And here it is, now also on this blog: the article "The other side of mental health science" by Steven Morgan, that I mentioned in a previous post, and that puts a number of common misunderstandings about "mental illness" right. For everyone who, for whatever reason, hasn't been to Gianna's blog yet to read it there.
The other side of mental health science
BY STEVEN MORGAN stevenmorganjr(at)gmail(dot)com
Scientific studies about mental health are widely considered to be the ultimate source for objective information about psychiatric disorders. However, most people do not or cannot access these studies themselves. They instead rely on information from doctors, organizations, peers, the media, and so on. Unfortunately, this second-hand information is often oversimplified (i.e. “Mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain”), spoken with too much certainty (i.e. “Schizophrenia is a chronic brain disease that is lifelong and incurable”), or skewed and manipulated to justify an opinion (i.e. “People with Bipolar Disorder must take medication to live well”). As a result, popular myths now overshadow much of the data available from science.
The following list is a collection of facts from peer-reviewed scientific journals and several research-based books. Each source is hyperlinked in References, meaning the reader can literally click on the name of the study to access it from the Internet. Given the heated atmosphere of opinions about psychiatric disorders, the hyperlinks were included to make this document user-friendly so that readers can research the facts themselves.
FACTS ABOUT PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS
I. A chemical imbalance for mental illness has never been found in anyone’s brain.1 There is no way to measure the level of neurotransmitters in synapses between brain cells, so there is no measurement of a healthy chemical balance that would allow for comparisons of “too many chemicals” or “too few chemicals” to be made.2,3 That is why our brains are not scanned for chemical imbalances when we are diagnosed. Even if chemical imbalances are one day found, it does not mean that they cause psychiatric disorders. Indeed, since the brain changes in response to both internal stimuli (thoughts, imagination, feelings, etc.) and external stimuli (sunlight, trauma, playing the piano, etc.),4,5 a chemical imbalance could just as likely be a biological reflection of environmental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual stress as a primary cause of it. Finally, the idea that specific genes cause mental illness is inaccurate, leading one prominent genetic researcher to state in the American Journal of Psychiatry: “The impact of individual genes on risk for psychiatric illness is small, often nonspecific, and embedded in complex causal pathways… Although we may wish it to be true, we do not have and are not likely to ever discover `genes for’ psychiatric illness.”6
II. Long-term studies from around the world demonstrate that the majority of people diagnosed with major mental illness – including schizophrenia – significantly improve or completely recover over time.7,8,9,10,11,12
III. Adverse childhood events can lead to mental health problems in adulthood – including psychosis, bipolar affective symptoms, depression, borderline traits, and so on – and the vast majority of people diagnosed with major psychiatric disorders have histories of trauma, neglect, or abuse.13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 Thus, in many cases, the cause of psychiatric symptoms is childhood trauma. In this context, saying “mental illness is just like diabetes” or “mental illness is a physical brain disease that is no one’s fault” is inaccurate. Consider this parallel: if I am stabbed by a knife, is my bleeding caused by weak skin, or is it caused by the knife, the stabber, and the surrounding circumstances? Linking the cause of psychiatric symptoms to the appropriate source – i.e. a traumatizing environment instead of one’s brain or genes – is crucial in determining an effective treatment path to recovery and in actually changing larger social, cultural, and familial problems that contribute to mental breakdown.24
IV. A large subset of people diagnosed with schizophrenia fare better with little or no medication usage.25,26,27 Several alternative treatment models that use little or no medications for people experiencing psychosis have outcomes equal to or better than treatment-as-usual.28,29 Also, antipsychotics are far less curative than generally acknowledged: in the most recent and largest ever study of antipsychotic efficacy for people diagnosed with schizophrenia, 74% of participants (1061 of 1432 people) quit taking their initially-assigned antipsychotic within 18 months, mainly due to ineffectiveness or intolerable side effects.30 Of these unsatisfied participants, about half (509 people) dropped out of the study altogether, while the other half entered a second phase in which they tried a different antipsychotic. During the second phase, 44% of participants assigned to clozapine (20 of 45 people) and 75% of participants assigned to another antipsychotic (282 of 378 people) again discontinued it within 18 months.31,32
V. The brain can heal, and the biological abnormalities linked to psychiatric symptoms are often reversible or can be compensated for by other areas of the brain.33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 In other words, psychiatric recovery can happen on a biological level, both with and without medication usage.
VI. According to repeated studies by the World Health Organization, people diagnosed with schizophrenia living in developing countries have significantly better outcomes than those living in developed countries.41 The WHO suggests the better outcome “…was unrelated to drug treatment since many in the developing world did not receive continuous treatment. Psychosocial factors, such as better family support, community tolerance, extended networks and more favorable job opportunities, have been postulated as the reasons for this observation.”42
VII. Antidepressant medications are no more effective than a sugar pill for people with mild to moderate depression, and only slightly more effective than a sugar pill for people with severe depression.43
VIII. Efforts to increase a person’s awareness of their diagnosed mental illness – known as “illness insight” – may lead to self-stigmatization that decreases self-esteem and hope.44,45,46,47 Research shows that the “mental illness is like any other physical disorder” message behind many anti-stigma campaigns actually increases the public’s fear, prejudice, and desire for distance from people who are diagnosed.48
IX. Psychiatric diagnoses are not based on medical testing, but instead on self-report and professional interpretation according to culturally-defined notions of disease. They are therefore arbitrary and often unreliable, especially over time, being prone to racism, sexism, classism, and Eurocentric bias. Many people receive different diagnoses from different doctors, which muddles treatment options and can lead to unnecessary or mismatched medication usage.49
REFERENCES
For links that direct you to these sources see Steven’s hyperlinked version of this paper for further study:
1 Lacasse JR, Leo J. The Media and the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression. Society 45(1):35-45, Feb 2008.
2 Lacasse JR, Leo J. Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature. PLoS Medicine 2(12), e392 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392, Nov 2005.
3 Breggin PR, Cohen D. Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Lifelong Books, 2007.
4 Doidge, N. The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. New York, NY: Viking Adult, 2007.
5 Begley, S. Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves. Ballantine Books, 2007.
6 Kendler KS. “A gene for…”: The nature of gene action in psychiatric disorders. Am J Psychiatry 162:1243-1252, 2005.
7 Davidson L, Harding C, Spaniol L, (Eds.). Recovery from severe mental illness: Research evidence and implications for practice. Boston, MA: Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation͵ Boston University, 2005.
8 Harding CM, Brooks GW, Ashikaga T, et al. The Vermont longitudinal study of persons with severe mental illness I: methodology study, sample and overall status 32 years later. Am J Psychiatry 144:718-726, 1987b.
9 DeSisto MJ, Harding CM, Ashikaga T, et al. The Maine and Vermont three-decade studies of serious mental illness, I: matched comparison of cross-sectional outcome. Br J Psychiatry 167:331-338, 1995a.
