It's not unlike how rape rates ballooned following the women's liberation movement. It wasn't that women were getting raped more, it was that for the first time they were reporting it.

That's the thing about statistics, you have to understand that they collected and compiled by people with imperfect knowledge. Recognizing the context is essential to intepreteting the implication.


medication is the application of science towards fixing something that's wrong with a person. Mood altering drugs and stuff might work that's fine, but it still petty bourgeois because its a profession that focuses on the individual.


And your alternative is what? Medicine that focuses on the ..."group"? :blink:

Medicine is individualistic because people are individuals with individual medical problems and individual treatment options. That's not ideology, it's material reality.

And you really don't see the conflict between saying on the one hand that "drugs and stuff might work" and still opposing their use?

Is your political purity really so important to you that you'd prefer people suffer than endure the taint of endorsing a "petty bourgeois ... profession"? Well, how is that any different from Christain conservatives opposing stem cell research because it offends their petty sectarian convictions?

I don't know what you mean by "petty bourgeois" in this context -- the way that phrase gets thrown around on this board, it's almost lost all meaning, but whatever your opinions of psychatric practitioners, the nescessite for the field cannot be denied.

Again, you can criticize its manifestation under capitalism, much as we might criticize the way that other essential services are run; but to equate that manifesation with the thing itself is to fall into the fatalistic trap of nihilism.

We can't transcend capitalism by deconstructing civilization.


Its the same thing, psychiatry and religion both give answers for individual suffering to a heartless world.

Nothing can really change from it. We should reject it like we reject theism.

See, this is the kind of juvenile nihilism I'm talking about.

What you're missing here is the reason that we reject theism, and it isn't because it's "individualistic" or "petty-bourgeois", but because it's wrong.

If there really were a "God" and, say, the Christian Bible really did offer "salvation", then the rational course would be to abide by the precepts of biblical Christianity. Since such is not the case -- and for reasons of internal logical consistance could not be the case -- Christianity (and other varients of theism) are an irrational choice.

You see it's the "false" part of "false hope" that we object to, not the "hope" part.

Psychiatry, for its part, does have a record of reasonable success. Again, it isn't anywhere near perfect, but then neither is anyother aspect of modern medicine.

Still, I don't see you rejecting oncology as "bourgeois" or "individualistic", even though at an existential level, a cancer surgeon does the exact same thing as a psychiatrist: try and treat an illness.

The fact that mental illness occurs in the brain whereas cancer generally occurs somwhere else is irrelevent. The brain is no less organic and no less prone to malfunction than any other part of our bodies.

What's really "mysticism" here is to believe that our minds are somehow "imune" from the effects of the real world.

[RevMARKSman]

HEY, I'M ONE OF THOSE 'ODC PEOPLE'

So am I, no need to get your knickers in a twist.


You have just substituted your psychiatrist, with a degree for your rabbi or priest with an ordainment.

Its the same thing, psychiatry and religion both give answers for individual suffering to a heartless world.

Nothing can really change from it. We should reject it like we reject theism.


So what, you'd prefer we say to people, "The only way you can get over your anxiety disorder/depression/OCD/schizophrenia/paranoia is through the revolutionary destruction of capitalism"??

LSD: I love you.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What idealistic is to believe that our minds are somehow "imune" from the effects of the real world.

No, my alternative is socialism (or anarchism or communism)

Everyone is capitalist society is permeated with the ideas and ideals of the bourgeoisie.

Psychiatry is a idealist response where only a material action is the solution.

Its simply the wrong tactic ( :lol: ) to fight the effects of capitalist society with "theory" that comes from the petty bourgeoisie.



And your alternative is what? Medicine that focuses on the ..."group"? blink.gif

Medicine is individualistic because people are individuals with individual medical problems and individual treatment options. That's not ideology, it's material reality.

We are not talking about individual illness. We are discussing widespread illness, inflicted on us as part of the capitalist class ideology.




I don't know what you mean by "petty bourgeois" in this context -- the way that phrase gets thrown around on this board, it's almost lost all meaning, but whatever your opinions of psychatric practitioners, the nescessite for the field cannot be denied.

I am saying that psychiatrists offer a solution to problems people face.

Those problems are caused by the system the people live under.

the "cure" is medication of the individual. Its looking at society as isolated people suffering from mental illness.

That is why it is petty bourgeois, because it follows the ideology of individualism, of individual problems and individual causes and solutions.

When in reality they are class problems and class solutions.



What you're missing here is the reason that we reject theism, and it isn't because it's "individualistic" or "petty-bourgeois", but because it's wrong.

where is the proof that psychiatry or psychology is right?

I hope you understood me, im not proficient in this subject and working from limited reading. ;)

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:56 pm


What idealistic is to believe that our minds are somehow "imune" from the effects of the real world.

No, my alternative is socialism (or anarchism or communism)

Everyone is capitalist society is permeated with the ideas and ideals of the bourgeoisie.

Psychiatry is a idealist response where only a material action is the solution.

Its simply the wrong tactic ( :lol: ) to fight the effects of capitalist society with "theory" that comes from the petty bourgeoisie.



And your alternative is what? Medicine that focuses on the ..."group"? blink.gif

Medicine is individualistic because people are individuals with individual medical problems and individual treatment options. That's not ideology, it's material reality.

We are not talking about individual illness. We are discussing widespread illness, inflicted on us as part of the capitalist class ideology.




I don't know what you mean by "petty bourgeois" in this context -- the way that phrase gets thrown around on this board, it's almost lost all meaning, but whatever your opinions of psychatric practitioners, the nescessite for the field cannot be denied.

I am saying that psychiatrists offer a solution to problems people face.

Those problems are caused by the system the people live under.

the "cure" is medication of the individual. Its looking at society as isolated people suffering from mental illness.

That is why it is petty bourgeois, because it follows the ideology of individualism, of individual problems and individual causes and solutions.

When in reality they are class problems and class solutions.



What you're missing here is the reason that we reject theism, and it isn't because it's "individualistic" or "petty-bourgeois", but because it's wrong.

where is the proof that psychiatry or psychology is right?

I hope you understood me, im not proficient in this subject and working from limited reading. ;)

Psychiatry is a idealist response where only a material action is the solution.

Psychiatry IS a material action. Altering brain chemicals is a material action.



Its simply the wrong tactic ( :lol: ) to fight the effects of capitalist society with "theory" that comes from the petty bourgeoisie.

What the fuck.

1. Mental illnesses are caused by capitalist society? Ahem. Google "list of famous mentally ill people" or something.
2. Psychiatry is not only a theory, medication is material.


We are not talking about individual illness. We are discussing widespread illness, inflicted on us as part of the capitalist class ideology.

Widespread illnesses like...the common cold? Sorry, we don't suggest treating the common cold with psychiatric drugs.

And what the FLYING FUCK are you saying about the "capitalist ideology"? Illnesses are not caused by ideologies.


Those problems are caused by the system the people live under.

Sorry, that's incorrect. But you do get this lovely watch and a
year's supply of Turtle wax andTHE CAUSE IS IMBALANCED BRAIN CHEMICALS, DUMBASS.


That is why it is petty bourgeois, because it follows the ideology of individualism, of individual problems and individual causes and solutions.

So individuals don't exist? You follow the Jungian superstition of a "collective unconscious" that gives us mental illnesses transmitted through...ideology?

:lol:


When in reality they are class problems and class solutions.

Uh-huh. I had to take Prozac because I thought I'd get sick all the time, and that had a hell of a lot to do with my relationship to the means of production. :lol:



where is the proof that psychiatry or psychology is right?

Proof it's correct?

It works.

Duh.

I hope you understood me, im not proficient in this subject and working from limited reading. ;)

If you were proficient, I would have been shocked and disappointed.

[Raúl Duke]

What's "orthomolecular treatments"?


because it follows the ideology of individualism, of individual problems and individual causes and solutions.

What about Social Psychology?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

RevMARKSman


Psychiatry IS a material action. Altering brain chemicals is a material action.

Uh, no psychiatry is an alleged medical science which studies the mind and mental illness.

What fixes the people are medicines. Its the medicine that works, not the actual psychiatry.



1. Mental illnesses are caused by capitalist society? Ahem. Google "list of famous mentally ill people" or something.
2. Psychiatry is not only a theory, medication is material.

I am not saying its is exclusive to capitalist society, its probably truer to say class society causes lots of the things that psychiatry (absent of actual evidence) says are illnesses.




And what the FLYING FUCK are you saying about the "capitalist ideology"? Illnesses are not caused by ideologies.

Well, the explanations for the illnesses are governed by the ruling ideology of society, Freud for example, believed mental illnesses were symptoms of repressed sexual tensions. Now, he thought that he was a materialist, i dont agree, but fine. What is striking though is his explanation is a individual explanation. Hence petty bourgeois.

And, mental health is clearly going to be better under conditions where you are not taught to obey or coerced to obey a class ideology.

Capitalist Ideology says "its all on your back buddy, if you fail its your fault because the world is your oyster".

We know that ideology is a lie, but we suffer from the effects of it.

If people don't live under an ideology of a different class, then they will likely suffer much less in the way of mental illness.

This is all part of the base and superstructure of Marxism.



Sorry, that's incorrect. But you do get this lovely watch and a
year's supply of Turtle wax andTHE CAUSE IS IMBALANCED BRAIN CHEMICALS, DUMBASS.

i do know this. Like a panic attack is caused by a sudden rush of adrenaline.Doesnt explain why the rush of adrenaline happens though.

you might want to read about criticisms of psychiatry and Marxist explanations rather than relying on what your psychiatrist told you.




Uh-huh. I had to take Prozac because I thought I'd get sick all the time, and that had a hell of a lot to do with my relationship to the means of production. laugh.gif

great, do you even have a relationship to the means of production?

I do, and it makes me miserable, or wait...do i have pent up sexual tension towards my mother??? hmm what could be the cause of my depression?????????? HMMMMM??? I WONDER??????





If you were proficient, I would have been shocked and disappointed.

you are mean and overly hostile.

[RevMARKSman]

Uh, no psychiatry is an alleged medical science which studies the mind and mental illness.

What fixes the people are medicines. Its the medicine that works, not the actual psychiatry.

Psychiatry enables people to find which medicine works by diagnosing a specific problem.


What is striking though is his explanation is a individual explanation. Hence petty bourgeois.

So what's your "theory"? Half the working class will get anxiety disorders because of capitalism? See, if it were a class thing, the majority of people would have a specific mental disorder (i.e. depression or anxiety) but it really isn't a whole lot. Being transgender is not a "class thing." Being naturally immune to certain diseases is not a "class thing." Having a mental disorder is not a "class thing."


And, mental health is clearly going to be better under conditions where you are not taught to obey or coerced to obey a class ideology.


There may not be as many fascist mentalities, or as many "personality disorders," but there will be just about as many schizophrenics, obsessive-compulsives, and people with clinical depression without capitalism.



i do know this. Like a panic attack is caused by a sudden rush of adrenaline.Doesnt explain why the rush of adrenaline happens though.

Doesn't explain why the big bang happened, either. Your brain made a mistake (maybe a few of the neurons that regulate adrenaline aren't working) and now you are stuck in a panic attack. End of story. It's not all a conspiracy by the bourgeoisie to make those neurons misfire.


you might want to read about criticisms of psychiatry and Marxist explanations rather than relying on what your psychiatrist told you.

I have read them. In fact my psychiatrist didn't tell me any of this. It's basic neurology. The brain is a material entity. The brain makes "mistakes" (look at multiple sclerosis. Is that caused by class society?).


great, do you even have a relationship to the means of production?


No. That's the point. It has nothing to do with my relationship to the means of production, or the "influence of capitalist ideology injected by the petty-bourgeoisie," or whatever other bullshit you can come up with. It's me, not my class, getting obsessive-compulsive disorder. There was a fuckup somewhere in my brain, not a premeditated plan to make everyone depressed or something.


I do, and it makes me miserable

Great, but you're not suicidal and you do realize that living is the only way that you could be something other than miserable.


hmm what could be the cause of my depression?????????? HMMMMM??? I WONDER??????

It's not clinical depression, ****casket. You go to a doctor and say, "I hate my job 'cause I'm not getting paid the full value of my labor and I feel miserable, and I feel like making a communist society where I'll never have to hate my work again, and I am not distressed that I'm miserable and I don't want to simply stop being miserable, I want to change the circumstances that made me miserable," they're not going to refer you to a psychiatrist.


you are mean and overly hostile.

Oh noes.

[whoknows]

[QUOTE=bloody_capitalist_sham,May 16, 2007 07:15 pm] Why though, do you suppose it is most prevalent in the wealthiest members of the wealthiest nation on earth?

The majority of the nations, and the majority of the people in those nations actually have REAL shit to deal with.

Suggesting that "oh poor rich American, you cant sleep at night? its because your ill!! you are depressed?? its because your ill!! lets just give you medication, surely that wil fix it all up"

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Whoknows what the fuck you're talking about. :lol:

Maybe you should seek out a psychiatrist and discuss your repressed sexual tension towards your mother?


PS. I dont think you understood what i was saying. I'm totally for full and free health services. I support actual medicine, which you know, is supported by evidence and doesnt make shit up about your childhood.

I oppose psychiatry because there is not evidence, all their is evidence of is if you pump mood altering drugs into someone, oh my golly, their moods changes. Now thats proof!!! :lol:

[RevMARKSman]

is supported by evidence and doesnt make shit up about your childhood.