10 Huber G, Gross G, Schuttler R. A long-term follow-up study of schizophrenia: psychiatric course of illness and prognosis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 52:49-57, 1975.
11 Ogawa K, Miya M, Watarai A, et al. A long-term follow-up study of schizophrenia in Japan–with special reference to the course of social adjustment. Br J Psychiatry 151:758-765, 1987.
12 Ciompi, L. Psyche and Schizophrenia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1988.
13 Read J, van Os J, Morrison AP, Ross CA. Childhood trauma, psychosis and schizophrenia: a literature review with theoretical and clinical implications. Acta Psychiatr Scand 112(5):330-50, Nov 2005.
14 Rosenberg SD, Lu W, Mueser KT, Jankowski MK, Cournos F. Correlates of adverse childhood events among adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Psychiatric Services 58(2):245-53, Feb 2007.
15 Hammersley P, Dias A, Todd G, Bowen-Jones K, Reilly B, Bentall RP. Childhood trauma and hallucinations in bipolar affective disorder: preliminary investigation. Br J Psychiatry 182:543-7, Jun 2003.
16 Garno JL, Goldberg JF, Ramirez PM, Ritzler BA. Impact of childhood abuse on the clinical course of bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry 186:121-5, Feb 2005.
17 Morgan C, Fisher H. Environment and schizophrenia: environmental factors in schizophrenia: childhood trauma–a critical review. Schizophrenia Bulletin 33(1):3-10, Jan 2007. Epub Nov 14 2006.
18 Janssen I, Krabbendam L, Bak M, Hanssen M, Vollebergh W, de Graaf R, van Os J. Childhood abuse as a risk factor for psychotic experiences. Acta Psychiatr Scand 109(1):38-45, Jan 2004.
19 Chapman DP, Whitfield CL, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Edwards VJ, Anda RF. Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood. J Affect Disord 82(2):217-25, Oct 2004.
20 Herman JL, Perry JC, van der Kolk BA. Childhood trauma in borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 146(4):490-5, Apr 1989.
21 Harkness KL, Monroe SM. Childhood adversity and the endogenous versus nonendogenous distinction in women with major depression. Am J Psychiatry 159(3):387-93, Mar 2002.
22 Vythilingam M, Heim C, Newport J, Miller AH, Anderson E, Bronen R, Brummer M, Staib L, Vermetten E, Charney DS, Nemeroff CB, Bremner JD. Childhood trauma associated with smaller hippocampal volume in women with major depression. Am J Psychiatry 159(12):2072-80, Dec 2002.
23 Edwards VJ, Holden GW, Felitti VJ, Anda RF. Relationship between multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community respondents: results from the adverse childhood experiences study. Am J Psychiatry 160(8):1453-60, Aug 2003.
24 Read J, Ross CA. Psychological trauma and psychosis: another reason why people diagnosed schizophrenic must be offered psychological therapies. J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry 31(1):247-68, Spring 2003.
25 Harrow M, Jobe T. Factors involved in outcome and recovery in schizophrenia patients not on antipsychotic medications: a 15-year multifollow-up study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 195(5):406-414, 2007.
26 Whitaker R. The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than good. Med Hypotheses 62(1):5-13, 2004.
27 Bola JR, Mosher LR. At issue: predicting drug-free treatment response in acute psychosis from the Soteria project. Schizophr Bulletin 28(4):559-75, 2002.
28 Calton T, Ferriter M, Huband N, Spandler H. A systematic review of the Soteria paradigm for the treatment of people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Schizophr Bulletin 34(1):181-92, Jan 2008. Epub Jun 14 2007.
29 Mosher LR, Hendrix V, Fort DC. Soteria: Through Madness to Deliverance. Xlibris Corporation, 2004.
30 Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis SM, Davis CE, Lebowitz BD, Severe J, Hsiao JK; CATIE Investigators. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 353(12):1209-23, Sep 2005. Epub Sep 19 2005.
31 McEvoy JP, Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, Davis SM, Meltzer HY, Rosenheck RA, Swartz MS, Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis CE, Severe J, Hsiao JK; CATIE Investigators. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry 163(4):600-10, Apr 2006.
32 Stroup TS, Lieberman JA, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Davis SM, Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis CE, Severe J, Hsiao JK; CATIE Investigators. Effectiveness of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia following discontinuation of a previous atypical antipsychotic. Am J Psychiatry 163(4):611-22, Apr 2006.
33 Morgan, S. Rethinking the Potential of the Brain in Major Psychiatric Disorders. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/diagnostics/rethinking-the-brain
34 Bernier PJ, Bedard A, Vinet J, Levesque M, Parent A. Newly generated neurons in the amygdala and adjoining cortex of adult primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(17):11464-9, Epub 2002 Aug
35 Draganski B, Gaser C, Busch V, Schuierer G, Bogdahn U, May A. Neuroplasticity: changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature 427(6972):311-312, Jan 2004.
36 Merzenich, M. Brain plasticity-based “cognitive training” elevates BDNF. Message posted to http://merzenich.positscience.com/?p=35, Apr 2007.
37 Bremner JD, Elzinga B, Schmahl C, Vermetten E. Structural and functional plasticity of the human brain in posttraumatic stress disorder. Prog Brain Res 167:171-86, 2008.
38 Gould E, Graziano MSA, Gross C, Reeves AJ. Neurogenesis in the Neocortex of Adult Primates. Science 286:548–552, 1999.
39 Bieling P, Goldapple K, Garson C, Kennedy S, Lau M, Mayberg H, Segal Z. Modulation of Cortical-Limbic Pathways in Major Depression: Treatment-Specific Effects of Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:34-41, Jan 2004.
40 Schwartz, JM, Begley, S. The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2003.
41 Jablensky A, Sartorius N, Ernberg G, Anker M, Korten A, Cooper JE, Day R, and Bertelsen A. Schizophrenia: Manifestations, Incidence and Course in Different Cultures. A World Health Organization Ten-Country Study. Psychological Medicine Monograph Supplement 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
42 World Health Organization. Schizophrenia: Youth’s Greatest Disabler. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://searo.who.int/en/Section1174/Section1199/Section1567/Section1827_8055.htm
43 Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Medicine 5(2):e45, Feb 2008.
44 Lysaker PH, Roe D, Yanos PT. Toward understanding the insight paradox: internalized stigma moderates the association between insight and social functioning, hope, and self-esteem among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophr Bulletin 33(1):192-9, Jan 2007. Epub Aug 7 2006.
45 Watson AC, Corrigan P, Larson JE, Sells M. Self-stigma in people with mental illness. Schizophr Bulletin 33(6):1312-8, Nov 2007. Epub Jan 25 2007.
46 Link BG, Cullen FT, Struening E, Shrout PE, Dohrenwend BP. A Modified Labeling Theory Approach to Mental Disorders: An Empirical Assessment. American Sociological Review 54(3): 400-423, Jun 1989.
47 Link BG, Struening EL, Neese-Todd S, Asmussen S, Phelan JC. Stigma as a barrier to recovery: The consequences of stigma for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services 52(12):1621-6, Dec 2001.
48 Read J, Haslam N, Sayce L, Davies E. Prejudice and schizophrenia: a review of the ‘mental illness is an illness like any other’ approach. Acta Psychiatr Scand 114(5):303-18, Nov 2006.
49 For a research-based and in-depth overview of the problems with subjective diagnosing, see Chapters 3 & 4 of:
Bentall, RP. Madness Explained: Psychosis and Human Nature. London, England: Allen Lane, 2003.
Showing posts with label information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label information. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Thursday, 26 June 2008
A sacred process II
Some more thoughts in the wake of Sean Blackwell's video and his latest blog entry.
Make sure to read the "Introduction to my new book..." at Sean's blog, where he takes on Kay Redfield Jamison's An Unquiet Mind. Those of you who've been to read Chauncey's analysis of Jill Bolte Taylor's TED Talk, also will have found him praise Kay Redfield Jamison whom he contrasts to Jill Bolte Taylor - in regard to style.
When it comes to contents, both are pretty much the same: both talk about crises being biological illnesses, brain diseases, that are incurable, chronic illnesses, and that need lifelong "medication" in order to be kept under control.
If you've been around this blog only for a moment, you'll know that I strongly disagree with this point of view as there's no evidence so far for crises to be biological illnesses, and as I see that this mainstream-viewpoint actually has stripped and still does strip "countless people of hope for a truly better life, medication free", as Sean writes. Indeed, I find it morally irresponsible by the mental health system to, continuously, make a claim like that, into the bargain often in a way that suggests it were a proven fact rather than a mere hypothesis, a mere theory, and I wish there were more professionals like Ron Unger who'd dare to speak up and challenge the system concerning this matter.
Sadly, I haven't encountered as much as one single professional, psychiatrist, psychologist, or any other, here in Denmark yet, who has shown to be as courageous as Ron (and a number of other professionals abroad). Not even the "brilliant (though not perfect...) guidance". Let me know if you have. I'll be happy to do a piece on him/her!
Now, I can't blame Chauncey for his praise of Kay Redfield Jamison as he, as far as I know, has no personal experience of "madness", his opinion on the matter (whatever it is) thus of course being a result of the information that is immediately available to the public. Which is the mainstream information, stating that extreme states of mind are due to brain diseases. Thus Kay Redfield Jamison's book An Unquiet Mind is published by Macmillan, Jill Bolte Taylor's My Stroke of Insight by the Viking Penguin Group, and both can easily be found at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble, while Sean Blackwell's book A Quiet Mind is published by and can only be purchased through Chipmunkapublishing, a small though significant, British underground publisher, specialized in books about mental health and well being.
Well, and although I do not at all agree in neither Jill Bolte Taylor's nor Kay Redfield Jamison's conception of crises to be biological diseases, I nevertheless widely agree to Chauncey's criticism of Jill Bolte Taylor's TED Talk. At least as far as style is concerned.
In regard to contents, I will certainly read Sean's book. I'm actually looking very much forward to it. While I think, I will spare me the doubtful pleasure of reading Kay Redfield Jamison's book. I've read several books of that kind, and the reading always left me with extremely unpleasant feelings of despair and powerlessness.
As for Sean's call for people to share about their experiences with extreme states of mind, I find it just as important as he does, in order to reduce the public's ignorance and fear of these states, that unfortunately only has been increased by the mainstream conception of these states to be caused by biological illness, thus being nothing but meaningless and unpredictable (and thus dangerous) "madness" (that would have to be fought and suppressed at any price). Although I also find it quite challenging to share such a deeply personal experience publicly, I have considered doing so for a while, and will share at least some of it in time to come.
Make sure to read the "Introduction to my new book..." at Sean's blog, where he takes on Kay Redfield Jamison's An Unquiet Mind. Those of you who've been to read Chauncey's analysis of Jill Bolte Taylor's TED Talk, also will have found him praise Kay Redfield Jamison whom he contrasts to Jill Bolte Taylor - in regard to style.
When it comes to contents, both are pretty much the same: both talk about crises being biological illnesses, brain diseases, that are incurable, chronic illnesses, and that need lifelong "medication" in order to be kept under control.
If you've been around this blog only for a moment, you'll know that I strongly disagree with this point of view as there's no evidence so far for crises to be biological illnesses, and as I see that this mainstream-viewpoint actually has stripped and still does strip "countless people of hope for a truly better life, medication free", as Sean writes. Indeed, I find it morally irresponsible by the mental health system to, continuously, make a claim like that, into the bargain often in a way that suggests it were a proven fact rather than a mere hypothesis, a mere theory, and I wish there were more professionals like Ron Unger who'd dare to speak up and challenge the system concerning this matter.
Sadly, I haven't encountered as much as one single professional, psychiatrist, psychologist, or any other, here in Denmark yet, who has shown to be as courageous as Ron (and a number of other professionals abroad). Not even the "brilliant (though not perfect...) guidance". Let me know if you have. I'll be happy to do a piece on him/her!
Now, I can't blame Chauncey for his praise of Kay Redfield Jamison as he, as far as I know, has no personal experience of "madness", his opinion on the matter (whatever it is) thus of course being a result of the information that is immediately available to the public. Which is the mainstream information, stating that extreme states of mind are due to brain diseases. Thus Kay Redfield Jamison's book An Unquiet Mind is published by Macmillan, Jill Bolte Taylor's My Stroke of Insight by the Viking Penguin Group, and both can easily be found at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble, while Sean Blackwell's book A Quiet Mind is published by and can only be purchased through Chipmunkapublishing, a small though significant, British underground publisher, specialized in books about mental health and well being.
Well, and although I do not at all agree in neither Jill Bolte Taylor's nor Kay Redfield Jamison's conception of crises to be biological diseases, I nevertheless widely agree to Chauncey's criticism of Jill Bolte Taylor's TED Talk. At least as far as style is concerned.
In regard to contents, I will certainly read Sean's book. I'm actually looking very much forward to it. While I think, I will spare me the doubtful pleasure of reading Kay Redfield Jamison's book. I've read several books of that kind, and the reading always left me with extremely unpleasant feelings of despair and powerlessness.
As for Sean's call for people to share about their experiences with extreme states of mind, I find it just as important as he does, in order to reduce the public's ignorance and fear of these states, that unfortunately only has been increased by the mainstream conception of these states to be caused by biological illness, thus being nothing but meaningless and unpredictable (and thus dangerous) "madness" (that would have to be fought and suppressed at any price). Although I also find it quite challenging to share such a deeply personal experience publicly, I have considered doing so for a while, and will share at least some of it in time to come.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Gaderummet - some more detailed information
As I see, that Mikkel Warming, influenced by the system, and thus in blind confidence in any opinion the self-appointed "experts" express, as he is, is busy spreading misinformation about Gaderummet and it's manager, psychologist Kalle Birch Madsen, I feel a need to put some things right.