Psychiatry isn't Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud was a superstitious bastard. Stop making strawmen.

[whoknows]

I'm trying to awaken you with the reality.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I'm trying to awaken you with the reality. The guy in England who seems to be unaware that their is poverity and exploitantion in the USA needs to come over here and see what it is like.

I am well aware that there is poverty and exploitation in the USA and i want it to end.

The psychiatrists are not in poverty, they are not exploited.

They are totally middle class, and have taken an idealist ideology, with no real evidence into the world of medicine.

As an ideology and a profession, because psychiatry is an ideology, it has been unable to clearly resolve what disorders are to do with physical conditions, like hormonal imbalance, drug abuse and brain tumours, and other disorders brought on by social relations.


So, when they discuss "mental illness" in terms of disorders brought on by social relations, they are not discussing a mental illness, but a "normal" product of those social relations.

Therefore, the term "mental illness" is actually and essentially meaningless.



returning to the perpose of this discussion is the validity of mental health services and once again I'm using personal testimony to give a reality check to ideolgy. So far my reality seems to be geting the same treatment from ideology that Rachel Corrie got from the bulldozer, and I, suppect for the same reason. I don't really see any respect for the menalty ill from some the corespondance on this thread.


Look, just because its part of the ruling ideology that loads of people have "mental illness" (20-30% of people) it doesn't mean that what they have is actually an illness.

I agree ideology must reflect reality, but in this case reality isn't what the "doctor" said. Just like when a priest says you are a "sinner" it doesn't make you a "sinner", you are simply acting in response to your social relations.

PS. no one has unconditional respect for people who are mentally ill. It depends who they are and what "illness" they have.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:47 am
Maybe you should seek out a psychiatrist and discuss your repressed sexual tension towards your mother?


I support actual medicine, which you know, is supported by evidence and doesnt make shit up about your childhood.


You just really are a Freudian aren't you, Bloody Capitist?
At least you only called me a mother fucker, and didn't go so far as to call me a boureoisie.


There has never been a childhood that didn't envolve genetics. And most mental illness is genetic in sorce. And that is actual medicine and actually science.

I'll love to see you voluneer on a psych unit.

and what is this bull shit about 'no one has unconditional respect for the mentaly ill, it depend on what kind of illness they have. Do you believe that about cancer too. "Oh, I respect people with lung cancer but those people with liver cancer-who could respect them?" is that what you're saying it sounds like it.

[LSD]

Psychiatry is a idealist response where only a material action is the solution.

No, actually it's a material response to a material problem.

The idealist response would be to ignore the reality of mental illness and pretend that the whole thing can be magically cured by the silver bullet of "revolution".

Ending capitalism will solve a lot of problems, but it will not solve them all. It certainly won't solve the medical ones.


We are not talking about individual illness. We are discussing widespread illness

Those two are not mutually exclusive. Diseases, mental and otherwise can be both widespread and still manfest differently in different individuals.

Again, medicine cannot function if it ignores the plain reality that human beings are individuals and have individual bodies.

Which is why, I suspect, you are not suggesting that we decry oncology or dermatology as "petty bourgeois" despite the fact that, again, they are functionally no different from psychiatry.

I don't know whether capitalist life plays a part in the development of mental illness, it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that it plays a role, but I don't have enough information on the subject to say for sure.

But either way, it has no bearing on the question of treatment options.

Your approach is akin to saying that because poor environmental standards are responsible for the increase in asthma rates -- and they probably are -- we should oppose broncology!

Yes, we need to smash capitalism and yes, medicine, psychiatric or otherwise, will not help in that effort ...but then it's not meant to.

All that medicine is supposed to do is treat illness, illness of the lungs, ilness of the skin, illness of the bones, and illness of the mind.

I get that it's tempting to sieze upon this issue as another leverage point against capitalism, but it's incredibly dangerous to pervert science to ideology, even with the best of intentions.

Politics simply have no place in health care.


I am saying that psychiatrists offer a solution to problems people face.

Those problems are caused by the system the people live under.

And that's where you're wrong. You're assuming that mental illness is nothing more than a response to industrial capitalist alienation; if that were true, then so would your solution.

But the fact that mental illness predates capitalism, and industrialization, by millenia proves that that is not the case.

Indeed, even intuitively the suggestion that things like schizophrenia or paranoia are a "class problem" deosn't make much sense.

The treatment of mental illness is undoubtably a class issue, as is all access to services in capitalism, essential and otherwise. But people don't "hear voices" because of the "alienation of capitalism", they do so because there's something wrong with their brains.

Now, at present, we are not fully able to say just what it is that's wrong or how to go about curing it ...but we're getting better. And given a little more time, I have no doubt that we'll get there.

That can only happen, however, if we're honest about the reality of the situation and don't fall prey to tempting postmodern delusions about the "subjectivity" of reality or the "equality" of "experience".

And that's the point that you really need to understand here, by opposing psychiatry you are not fighting "mysticism", you're perpetuating it. 'Cause the biggest mysticism around on this subject is this notion that mental illness "doesn't exist".

Either you're a materialist and you recognize that the human body, the entire human body can get sick and injured, or you're an idealist and you don't; there's really no middle ground possible.


So, when they discuss "mental illness" in terms of disorders brought on by social relations, they are not discussing a mental illness, but a "normal" product of those social relations.

There is nothing "normal" about depression or clinical anxiety, no more than there is something "normal" about asthma.

Not that "normalcy" is even the issue/

'Cause the thing about psychiatry is that it works, people do get better. And whatever your petty judgements on the "class basis" or "individualism" of the field, the fact remains that the point of medicine is not to make a political statement, but to treat the ill.

Opposing psychiatry means telling tens of millions of seriously sick people that we're not going to help them, even though we know how, just because doing so offends our ideological convictions.

Again, explain to me how that is any different from George Bush's opposition to stem cell research?

I support psychiatry for the same reason that I support oncology, because I recognize that sick people have the right to be treated.

It's really no more complicated than that.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Okay, this is all very deep and complex and i really am not sure any of us are totally competent to discuss this.

But here goes.

LSD


I support psychiatry for the same reason that I support oncology, because I recognize that sick people have the right to be treated.

Okay, but, what if the mental illness is caused by biological reasons and social factors?

If you believe that to be the case.

You only have two choices.

1. you use curative medicine to treat the symptoms of the mental illness

or

2. you stop the causes of the harmful social factors.

I recognise that psychiatry does not even attempt to combat the problematic social factors, not because they don't care, but because they do not see the world like that. Hence bourgeois.

Further, psychiatry acts as social control, because, you are deemed to be mentally ill, just because a psychiatrists says so.

But, since they don't recognise the social factors and don't want to correct the social problems, they are left with medicating the symptoms and not tackling the cause.

Psychology is so bad, books have been written where they claim social movements are actually individual actors attempting act out their hate towards their father etc etc.




And please do not compare to the treatment of an organ with the treatment of the "mind".

One is science one is mysticism.

PS. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness" - K. MARX

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You just really are a Freudian aren't you, Bloody Capitist?
At least you only called me a mother fucker, and didn't go so far as to call me a boureoisie.


There has never been a childhood that didn't envolve genetics. And most mental illness is genetic in sorce. And that is actual medicine and actually science.

I'll love to see you voluneer on a psych unit.

and what is this bull shit about 'no one has unconditional respect for the mentaly ill, it depend on what kind of illness they have. Do you believe that about cancer too. "Oh, I respect people with lung cancer but those people with liver cancer-who could respect them?" is that what you're saying it sounds like it.

I dont really respect people because they have cancer. are you sure you understand that word? :rolleyes:

I once spent a summer holiday working at a mental health facility, and when they were medicated, they were not normal, their medicine didn't fix them, it just sedated that a little bit.

Had they not suffered the harmful effects of class society, then maybe they wouldnt have been there needing to be sedated. who knows.

[LSD]

Okay, but, what if the mental illness is caused by biological reasons and social factors?

If you believe that to be the case.

You only have two choices.

1. you use curative medicine to treat the symptoms of the mental illness

or

2. you stop the causes of the harmful social factors.

Or you do both.

But opposing psychiatry doesn't mean doing the latter, it just means not doing the former. Which, again, is akin to depriving an asthmatic of the medicine that keeps him alive.

It doesn't matter what the "root causes" are here, what matter is whether or not we have the tools to treat sick people and in the case of mental illness the answer is, for the most part, yes.

Again, it's nowhere near perfect, but psychiatry is helping millions of people every day. Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for any "revolutionary" organization around right now.

Besides, I don't think you're quite understanding what "social factors" means in this context. The "social factors" we're talking about are not "capitalist alienation" or any other Marxian phenomenon.

If industrialization were responsible for mental illness, then we wouldn't have seen a single case of schizophrenia before 1760.

Obviously that's not the case.

No, for the most part, the kind of "social factors" that affect people's mental wellbeing are of the personal variety. Things like deep loss or traumatic experiences. Things that political movements have nothing to do with.

It doesn't matter if capitalism ended tomorrow, the human brain would still be just as fragile as it is today. And the sorts of "social factors" which bring about psychological problems would. of course, persist.

Which is why, again, psychiatry is not a political issue, it's a medical one. There are important issues to address here, no doubt, but the problems aren't about who's "bourgeois" and who isn't, it's about what works and what doesn't.

And right now, psychiatry works better than anything else we've got. And tearing it down to make some sort of moronic political statement is the hight of juvenile nihilism.

If you really believe, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that metnal illness is a product of capitalism (as utterly stupid as that sounds to everyone else), fine, there's probably nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

But until such a time as these "social factors" of yours are eliminated, something has to be done for those who are suffering now.

Absent psychiatric assistance, what is it exactly that you propose that is? Should we merely console them that eventually capitalism will be eliminated? Should we invite them to read their local party newsletter?

I mean seriously, for all your petty condemnatoins of freudianism (a school which hasn't been dominant in psychiatry for, oh, about 70 years), you've yet to propose a single viable alternative.

'Cause, again, for the twentieth time, the thing about psychiatric medicine is that it works, and it works now.

And when it comes to medicine, that's all that matters.


Further, psychiatry acts as social control, because, you are deemed to be mentally ill, just because a psychiatrists says so.

That's a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?

Psychiatry may still be in its infancy in terms of understanding the etiology/physiology of mental illness, but to say that it's nothing more than a "system of control" is ludicrous.

Psychiatry can be used to control people, sure, but then so can any other branch of science. In the Third Reich, Jews and Poles were incarcerated based on their physical race and Nazi doctors has all sorts of fancy explanations for why that race was "naturally inferior".

That doesn't mean that physiology is nothing more than a "system of control"!

Obviously a line needs to be drawn regarding basic human rights and no science, no matter how credible its proponents, can be allowed to override it.

None of this, however, addresses the fundamental question of psychiatry and that is does it work? And despite all the horror stories the answer is a definitive yes.

People get better thanks to psychiatric intervention. It's not "easy", it's certainly not "efficient", but millions of people are able to lead happier and healthier lives thanks to mental health professionals.

But then most of them wanted help.

When people are forced to accept "treatment" for psychiatric problems, it rarely works and more often then not, they are left in an even more incapacitated state than they started.

Which is why I agree entirely with the outlawing of "commitment". Individual motility is our most fundamental of rights. It doesn't matter how sick one's brain is, one still has the right to captain one's own fate.

But condemning the entire field of psychiatry because of the injustice of coerced treatment is a grosse overreaction. Psychological counseling and even psychiatric medication can be immensly fruitful and productive, just so long as everyone involved consents.


Psychology is so bad, books have been written where they claim social movements are actually individual actors attempting act out their hate towards their father etc etc.

The fact that there is such a thing as bad psychology does not mean psychology itself is useless.

After all, we've have more than our fair share of bad "communists", haven't we? But I don't see you junking Marxism on account of Stalin.


And please do not compare to the treatment of an organ with the treatment of the "mind".

I'm not "comparing" anything. The mind is not "like" an organ, it is an organ; it's called the brain.

And, again, what's "mysticism" here is to believe that all mental problems are entirely caused by "social factors", as if the human brain was not capable of failing all on its own.

Marx had a lot of useful things to say on a myriad of subjects, but there is such a thing as taking Marxism too far ...and this is it.

There is no place in medicine for 19th century determinism. As "heretical" as it may sound to you, the simple fact is Marx was a product of his time, and that time was not one of psychological insight.

If you're really an historical materialist than you recognize that even "great ment" cannot transcend the dynamics of their environment. Well, like it or not, that includes Marx just as much as it does you or I.

Medicine is about results, psychiatry produces results. What Marx may or may not have said on the subject is really not relevent.

Sick people deserve to be treated by the best means available; politics can hang.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Or you do both.

Why not say revolution and Christianity. After all, im sure it has some success in making people feel better.

Just because something has a positive effect, as in it temporarily al leaves pain, doesn't mean it is something we should support.


But opposing psychiatry doesn't mean doing the latter, it just means not doing the former. Which, again, is akin to depriving an asthmatic of the medicine that keeps him alive.

No, real doctors should prescribe drugs, in order to treat people with mental illness. This should not involve psychiatrists at all.


It doesn't matter what the "root causes" are here, what matter is whether or not we have the tools to treat sick people and in the case of mental illness the answer is, for the most part, yes.

You aren't treating them, your changing their mood. You don't actually fix people with mental illnesses.