Frank Blankenship sent the following mail to Mayor Warming:
"Dear Mayor Mikkel Warming,
Young people need choice, and to take this
choice away from them is to diminish their
lives. Conventional mental health care, as
some people can tell you from first hand
experience, often produces very negative
results. Alternatives to conventional mental
health care are desperately needed wherever
they arise. Have some consideration for the
young people in your city, and keep
Gaderummet operating!
Thank you for your time and patience
Sincerely,
Frank Blankenship"
Mikkel Warming replied:
"Dear Frank Blankenship,
Thank you for you email expressing your concern about the future of”Gaderummet”.
Let me assure you that The Social Services Committee wants Gaderummet to continue as an open and alternative place for young people with social problems.
In order to ensure this, The Social Services Committee has requested that Gaderummet works together with the other public services, such as doctors and nurses in the medical and psychiatric branch. Unfortunately the former leader of Gaderummet was not willing to do this, which finally led to The Board of the Gaderummet sacking him in May 2007.
The former leader has not been willing to accept his firing, and is not willing to leave Gaderummet. This is most regrettable, since it’s stopping The Social Services Committee from continuing Gaderummet and the work that is being done there.
As a consequence of this unfortunate situation The Social Services Committee has raised the issue to the court in order to impose the former leader to leave the premises.
As soon as he leaves, we will be able to continue Gaderummet as an open and alternative place for young people offering them relevant services and treatment according to their own needs and wishes.
If you really care about the young people who need the services of Gaderummet, you should write to the former leader and ask him to leave the premises in order for the important work done by Gaderummet to be continued.
Sincerely
Mikkel Warming"
As Frank states in a mail to me, "open and alternative" can mean a lot of different things, depending on, where in the system you are. To Mikkel Warming (and the "experts", his opinion is influenced by) it means open for the mental health system to visitate young, homeless people for "treatment", voluntary or involuntary, and alternative for the young people to being put away in institutions like "Stevnsfortet", a secured institution for "maladjusted" young people.
Kalle Birch Madsen, the manager of Gaderummet, was sacked, yes, in favour of someone willing to turn Gaderummet into a part of the conventional mental health and educational system. He refused to leave, because the young people at Gaderummet didn't want him to leave. They know the alternative, from experience. 18-year-old Patrick, for instance, had been in and out of 21, twenty one!, different institutions, before he, two and a half years ago, found his way to Gaderummet, where he's been living since. "Everyone has a life, if only they bother to seize it", he says, Kalle taught him - instead of teaching (dictating) him how to live his life. Everyone has a life, yes, at least until the authorities come along and take it away from you.
In a video at Gaderummet's site that shows a meeting with representatives from the local authorities last fall, who came in order to take over the place, but left again without any success, since Gaderummet's residents showed no willingness for co-operation, one of these young people puts it to the point: there's a huge difference between "user-influenced" (this is which the authorities offer) and "user-run" (which is, what Gaderummet always has been, and still is today).
As for the accusation, that Kalle didn't co-operate with mental health professionals at all, this is simply not true. Residents who chose help from the mental health system, were never denied it. Though, in contrast to the mental health system, Gaderummet/Kalle does provide true information about "mental illness", psych drugs etc., and does accept if someone wants to get off their medication.
Gaderummet had an arrangement with psychiatrist Henrik Rindom, a specialist in the field of drug abuse. Henrik Rindom is a very busy man when it comes to media appearance. Too busy to handle his arrangement with Gaderummet: he didn't show up as appointed, and more often than not, he broke promises (about things like prescriptions, and arrangements for people who wanted to come off street drugs), he'd made. He also broke the last promise he made, which was to find another psychiatrist who could replace him at Gaderummet, since he agreed, that he was just too busy to handle the task himself. Instead he turned to the local authorities, blaming Gaderummet/Kalle of not wanting to co-operate.
Gaderummet has never been especially popular to the authorities (just because it practices free choice), and Henrik Rindom's statement was exactly what they'd been waiting for, in order to have an excuse to step in and wind up this project.
By the way, I find it rather meaning, that I haven't got any reply from Mayor Warming yet. I suppose, he is pretty much aware of, that I would hardly settle for a reply like the one quoted above, since I have direct access to unbiased information.
Frank Blankenship sent the following mail to Mayor Warming:
"Dear Mayor Mikkel Warming,
Young people need choice, and to take this
choice away from them is to diminish their
lives. Conventional mental health care, as
some people can tell you from first hand
experience, often produces very negative
results. Alternatives to conventional mental
health care are desperately needed wherever
they arise. Have some consideration for the
young people in your city, and keep
Gaderummet operating!
Thank you for your time and patience
Sincerely,
Frank Blankenship"
Mikkel Warming replied:
"Dear Frank Blankenship,
Thank you for you email expressing your concern about the future of”Gaderummet”.
Let me assure you that The Social Services Committee wants Gaderummet to continue as an open and alternative place for young people with social problems.
In order to ensure this, The Social Services Committee has requested that Gaderummet works together with the other public services, such as doctors and nurses in the medical and psychiatric branch. Unfortunately the former leader of Gaderummet was not willing to do this, which finally led to The Board of the Gaderummet sacking him in May 2007.
The former leader has not been willing to accept his firing, and is not willing to leave Gaderummet. This is most regrettable, since it’s stopping The Social Services Committee from continuing Gaderummet and the work that is being done there.
As a consequence of this unfortunate situation The Social Services Committee has raised the issue to the court in order to impose the former leader to leave the premises.
As soon as he leaves, we will be able to continue Gaderummet as an open and alternative place for young people offering them relevant services and treatment according to their own needs and wishes.
If you really care about the young people who need the services of Gaderummet, you should write to the former leader and ask him to leave the premises in order for the important work done by Gaderummet to be continued.
Sincerely
Mikkel Warming"
As Frank states in a mail to me, "open and alternative" can mean a lot of different things, depending on, where in the system you are. To Mikkel Warming (and the "experts", his opinion is influenced by) it means open for the mental health system to visitate young, homeless people for "treatment", voluntary or involuntary, and alternative for the young people to being put away in institutions like "Stevnsfortet", a secured institution for "maladjusted" young people.
Kalle Birch Madsen, the manager of Gaderummet, was sacked, yes, in favour of someone willing to turn Gaderummet into a part of the conventional mental health and educational system. He refused to leave, because the young people at Gaderummet didn't want him to leave. They know the alternative, from experience. 18-year-old Patrick, for instance, had been in and out of 21, twenty one!, different institutions, before he, two and a half years ago, found his way to Gaderummet, where he's been living since. "Everyone has a life, if only they bother to seize it", he says, Kalle taught him - instead of teaching (dictating) him how to live his life. Everyone has a life, yes, at least until the authorities come along and take it away from you.