Again, it's nowhere near perfect, but psychiatry is helping millions of people every day. Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for any "revolutionary" organization around right now.

Yeah because religion doesn't make anyone feel better? Lets just give up on revolution and turn to mood altering drugs or god.



Besides, I don't think you're quite understanding what "social factors" means in this context. The "social factors" we're talking about are not "capitalist alienation" or any other Marxian phenomenon.

Yes it is. It's exactly that. Marxism explains how the economic base of society effects its political and ideological superstructure.

So, the social factors which effect modern workers, which effected slaves of ancient Greece and the serfs of England, all stem from the class ideology of the ruling class in any given society.

For example, in England, black people are much more likely to suffer from mental illness than white people. Blacks make up only 3% of the population but 10% of the population in mental health facilities.




If industrialization were responsible for mental illness, then we wouldn't have seen a single case of schizophrenia before 1760.



If you really believe, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that metnal illness is a product of capitalism (as utterly stupid as that sounds to everyone else), fine, there's probably nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

Okay, i don't think i actually ever said it was capitalist society, just class society in general.



you've yet to propose a single viable alternative.



An alternative to what exactly? Revolution will destroy the social relations that make much of the misery.

Again, medication of the BRAIN in order to cure mental illness is not what psychiatry is .

Psychiatry seeks to fix the "mind" and treat mental illness. not brain

Ask one of our religious comrades, or have a look in the religion forums. There are less suicides amongst religious people than atheists.

Does LSD really support all of us taking up religion because you can bear people committing suicide even when that will hold back revolution, maybe indefinitely.


That's a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?

Psychiatry may still be in its infancy in terms of understanding the etiology/physiology of mental illness, but to say that it's nothing more than a "system of control" is ludicrous.

Psychiatry can be used to control people, sure, but then so can any other branch of science. In the Third Reich, Jews and Poles were incarcerated based on their physical race and Nazi doctors has all sorts of fancy explanations for why that race was "naturally inferior".

That doesn't mean that physiology is nothing more than a "system of control"!

Obviously a line needs to be drawn regarding basic human rights and no science, no matter how credible its proponents, can be allowed to override it.

None of this, however, addresses the fundamental question of psychiatry and that is does it work? And despite all the horror stories the answer is a definitive yes.

People get better thanks to psychiatric intervention. It's not "easy", it's certainly not "efficient", but millions of people are able to lead happier and healthier lives thanks to mental health professionals.

But then most of them wanted help.

When people are forced to accept "treatment" for psychiatric problems, it rarely works and more often then not, they are left in an even more incapacitated state than they started.

Which is why I agree entirely with the outlawing of "commitment". Individual motility is our most fundamental of rights. It doesn't matter how sick one's brain is, one still has the right to captain one's own fate.

But condemning the entire field of psychiatry because of the injustice of coerced treatment is a grosse overreaction. Psychological counseling and even psychiatric medication can be immensly fruitful and productive, just so long as everyone involved consents.


Black people way more than white people. Same for other ethnic minorities.

Just like the prison system is a class and race institution, the same can be said mental health institutions.




After all, we've have more than our fair share of bad "communists", haven't we? But I don't see you junking Marxism on account of Stalin.

Stalin was at the head of a counter revolution, his class interests were different from the workers and peasants. He still recognised class etc etc

Psychiatrists literally make shit up which is not testable or even empirically verifiable and hand out medication.



I'm not "comparing" anything. The mind is not "like" an organ, it is an organ; it's called the brain.

Psychiatry or psychology not neurology

i think neurologists would be angered at the confusion between mind and brain.




Medicine is about results, psychiatry produces results. What Marx may or may not have said on the subject is really not relevent.

About as many results as religion does. And you really need to think about that really famous quote by Marx.....something about opium of the people or something.......

[which doctor]

No, real doctors should prescribe drugs, in order to treat people with mental illness. This should not involve psychiatrists at all.
How are psychiatrists not real doctors? They went to med school just as other doctors did.


You aren't treating them, your changing their mood. You don't actually fix people with mental illnesses.
Mental illnesses are often due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Certain drugs can fix these imbalances to allow the patient to function normally.


For example, in England, black people are much more likely to suffer from mental illness than white people. Blacks make up only 3% of the population but 10% of the population in mental health facilities.
Social conditions often exacerbate mental illness, which would make one more likely to try to get help.


An alternative to what exactly? Revolution will destroy the social relations that make much of the misery.
No, they will only destroy some of the social relationships that intensify the problems.


Again, medication of the BRAIN in order to cure mental illness is not what psychiatry is .
It's certainly one part of the broad field of psychiatry.


Ask one of our religious comrades, or have a look in the religion forums. There are less suicides amongst religious people than atheists.
What's your point?


Psychiatrists literally make shit up which is not testable or even empirically verifiable and hand out medication.
No, no they don't.


Psychiatry or psychology not neurology

i think neurologists would be angered at the confusion between mind and brain.
Neurology and modern psychiatry are two inseparable fields of medicine today. They overlap in so many different places.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

FOB i literally covered all those points earlier in the thread.

[which doctor]

And you still failed to prove your point.

[Pirate Utopian]

Also quick question how do people here feel about involuntary psychiatry like people in mental hospitals?

[whoknows]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 22, 2007 09:08 pm
involuntary psychiatry like people in mental hospitals?
It is important to agree on the intent of your question before answering it. Are you only refering to involuntary commitment after due process of law requering a court order? Which is how I would discribe 'involuntary'. Or are you refering to all inpatient hospitalizations? There is a difference. And as you must have seen we can not even agree on what psychiatry is.

[VukBZ2005]

How are psychiatrists not real doctors? They went to med school just as other doctors did.

These people are not considered real doctors by some, such BCS and myself, not because we actually see these people as phonies (of course they have a PHd from a medical institution, as you just pointed out), but, it is because we just do not consider them real doctors in the sense that they are just making diagnoses based on the what the person tells them and based on the way that person may or may not be acting at the time in question; something that is not truly scientific because they are just looking at their behavior itself, not the potentially physical causes of that behavior. Even when they do look at the physical aspect of the situation that exists and even if they find nothing wrong with the physical aspect of that situation, they would then have to depend upon their guidebook of diagnosing mental illnesses to make a diagnosis, due to the need of their medical profession field to make successful diagnoses of mental illness cases in order to make a living and thus, involuntarily imprisoning diagnosed patients against their own will.

What may be happening in such cases in which there are no physical explanations for their behavior is that these patients have experienced situations that ended up having a detrimental effect on their emotional function, which in turn, caused them to think a certain way, a illogical and irrational way; there might be physical effects to those emotional problems, not just psychological effects. But you can't call something a sickness if there is no real physical cause to the effect. That is being irrational in and of itself. That is also being unscientific.


Mental illnesses are often due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Certain drugs can fix these imbalances to allow the patient to function normally.

The concept of people having "chemical imbalances in the brain" just doesn't make any sense. As I said, either the effect has to be based upon a verifiable physical reality (such as the deformity of behavioral frontal lobes that was detected from the CAT scan of a serial rapist and arsonist in a major American city) or it has to be based upon multiple emotional or psychological circumstances acting together due to experiences that were detrimental to the function of those aspects of the Human being in question. To continue to assert such notions, is, as I also said, irrational and unscientific.

As BCS said, these drugs are just sedatives and can do serious damage to the functioning of the brain in the long term because of the chemicals that are in these sedatives and how they interact with the human brain's receptors and transmitters.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:28 pm
I once spent a summer holiday working at a mental health facility, and when they were medicated, they were not normal, their medicine didn't fix them, it just sedated that a little bit.


This is most interesting. I had thought your oppinions were coming straight out of 'Briton on the Couch'

[whoknows]

The degree is MD, Medical Doctor, not a PHD, you could probaly get a PHD in basket weaveing.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 23, 2007 01:21 am
has to be based upon a verifiable physical reality (such as the deformity of behavioral frontal lobes that was detected from the CAT scan of a serial rapist and arsonist in a major American city) or it has to be based upon multiple emotional


BCS said, these drugs are just sedatives
Who wrote the study? What is the study's title? Where was it published? When was it published? Was it repeated by anyone? I'm really tried of nameless faceless studies being thrown at me as proof.


SEDATIVES? TRY READING UP ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF DRUGS.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Please tell us how you got the job, and what you did, and what kind of place it was.

Well something happened to a close relation of mine, and this meant my mum had to Asia for ages. I spent the summer , about 9 or ten years ago, with my aunt who ran a NHS mental health facility.

So, i did not work there, but i did make friends with lots of people with mental problems.


Good Posts Communist FireFox

[whoknows]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 22, 2007 09:08 pm
Also quick question how do people here feel about involuntary psychiatry like people in mental hospitals?
SHOULD WE START A NEW THREAD?

it would concern this topic within the quote and this topic only.

which I believe is legal commitment of psych. patients.

Legal Commitment as used in the USA consists of the following:
the patient is persented to the psychiatist by the patients care providers (family or other loved ones) or police. the patient is expressing the desire to injure himself or others. The doctor then calls a judge to issues a temporary holding order for 24 hours (excluding weekends or court hollidays) so the patient can be held for treatment untill a court hearing can be held. At hearing evedence that the patient is a danger to himself or others is given (the patient is given illegal repersentation) and if that evidence is found to be creditable, the patient is commited for the peroid of time nessissary for the patient to be stablized and returned home. There is also the possiblity of out patient commitment where the patient is only ordered to see the doctor.

Some of us have seen this process save lives, some hold that it violates a fundatmental human right even if it has medical value.

should we start a discussion of this I feel it should be on a new thread and be limited the the process discribed above.

[tambourine_man]

psychiatry has mostly to do with the recognition of certain modes of deviance from social norms, the designation of any and all such deviations as "mental illness" and of course the subsequent, forcible "treatment" [forcible both literally in the case of involuntary institutionalization, and of course indirectly as the consequence of significant social stigmatization].

there's no objective measure of mental health. modern psychiatry's criteria for "sanity" is a consequence of its own innate political function as a legitimizer of the dominant social system and ideology, and that criteria is thus predictably based around the subject's ability (or inability, in the case of the "insane") to "productively and efficiently contribute," materially, to society. the closest you can get to an objective determination of mental health is in terms of neurological and chemical abnormalities, which, besides hardly being understood at present, are again only significant if they are related to a behavior that would be considered deviant or unacceptable (there are countless other variations in brain chemistry that could affect/determine any aspects of an individual's personality and behavior that are not stigmatized [aesthetic judgments, for example, food preferences, etc.], and are therefore insignificant for psychiatrists). "mental illness" is based more in arbitrary social ideologies than in material reality, which would of course help to explain why, for example, homosexuality was once officially considered a serious mental illness.

further, usually, theres no clean dichotomy between "sane" and "insane" or healthy and unhealthy. with an "illness" like clinical depression, for example, it would be more accurate to picture a sort of continuum, on which psychiatrists would totally arbitrarily designate a "breaking point," again emphasizing the lack of a solid material basis for these diagnoses.

none of that means that i would oppose an individual;s right to medication, if s/he wants it, but that there is definitely a lot wrong with the stigmatization of socially deviant, and not objectively harmful, behavior, and that a lot of psychiatry is really arbitrary and unscientific.

[VukBZ2005]

Who wrote the study? What is the study's title? Where was it published? When was it published? Was it repeated by anyone? I'm really tried of nameless faceless studies being thrown at me as proof.

It was not a study. It was the results of continuous medical testing upon a serial rapist (Peter Braunstein is the name) who happened to be convicted of falsely impersonating a firefighter and of sexually molesting a woman. This was on every television news report in New York City and was on one, if not all, of its major newspapers. The woman, who was a former co-worker of Braunstein, was sexually assaulted for hours (the television reports said 13 hours, if I remember correctly), after Braunstein came into the building, while dressed as a firefighter, and established distractions in order for him to get into her apartment. The indications that the CAT scan of that individual shows that the deformities that existed in his frontal behavioral lobe caused his irrational and illogical behavior, described by Psychiatrists who observed him before that CAT scan as "Schizophrenic". This only legitimizes the fact that the only thing Psychiatry can do, by itself, is just make behavioral observations.

My point in using that case is that there are actual physical causes for "Psychatric behavior", a cause that is confirmed by real medical science. Not some made-up imaginary "genetic" and "physical" causes such as "chemical imbalances" in the brain; a term that has become a part of everyday discussion due to its constant dissemination by Psychiatrists and the Spectacle, or rather, the mass media.

[VukBZ2005]

SHOULD WE START A NEW THREAD?

No. The reason why I am saying no is because of the fact that there way too many Psychiatric threads in this forum and there needs to be one thread that encompasses all subjects that have to be related to Psychiatry. If we have threads dealing with individual Psychiatric subjects, then what is the point of having this, one, broad, thread?

[LSD]

Just because something has a positive effect, as in it temporarily al leaves pain, doesn't mean it is something we should support.

No?

Because it strikes me that that is exactly the sort of thing we should be supporting: the diminuation of suffering.

Look, it seems to me that you may have confused psychiatry in general with specific examples of psychiatric abuse and psychiatric confinement, neither of which am I defending; but your expansion of this negative assessment to the entire field of mental health is irrational beyond estimation.

There are rational criticisma that can be made of the expansion of psychiatric conditionals into areas in which they may not be mature enough to enter, such as issues of personal liberty. There are serious, and reasonable, concerns as to the right of the state to tell a person that he is not sane enough to control his own body.