In a video at Gaderummet's site that shows a meeting with representatives from the local authorities last fall, who came in order to take over the place, but left again without any success, since Gaderummet's residents showed no willingness for co-operation, one of these young people puts it to the point: there's a huge difference between "user-influenced" (this is which the authorities offer) and "user-run" (which is, what Gaderummet always has been, and still is today).
As for the accusation, that Kalle didn't co-operate with mental health professionals at all, this is simply not true. Residents who chose help from the mental health system, were never denied it. Though, in contrast to the mental health system, Gaderummet/Kalle does provide true information about "mental illness", psych drugs etc., and does accept if someone wants to get off their medication.
Gaderummet had an arrangement with psychiatrist Henrik Rindom, a specialist in the field of drug abuse. Henrik Rindom is a very busy man when it comes to media appearance. Too busy to handle his arrangement with Gaderummet: he didn't show up as appointed, and more often than not, he broke promises (about things like prescriptions, and arrangements for people who wanted to come off street drugs), he'd made. He also broke the last promise he made, which was to find another psychiatrist who could replace him at Gaderummet, since he agreed, that he was just too busy to handle the task himself. Instead he turned to the local authorities, blaming Gaderummet/Kalle of not wanting to co-operate.
Gaderummet has never been especially popular to the authorities (just because it practices free choice), and Henrik Rindom's statement was exactly what they'd been waiting for, in order to have an excuse to step in and wind up this project.
By the way, I find it rather meaning, that I haven't got any reply from Mayor Warming yet. I suppose, he is pretty much aware of, that I would hardly settle for a reply like the one quoted above, since I have direct access to unbiased information.
Saturday, 9 February 2008
Information about "mental illness"
I went to the monthly meeting I use to attend, the day before yesterday. The topic "information" came up. Someone said: "They didn't give me any real information about my illness. Nothing really useful." 'No, of course they didn't', I thought (I didn't say it aloud, though). 'What information did you expect? The only real information, they could have provided, would have been: "Well, we don't know anything about this state of mind you're in. We have theories about illnesses, about genes and brain chemistry, which we usually tell people, so we can sell them the drugs. The drug companies appreciate that, financially. So we keep on doing it, even though we don't have a clue, really. No physiological tests, scans, whatsoever. No scientific evidence. Since there's no profit in it, not for us nor for the drug companies we depend on, we don't bother to obtain the skill to talk with you about the existential dimension of your experience. And since we don't want to seem as ignorant as we actually are, we simply avoid the subject by telling you that there is no existential dimension to your experience at all." '
Listening to people, calling themselves "ill", when there's no proof of any real illness, really makes me feel depressed. But, yah, for most people buying into the illness-delusion is the only way to get the recognition and appreciation of their suffering, they so long for. Since the mental illness system is the only place, where you can get recognition and appreciation, although it's nothing but a PSEUDO-recognition and a PSEUDO-appreciation. And it's pseudo-recognition and pseudo-appreciation maybe ARE better than nothing...? Maybe I just would have to accept that? Nevertheless, it made me feel sick to listen to that. So demoralizing and disempowering. And I wonder: what if the mental illness system wasn't a mental ILLNESS system (which it is, although it officially uses the term "health" instead of "illness"), but a mental WELLNESS system, telling people that what they're going through are meaningful and solvable existential crises, not physiological chronic illnesses, would people still refer to themselves and ask others to refer to them as "ill"?
At the end of her autobiography "Auf der Spur des Morgensterns", Dorothea Buck says, that she's pretty much aware of that there are a lot of people, who experience drugs as helpful. "But", she asks, "what would have happened if they, at the very first time they reacted with a psychotic experience to an emotional shock or existential crisis, had got help to understand and integrate the experience into their life, instead of splitting it off of themselves as purely 'ill'?"
Listening to people, calling themselves "ill", when there's no proof of any real illness, really makes me feel depressed. But, yah, for most people buying into the illness-delusion is the only way to get the recognition and appreciation of their suffering, they so long for. Since the mental illness system is the only place, where you can get recognition and appreciation, although it's nothing but a PSEUDO-recognition and a PSEUDO-appreciation. And it's pseudo-recognition and pseudo-appreciation maybe ARE better than nothing...? Maybe I just would have to accept that? Nevertheless, it made me feel sick to listen to that. So demoralizing and disempowering. And I wonder: what if the mental illness system wasn't a mental ILLNESS system (which it is, although it officially uses the term "health" instead of "illness"), but a mental WELLNESS system, telling people that what they're going through are meaningful and solvable existential crises, not physiological chronic illnesses, would people still refer to themselves and ask others to refer to them as "ill"?
At the end of her autobiography "Auf der Spur des Morgensterns", Dorothea Buck says, that she's pretty much aware of that there are a lot of people, who experience drugs as helpful. "But", she asks, "what would have happened if they, at the very first time they reacted with a psychotic experience to an emotional shock or existential crisis, had got help to understand and integrate the experience into their life, instead of splitting it off of themselves as purely 'ill'?"
Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Criticism Anxiety, part II
"If you want to know something, ask an experienced, not a scholar." -Chinese
So, here we've got it, the latest issue of Outsideren. Including the summary of the ECT-debate, and thus the article "Nej, nej og aldrig!" (No, no, and never!), based on an interview with me. As promised at "Criticism Anxiety, part I", I'll comment. Both on the article, and also on psychiatrist Martin Balslev Jørgensen's reply on some of my arguments against ECT: "Kun når det virkelig gælder" (Only when really necessary).
The editor's introduction to the issue states that ECT-(psychiatry-)critics don't show enough readiness for dialogue. This simply is wrong, as the example Dresden has shown. We're more than ready for dialogue. Which we're, nevertheless, are not willing to do, is exactly which psychiatry most often and quite consequently asks us to do, that is, to deny our experiences, and the positions we hold as a result from these experiences. Dialogue presupposes our experiences and positions to be respected. Just as we are supposed to respect others' experiences and positions. Interestingly, mental health staff mostly is in complete lack of the first. Psychiatrists' positions usually are based on theoretical knowledge alone, knowledge they acquired by studying clever books, written by people with a purely theoretical knowledge, acquired by studying clever books, written by people etc. Thus, their positions' foundation is of a more or less completely theoretical kind, not based on experience. Empirical research is a city in China to psychiatry.
Dialogue presupposes listening to each other. With very few exceptions, psychiatry has always been and still is characterized by denying to listen to its clientele. Martin Balslev Jørgensen (M.B.J.) the same - and I shudder to think, that the man also acts as a therapist. "People who are against ECT, from a philosophical position for example, do not have any understanding for how miserable these people feel", he says. Dear Martin Balslev Jørgensen, I feel like commenting, most of the most inveterate critics of ECT have been exposed to this kind of torture themselves. Are you implying that these people don't know what they're talking about??