I am not suggesting that we should cede personal liberty to a mass of white coated psychiatrists. But there is a point between your extreme and that to which the more "progressive" psychologist would like us to move.

And I have seen no argument, in this thread or any other, as to why we should not continue to develop the field of psychiatry to the point where it can become the kind of science that you, and I, wanted to become; one in which diagnoses and treatments can be objectively and efficiently assesed.

In the mean time, however, the worst thing for those currently suffering from mental problems would be to eliminate the few social services that they already have. If you think that the mentally ill community is being well serviced now, imagine what will happen when illuminate the only people who are actually doing anything

So, please, make rational helpful suggestions; if you're really interested, start studying the field. I think you'll find that it's a lot more than Freudian analyses and childhood bedtime stories. Indeed I believe that in this province, to even enter into a psychological training program, you neeed at least a college-level math program and some training of biology.

I certainly remember when I took psych 101, that for the most part it was statistics and graphs and diagrams of the brain and other boring scientific stuff like that.

Again, I am not proposing that I have all the answers to explain psychological disorders nor is any psychiatrist or psychologist of any standing, in fact the only person here proposing a blanket solution to the problem mental illness is actually, well .... you .

You are the one, after all, who contended that all mental illnesses were merely reactions to problematic social relations.

I guess the natural consequence of that line of thinking is that if the social problems are corrected and all the mental problems will go away too, it's a nice utopian fantasy, but it isn't reality.

'Cause again in the real world mental problems are not caused by dualism or industrialization, they're caused by small-scale personal catastrophes, the kind that fancy German professors with long resumes don't write about, or at least didn't write about until one brash Austrian was wild enough to suggest the heretical notion that the mind is not the Victorian machine all assumed it was, but was instead the enigma we now know it today.

And I'm not one to glorify Freud, but you really can't ignore the contributions he made. Nor can you ignore the fact that those writing before him were not aware of the changes that his innovations would bring.

Which of course brings us back to Marx, and the insistence of some of the left take everything he wrote as gospel despite its obvious historical character. Well again, in this case, this is one area in which he was not particularly gifted.

And like it or not, science isn't theology, you can't appeal to doctrine as an argument. If you don't like modern psychology, fine, but the fact is basic talk therapy is one of the most effective treatments out there. And that's not due to any Marxian analysis, nor should it be.


No, real doctors should prescribe drugs, in order to treat people with mental illness. This should not involve psychiatrists at all.

And would those "real illnesses" include illnesses of the mind like schizophrenia? Or depresssion? And would those "real doctors" be trained in diagnosing and treating said disorders?

'Cause if so, whatever you choose to call it, that's psychiatry.

Again, there really is no way to undo the psychological revolution, nor should we want to. At this point there can be no doubt that some people are mentally ill and that they need to be treated for this illness.

The only question is what is the best way to go about treating them. Now, I agree that the current situtation is not good. But then that's true for most of the medical spectrum; people who need to get treated, aren't.

There's nothing distinct or special about psychiatry. And even if you Completely change the way that mental illnesses are treated, diagnosed, identified, or categorized, you are still dealing with psychiatry.

There's just no way to "get rid of it".


Again, medication of the BRAIN in order to cure mental illness is not what psychiatry is .

Welll, according to the good folks over at dictionary.com, the definition of "psychiatry" is the practice or science of diagnosing and treating mental disorders which would seem to include medication.

Where I think you're getting confused is that, for some reason you've gotten it in your head psychiatry is only Freudian and that psychoanalysis is still the dominant school in the field. Well it isn't, and even if it were, Freudians really had anything against medication per se.

And I would remind you have yet to propose a viable alternative to psychiatry. For all you really against it, you still need to do something with all the mentally ill, you stilly to do something with people who are clinically depressed, you still need to do some of the people were so anxious they can get out of their homes. What is it that you would do?

Would you ignore them? Would you tell them to "suck it up"? ...or would you treat them, with whatever means were available.

Well again, that psychiatry.


Psychiatry seeks to fix the "mind" and treat mental illness. not brain

Psychiatrists literally make shit up which is not testable or even empirically verifiable and hand out medication.

Bad psychiatrists make stuff up, and as for "handing out" medication, far from this current craze of "overmedication" hysteria, I would propose that in general doctors are too reserved in dispensing medication, especially in areas of psychology and psychiatry.

There's still a strong social stigma in a society that encourages people to "tough it out" or "grin and bear it" rather than take a "drug" to deal with a psychological issue.

This social taboo doesn't only manifest in specific doctors reticence to dispense necessary pharmaceuticals, it also manifests in terms of the research that found, in so far as there are vast areas of psychopharmaceutical research that just aren't being done because of all the trouble that is brought upon anyone who experiments with drugs affecting the mind.

At this point, there's reliable evidence that marijuana makes cancer patients feel better, hell it makes most people feel better; but you can get it if you're on chemo in most of the world, not even most of the first world. Even though there's little that works, even though there's no evidence of harm.

Why? Because it's a "drug" and "drugs" are "bad".

That's the mysticism that's underminining our treatment of the mentally ill, not long dead Freudian theories of mothers or fathers, but society that's not yet ready to deal with the fact that everything they are, everything they think, can be changed by a ...pill.

'Cause in the end that's where psychiatry is heading, to the point where we will need to talk therapies, or creative arts therapies, or animal assisted therapiwa, but just straight direct neurological stimulation.

And at that point there will be no difference between psychiatry and neurology. But were not there yet. We're not nearly there yet.

Right now, we have only a crude understanding of the bread, and we have an even cruder understanding of the mind; and we have separate means of interacting with them. And we use those crude interactions and primitive understandings to try and eke out some sort of medical profession amidst our great ignorance.

No one says that it's easy or efficient or even particularly profitable, but that's how sciences get started, from the bottom up.


Psychiatry or psychology not neurology

i think neurologists would be angered at the confusion between mind and brain.

I think that most neurologists would be amused if anything, by such a confusion. I certainly doubt that they would display the kind of juvenile condescension that you seem to hold towards their psychiatric colleagues.

But maybe that's because they're actually practicing medicine, actually helping patients, actually seeing how treatments and therapies and yes, even drugs, can be so essential to saving people's lives.

This separation that people make between the "brain" and the "mind", it's one of convenience not one of identity, at least not for anyone with any sense. At present are methods of attacking the brain are different from those of attacking the mind, so it's useful to separate the two in discussions of medicine, but any neurologist or psychologist or psychiatrist worth their salt would tell you that the brain and the mind are all the same thing of course.

Again I think it's you who's displaying the mysticism here in your opposition to excepting that the mind is a physiological phenomenon, and that it itself can malfunction. I'm not talking about neurological lesions or epilepsy, I'm talking about cognitive or psychological failures which happen because, the brain is a complex system in complex systems fail .