"That psychiatrists can't think of anything but administering ECT as soon as possible, isn't true", M.B.J. replies to my statement, that "psychiatrists do (...) the only they can and the only they are trained to do: WRITING PRESCRIPTIONS and zapping people's brains", as it is put in the Outsideren (my emphasis). M.B.J. here, elegantly (?), navigates round half of my argumentation. The decisive half. A look at the patients' complaints board's rulings concerning complaints about involuntary ECT, shows clearly that the only less intrusive measures tried before ECT was administered, was medication. None of the rulings mentions any kind of dialogue to have been tried. Dialogue, which, by the way, isn't only less intrusive than ECT but also much less intrusive than medication. BUT: Psychiatrist indeed aren't trained to talk with their clientele. They are trained to administer "medicine" and ECT. As mentioned in a previous post: That's that. It's not without reason that they also refer to themselves as "psychopharmacologists".
In reply to my remark that psychiatry's view of human nature is a purely naturalistic one, that it doesn't take the metaphorical dimension of the mind, the psyche, into account, M.B.J. states, he "would rather compare mental distress to diabetes than to a broken leg", as the article "Kun når det virkelig gælder" tells us. I must admit, I'd be tempted to laugh if it wasn't that sad. Once again the simplistic comparison, Outsideren chooses to print instead of the more complicated explanation, I also went into at the interview, is misunderstood (on purpose?). The question is not at all, if crises are comparable to broken legs or diabetes. The question is, if crises altogether are comparable to physical harm, illness, "regulating mechanisms which do not work" (interesting rewording of the by now slightly hackneyed phrase "imbalances in brain chemistry"!), or not.
And, dear Martin Balslev Jørgensen, if you are capable of listening at all - once again I shudder...: My own EXPERIENCE (and I'm not alone in this) is, that they definitely are not. No matter how much you would like to make people believe it, in order to be able to sell them your "treatment", your pills and your ECT. And disregarded that you try to save your honour as a therapist by the bell by saying that crises aren't "a PURE physiologic problem" (my emphasis).
That M.B.J. himself is an individual who "doesn't want to face reality", as he accuses ECT- (and psychiatry-)critics to be, statements like "...only a very few individuals complain about persistent memory loss", "It has not yet been possible to make out for sure, if memory loss is a side effect of ECT, or if it is due to the preceding depression" and: "As a psychiatrist you use which is provenly effective" prove. Again, I can only point to the Sackeim-study - which Outsideren, unfortunately, and incomprehensibly to me, chose not to refer to - as the newest of numerous studies showing persistent memory loss and persistently reduced cognitive abilities with up to 50% of the individuals who were exposed to ECT, unmistakably being caused by the "treatment". How "effective" psychiatry's "treatment" options really are, no less numerous studies show, which compare ECT to sham-ECT and "medicine" to placebo. The "effectiveness" is the same, whether it is the real McCoy or sham-ECT/placebo. Should M.B.J., the "expert" in the field he so desperately seeks to appear as - in contrast to the, according to him, oh so stupid critics - not have any knowledge of these studies?? To me, this wouldn't exactly be a sign of especially great expertise.
How "strict" the rules for involuntary ECT are, a comparison of the numbers from 2005 and 2006 shows: In 2005 90 individuals were exposed to involuntary ECT in Denmark. In 2006 this number is five times as high (!): 450 individuals were exposed to involuntary ECT. Further increase is to be expected. Inhibitions clearly dwindle, the rules become decreasingly strict. That it allegedly is impossible to do without coercion, the fact, that there are countries, like Germany and Norway, where it is against the law to administer ECT involuntarily, disproves.
It is incomprehensible to me that Outsideren chooses to link to Dansk Psykiatrisk Selskab's (The Danish Psychiatric Association) 2002-study, which is characterized by the same bias and misinformation the whole psychiatric system strongly is characterized by, but chooses to do completely without any of the links to critical and independent information, I provided several of. Admittedly: Really critical and from the pharmacological as well as the ECT-lobby independent information is only available in foreign languages, primarily in English. Information in Danish is, as far as I know, not available.
Looked at in isolation, Outsideren's article about the arguments of ECT-critics is nowhere near satisfactory, and borders to the annoying in its simplicity that invites misunderstandings, like M.B.J.'s, of my argumentation. Additionally annoying is, that M.B.J. is widely allowed to avoid the issue in his defence of ECT, that, obviously, the misunderstandings aren't corrected. Nevertheless, all in all, the whole issue of Outsideren taken into consideration, a slightly greater differentiation can be observed, which, partly, saves the honour by the bell. Partly. Still it is avoided to take a stand, and, which is worse, to let a third party, such as I am in this case, FULLY take a stand that isn't in line with mainstream psychiatry's. As far as I am concerned, I feel a strong urge to apologize to people like Leonard Roy Frank, and, in future, I will consider more carefully whom I'll give an interview.
So, here we've got it, the latest issue of Outsideren. Including the summary of the ECT-debate, and thus the article "Nej, nej og aldrig!" (No, no, and never!), based on an interview with me. As promised at "Criticism Anxiety, part I", I'll comment. Both on the article, and also on psychiatrist Martin Balslev Jørgensen's reply on some of my arguments against ECT: "Kun når det virkelig gælder" (Only when really necessary).
The editor's introduction to the issue states that ECT-(psychiatry-)critics don't show enough readiness for dialogue. This simply is wrong, as the example Dresden has shown. We're more than ready for dialogue. Which we're, nevertheless, are not willing to do, is exactly which psychiatry most often and quite consequently asks us to do, that is, to deny our experiences, and the positions we hold as a result from these experiences. Dialogue presupposes our experiences and positions to be respected. Just as we are supposed to respect others' experiences and positions. Interestingly, mental health staff mostly is in complete lack of the first. Psychiatrists' positions usually are based on theoretical knowledge alone, knowledge they acquired by studying clever books, written by people with a purely theoretical knowledge, acquired by studying clever books, written by people etc. Thus, their positions' foundation is of a more or less completely theoretical kind, not based on experience. Empirical research is a city in China to psychiatry.
Dialogue presupposes listening to each other. With very few exceptions, psychiatry has always been and still is characterized by denying to listen to its clientele. Martin Balslev Jørgensen (M.B.J.) the same - and I shudder to think, that the man also acts as a therapist. "People who are against ECT, from a philosophical position for example, do not have any understanding for how miserable these people feel", he says. Dear Martin Balslev Jørgensen, I feel like commenting, most of the most inveterate critics of ECT have been exposed to this kind of torture themselves. Are you implying that these people don't know what they're talking about??
"That psychiatrists can't think of anything but administering ECT as soon as possible, isn't true", M.B.J. replies to my statement, that "psychiatrists do (...) the only they can and the only they are trained to do: WRITING PRESCRIPTIONS and zapping people's brains", as it is put in the Outsideren (my emphasis). M.B.J. here, elegantly (?), navigates round half of my argumentation. The decisive half. A look at the patients' complaints board's rulings concerning complaints about involuntary ECT, shows clearly that the only less intrusive measures tried before ECT was administered, was medication. None of the rulings mentions any kind of dialogue to have been tried. Dialogue, which, by the way, isn't only less intrusive than ECT but also much less intrusive than medication. BUT: Psychiatrist indeed aren't trained to talk with their clientele. They are trained to administer "medicine" and ECT. As mentioned in a previous post: That's that. It's not without reason that they also refer to themselves as "psychopharmacologists".
In reply to my remark that psychiatry's view of human nature is a purely naturalistic one, that it doesn't take the metaphorical dimension of the mind, the psyche, into account, M.B.J. states, he "would rather compare mental distress to diabetes than to a broken leg", as the article "Kun når det virkelig gælder" tells us. I must admit, I'd be tempted to laugh if it wasn't that sad. Once again the simplistic comparison, Outsideren chooses to print instead of the more complicated explanation, I also went into at the interview, is misunderstood (on purpose?). The question is not at all, if crises are comparable to broken legs or diabetes. The question is, if crises altogether are comparable to physical harm, illness, "regulating mechanisms which do not work" (interesting rewording of the by now slightly hackneyed phrase "imbalances in brain chemistry"!), or not.
And, dear Martin Balslev Jørgensen, if you are capable of listening at all - once again I shudder...: My own EXPERIENCE (and I'm not alone in this) is, that they definitely are not. No matter how much you would like to make people believe it, in order to be able to sell them your "treatment", your pills and your ECT. And disregarded that you try to save your honour as a therapist by the bell by saying that crises aren't "a PURE physiologic problem" (my emphasis).
That M.B.J. himself is an individual who "doesn't want to face reality", as he accuses ECT- (and psychiatry-)critics to be, statements like "...only a very few individuals complain about persistent memory loss", "It has not yet been possible to make out for sure, if memory loss is a side effect of ECT, or if it is due to the preceding depression" and: "As a psychiatrist you use which is provenly effective" prove. Again, I can only point to the Sackeim-study - which Outsideren, unfortunately, and incomprehensibly to me, chose not to refer to - as the newest of numerous studies showing persistent memory loss and persistently reduced cognitive abilities with up to 50% of the individuals who were exposed to ECT, unmistakably being caused by the "treatment". How "effective" psychiatry's "treatment" options really are, no less numerous studies show, which compare ECT to sham-ECT and "medicine" to placebo. The "effectiveness" is the same, whether it is the real McCoy or sham-ECT/placebo. Should M.B.J., the "expert" in the field he so desperately seeks to appear as - in contrast to the, according to him, oh so stupid critics - not have any knowledge of these studies?? To me, this wouldn't exactly be a sign of especially great expertise.
How "strict" the rules for involuntary ECT are, a comparison of the numbers from 2005 and 2006 shows: In 2005 90 individuals were exposed to involuntary ECT in Denmark. In 2006 this number is five times as high (!): 450 individuals were exposed to involuntary ECT. Further increase is to be expected. Inhibitions clearly dwindle, the rules become decreasingly strict. That it allegedly is impossible to do without coercion, the fact, that there are countries, like Germany and Norway, where it is against the law to administer ECT involuntarily, disproves.
It is incomprehensible to me that Outsideren chooses to link to Dansk Psykiatrisk Selskab's (The Danish Psychiatric Association) 2002-study, which is characterized by the same bias and misinformation the whole psychiatric system strongly is characterized by, but chooses to do completely without any of the links to critical and independent information, I provided several of. Admittedly: Really critical and from the pharmacological as well as the ECT-lobby independent information is only available in foreign languages, primarily in English. Information in Danish is, as far as I know, not available.
Looked at in isolation, Outsideren's article about the arguments of ECT-critics is nowhere near satisfactory, and borders to the annoying in its simplicity that invites misunderstandings, like M.B.J.'s, of my argumentation. Additionally annoying is, that M.B.J. is widely allowed to avoid the issue in his defence of ECT, that, obviously, the misunderstandings aren't corrected. Nevertheless, all in all, the whole issue of Outsideren taken into consideration, a slightly greater differentiation can be observed, which, partly, saves the honour by the bell. Partly. Still it is avoided to take a stand, and, which is worse, to let a third party, such as I am in this case, FULLY take a stand that isn't in line with mainstream psychiatry's. As far as I am concerned, I feel a strong urge to apologize to people like Leonard Roy Frank, and, in future, I will consider more carefully whom I'll give an interview.
Sunday, 9 December 2007
But this is antediluvian!
If you think, the Sackeim-study has changed anything about psychiatry's view of ECT, think twice.
In 2006 about 3.500 people in Denmark have been exposed to ECT, 450 of them involuntarily, a piece of news reports yesterday on TV 2's site. The number thus is back to the same, as it was before "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" had made the damage ECT causes, known to a broader public in the early 1970ies, which had resulted in a 50% drop in the number of people exposed to ECT-"treatment".
Still today, and in spite of studies like Harold Sackeim's, that give a clear answer to the question whether memory loss is an ECT-caused "side" effect or not, Danish psychiatry dishes up with one downright lie about ECT after the other. Obviously, it is just as hard to stop lying as it is to quit any other bad habit. "Meanwhile, researchers are in great doubt if these subjective memory losses (loss of long term memory) is due to the ECT-treatment,..." it says in the article "ECT anno 2007" in the magazine "Midt i psykiatrien", October, 2007, that pictures ECT as a "highly specialized treatment" with "good results", and the method as "advanced". - Notice the choice of words at the first quotation: As soon as it comes to effects of ECT experienced as negative, these are termed "SUBJECTIVE". In other words: The OBJECTIVE (i.e. scientific) correctness of how an individual perceives himself, can - and has to be - questioned, since his perception is (unscientifically) SUBJECTIVE.
Researchers have never been and still aren't in doubt: "...there is a relation between clinical improvement and the production of brain damage or an altered state of brain function", the US-american psychiatrist, ECT advocate and notorious liar, when it comes to promoting ECT-"treatment", Max Fink says in 1966. And for once he speaks the truth, stating that a "cranio-cerebral trauma" is the basis for an effect of ECT.
Every neurologist, in fact every MD disregarded his speciality, knows that it is an alarm signal if an individual has seizures following to a head injury: The head injury has damaged the brain. Without brain damage no seizures, and without seizures no ECT. Figure it out yourself. As I read somewhere on the net, some time ago: When will they replace the ECT-machines with baseball bats? A lot of money to save for psychiatry, whose budget constantly gets cut down by the politicians. It also would spare the environment since ECT could be administered without electricity. Environmentally correct ECT.
The TV 2-piece of news also reports that LAP doesn't think, the side effects of ECT are sufficiently investigated. I strongly recommend to LAP a look at the Sackeim-study - or, for that sake, at one of numerous other studies which have shown evidence of irreversible memory loss and persistently reduced cognitive abilities as well as clear evidence of ECT-caused brain damage, ever since the 1930ies/1940ies, when ECT was developed. Leonard Roy Frank's "The Electroshock Quotationary" gives a good survey. More references can be found at John M. Friedberg's site.