There is no perfection in this world, so in any area of human existence, so there must always be a system in place for correcting errors which may arise.


About as many results as religion does.

Really? You've read studies in which patients have recovered due to prayer alone? That's strange, because all the ones I've read have indicated exactly the opposite. And while I will admit that the medical evidence for psychiatry is nowhere approaching that for many other medical fields, it vastly outstrips that of religion.

Besides, psychiatry isn't based on telling lies. Whatever you may think of particular psychodynamic theories, or antiquated Freudian psychoanalytical techniques, the fact remains that at its core psychiatry sole purpose is to study, analyze, and treat illnesses of the mind.

It's about doctrine, it is about ideology, it is about perpetuating methods of social control, isn't about class dynamics, and while all those things may play a part the actual manifestation of psychiatry, due the fact people ultimately have to make these things work, it really doesn't mean that the entire endeavor is itself corrupt.

Whereas when it comes to religion, the entire endeavor actually is corrupt. That is searching for the facer nature of God he is in and of itself be fruitless task motivated by a impossible emotion.

That's not the case and comes to helping the sick.


FOB i literally covered all those points earlier in the thread.

No, you really didn't.

All you've done is talk about "social relations" and how they might something to do with mental illnesses, or capitalism, or something.

I've still to see a coherent rational argument as to why we do not need an advanced trained equipped mental health field ready to deal with the millions of patients out there who are in desperate need for their services.

Are there changes that need to be made? Yes, of course, but in response to the original question "what about psychiatry?" my response remains the same, it's good and we need more of it.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well i did say i thought this subject was too advanced for me.

I have ordered a book on psychiatry which i will read, and then respond with a (hopefully) much stronger criticism.

Thank you for your posts though, i will look at them while i read the book.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:55 pm
I have ordered a book on psychiatry which i will read, and then respond with a (hopefully) much stronger criticism.


I hope you didn't order 'briton on the couch"

[socialistfuture]

my friend who is a trained nurse has huge criticisms of a lot of modern medicin and hospital practices. Yes she is quite spiritual and studies massage, holistic healing and other things too and plans to study shamanism when she goes back to ireland.

my grandmother died from a useless doctor, he later did a runner and then died so wasnt able to be charged.

often when ive gone they've just prescribed me drugs, their worse than dealers. let alone the mental health side -
which tho it has improved from send them all to the assylum days and shock therapy; still leaves a lot to answer for. a friend has been writting on that, and anarchist approaches to mental health.

Anyone know of any socialist thinkers who wrote progressively on mental health?

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

As a schizophrenic, and an aspiring psychiatrist/pshycologist, I'm rather appalaed at some of the posts here.

*Any* doctor, in *any* field ought to be respected. Medicine as a whole is a PRACTICE. It is not FULLPROOF(and never will be).

Psychiatry is more than medicine, it's talking about the problems you have, and the trauma you've experienced(if you have exeperienced any at all).

There's no reason for this hatred against a field that is more "for the people" than any other field in existance. I see a psychiatrist once every two weeks, because of my schizophrenia and nervous disorder, he's a friend and someone I can talk to. One of the few people I truly trust.

Oh...and..>.>...Freudian psychoanalyisis is quite possibly the sinlge most interesting field in Psyhcology. I'm a big Freudian, almost as much as I am a Nietzschian.

To all of you 'nay sayers'- Go and bloody read up on it before you decide it's not worth your time.

[indigenous-redfeminist]

Well i have been to a museum called The Museum of Psychiatry ( if anyone is from L.A. its right there by Amoeba, im not endorseing it) and it exposed alot of the abuse that takes place in Psychiatry not olny in the past they used incrediblely painful and ridiculis remedies to cure the people but especially now the psychiatrist sit aroud altogether at a table and choose what will be a disorder or disease or whatever. They vote and they put in this book i can't think of the name but yeah and that is how they declare what will be a disorder. That is how OCD or what it is to be Bipolar comes about and my favorite resstless lef syndrome hahahaha. This is used in schools. They also create tests that are taken in many schools public and private that define weither or not a child no matter the age is menatlly ill, this is also used in prisons. This goes to show you where psychiatry thrives in our schools they want to get them while they are young. Sad but true. Alot of things where exposed like how psychiatry was used in genitics. For example when Nazis were trying to convince people that jews, jehova witnesses, blacks, gays and any one else was inseprior to the Arian race they would use psychiatrist to make up mental disorders that supposably justified what they were doing and some these were used in America like Nigeritus. Black people are lower then white people because their mind is not as developed as a white person which makes them stupid beacuse they are black (is a summary there maybe more to it im not sure please correct me). Other things like electric shock therapy. After i seen all this i found out that this museum was ran by Scientologist hahahah lol! i felt so nieve. At the time i was volunteering at a hospital and on occasions i would volunteer for the psych that worked there and i asked him all about this and he said yes that is true and also that the doctors are paid by pharmacutical compainies to sell the drugs liek prozac, zoloft, ritalen, and so forth. I'm not saying all psychs are like this but surely there are a majority that are. But every form of profession is corrupt so psychriatry does not fall far behind.

Psychiartry is suppose to be to help i have read into the field so i am aware of what it is and capable of. And sadly it is leaving that and becoming this awful pealuge that is going after childeren and elderly to dope them to make a profit not to help them. And the American public is feeding into it, anything to shut that kid up or to keep those senial old people under control. And it is ridiculous.

[Faux Real]

1. Does anyone here oppose psychiatry?
Yes.


2. If so/not why?
Psychiatrists in almost all cases will give advice in line with conforming with capitalism and accepting it, in the meantime labeling and dismissing you as a psychopath or having neural defects.

This is what turns many people away from the practice, as psychiatrists are trained in maintaining the social order. However, I admit it can be useful in saving lives of emotionally stressed or mentally unwell individuals.


3. Would you consider psychiatry indivualistic?

Yes, seeing that it's a case by case basis, though it reflects the side effects of contemporary society.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:35 pm

Anyone know of any socialist thinkers who wrote progressively on mental health?

Reich, obviously (not his later works on Organon and other mystical stuff).

There are many others. A large number of Marxist thinkers are opposed to psychiatry in its current form, even psychiatrists.

There is one famous one who ran a psychiatric institution and revolutionized it to the extent that he was later separated from it, for political reasons, I forgot his name, Italian.

I oppose psychiatry as well. Not abstractly, but what it concretely is, its institutions and practices. It is a discipline heavily blinded by bourgeois ideology. And even when self-critical, it can only go so far before running against "practical consideratons" or questioning its discipline in its entirety.

In regards to labelling, this from the start has powerful implications. It is naive to see labeling as something innocuous.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:23 pm
.

psychiatrists are trained in maintaining the social order.
heterosexism was the social order when I was growing up and psychiatrists have undermined it by removing homosexuality from the lists of diseases.