Actually, there isn't anything "advanced" about today's ECT, compared with the "Cuckoo's Nest"-version, but the lies told about this form for torture. These, in return, have really become very advanced in the meantime.
Concerning the "effectiveness" of ECT, I recently found this little anecdote from Britain on the net:
For two years they used a defective ECT-machine at a hospital in the north of England, without anyone noticing that the machine didn't work. Both the staff and the "patients" were very satisfied with the "treatment". - Here, for once, "treatment" stands in quotation marks because there actually was no treatment at all, the ECT-machine being out of action. Not because the correct term would be "torture". - Until a new head nurse arrived at the hospital and discovered the mistake.
This anecdote confirms many studies' results, that show no advantage at all of real ECT over the sham-version. The, by the way, by psychiatry wanted and as "improvement" termed, confusion and disorientation many individuals experience following the "treatment", can easily be achieved only by using anaesthetics.
When it comes to ECT's "life saving" effect, preferably emphasized in context with so-called "delirious" states of mind, I wonder if I really would have to refer to the fact, that, among others, Laing has proven it to be absolutely unnecessary to fry people's brains. Far better results are achieved by humane approaches - unless the wanted result is an electrical lobotomy. Admittedly, THAT is problematic to achieve by humane treatment methods. At Arbours Crisis Centre's website the video "A Celebration of The Life And Work of Mary Barnes" at "Past Events" (in the side bar) shows, how such a humane approach might look like. Another, newer, example is told by Daniel Dorman in his book "Dante's Cure".
When I told a friend, that ECT, administered involuntarily, is a reality and on the agenda in today's Denmark, the reaction was: "You're kidding! But this is antediluvian!" Well, as long as both psychiatry and society keep on regarding the electrical lobotomy an adequate treatment-solution for disturbed and disturbing (!) individuals - "It's a gain both for the patient AND THE RELATIVES", Thomas Middelboe thus says to TV 2's news reporter (my emphasis) - we'll hardly get rid of this antediluvian method of torture. Not at all in Denmark, where psychiatry grossly makes use of having the language barrier on its side: To read and understand a study like Harold Sackeim's, or just to follow the discussion it has given rise to in the US, requires some solid proficiency in English. So, the lying can continue, mostly undisturbed.
In 2006 about 3.500 people in Denmark have been exposed to ECT, 450 of them involuntarily, a piece of news reports yesterday on TV 2's site. The number thus is back to the same, as it was before "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" had made the damage ECT causes, known to a broader public in the early 1970ies, which had resulted in a 50% drop in the number of people exposed to ECT-"treatment".
Still today, and in spite of studies like Harold Sackeim's, that give a clear answer to the question whether memory loss is an ECT-caused "side" effect or not, Danish psychiatry dishes up with one downright lie about ECT after the other. Obviously, it is just as hard to stop lying as it is to quit any other bad habit. "Meanwhile, researchers are in great doubt if these subjective memory losses (loss of long term memory) is due to the ECT-treatment,..." it says in the article "ECT anno 2007" in the magazine "Midt i psykiatrien", October, 2007, that pictures ECT as a "highly specialized treatment" with "good results", and the method as "advanced". - Notice the choice of words at the first quotation: As soon as it comes to effects of ECT experienced as negative, these are termed "SUBJECTIVE". In other words: The OBJECTIVE (i.e. scientific) correctness of how an individual perceives himself, can - and has to be - questioned, since his perception is (unscientifically) SUBJECTIVE.
Researchers have never been and still aren't in doubt: "...there is a relation between clinical improvement and the production of brain damage or an altered state of brain function", the US-american psychiatrist, ECT advocate and notorious liar, when it comes to promoting ECT-"treatment", Max Fink says in 1966. And for once he speaks the truth, stating that a "cranio-cerebral trauma" is the basis for an effect of ECT.
Every neurologist, in fact every MD disregarded his speciality, knows that it is an alarm signal if an individual has seizures following to a head injury: The head injury has damaged the brain. Without brain damage no seizures, and without seizures no ECT. Figure it out yourself. As I read somewhere on the net, some time ago: When will they replace the ECT-machines with baseball bats? A lot of money to save for psychiatry, whose budget constantly gets cut down by the politicians. It also would spare the environment since ECT could be administered without electricity. Environmentally correct ECT.
The TV 2-piece of news also reports that LAP doesn't think, the side effects of ECT are sufficiently investigated. I strongly recommend to LAP a look at the Sackeim-study - or, for that sake, at one of numerous other studies which have shown evidence of irreversible memory loss and persistently reduced cognitive abilities as well as clear evidence of ECT-caused brain damage, ever since the 1930ies/1940ies, when ECT was developed. Leonard Roy Frank's "The Electroshock Quotationary" gives a good survey. More references can be found at John M. Friedberg's site.
Actually, there isn't anything "advanced" about today's ECT, compared with the "Cuckoo's Nest"-version, but the lies told about this form for torture. These, in return, have really become very advanced in the meantime.
Concerning the "effectiveness" of ECT, I recently found this little anecdote from Britain on the net:
For two years they used a defective ECT-machine at a hospital in the north of England, without anyone noticing that the machine didn't work. Both the staff and the "patients" were very satisfied with the "treatment". - Here, for once, "treatment" stands in quotation marks because there actually was no treatment at all, the ECT-machine being out of action. Not because the correct term would be "torture". - Until a new head nurse arrived at the hospital and discovered the mistake.
This anecdote confirms many studies' results, that show no advantage at all of real ECT over the sham-version. The, by the way, by psychiatry wanted and as "improvement" termed, confusion and disorientation many individuals experience following the "treatment", can easily be achieved only by using anaesthetics.
When it comes to ECT's "life saving" effect, preferably emphasized in context with so-called "delirious" states of mind, I wonder if I really would have to refer to the fact, that, among others, Laing has proven it to be absolutely unnecessary to fry people's brains. Far better results are achieved by humane approaches - unless the wanted result is an electrical lobotomy. Admittedly, THAT is problematic to achieve by humane treatment methods. At Arbours Crisis Centre's website the video "A Celebration of The Life And Work of Mary Barnes" at "Past Events" (in the side bar) shows, how such a humane approach might look like. Another, newer, example is told by Daniel Dorman in his book "Dante's Cure".
When I told a friend, that ECT, administered involuntarily, is a reality and on the agenda in today's Denmark, the reaction was: "You're kidding! But this is antediluvian!" Well, as long as both psychiatry and society keep on regarding the electrical lobotomy an adequate treatment-solution for disturbed and disturbing (!) individuals - "It's a gain both for the patient AND THE RELATIVES", Thomas Middelboe thus says to TV 2's news reporter (my emphasis) - we'll hardly get rid of this antediluvian method of torture. Not at all in Denmark, where psychiatry grossly makes use of having the language barrier on its side: To read and understand a study like Harold Sackeim's, or just to follow the discussion it has given rise to in the US, requires some solid proficiency in English. So, the lying can continue, mostly undisturbed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
