![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 31. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
Does Mental Illness Exist?
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.All diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry, especially biological psychiatry, presupposes the existence of something called mental illness, also known as mental disease or mental disorder. What is meant by disease, illness, or disorder? In a semantic sense disease means simply dis-ease, the opposite of ease. But by disease we don't mean anything that causes a lack of ease, since this definition would mean losing one's job or a war or economic recession or an argument with one's spouse qualifies as "disease". In his book Is Alcoholism Hereditary? psychiatrist Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., discusses the definition of disease and concludes "Diseases are something people see doctors for. ... Physicians are consulted about the problem of alcoholism and therefore alcoholism becomes, by this definition, a disease" (Ballantine Books, 1988, p. 61). Accepting this definition, if for some reason people consulted physicians about how to get the economy out of recession or how to solve a disagreement with one's mate or a bordering nation, these problems would also qualify as disease. But clearly this is not what is meant by "disease". In his discussion of the definition of disease, Dr. Goodwin acknowledges there is "a narrow definition of disease that requires the presence of a biological abnormality" (ibid). In this pamphlet I will show that there are no biological abnormalities responsible for so-called mental illness, mental disease, or mental disorder, and that therefore mental illness has no biological existence. Perhaps more importantly, however, I will show that mental illness also has no non-biological existence - except in the sense that the term is used to indicate disapproval of some aspect of a person's mentality.
The idea of mental illness as a biological entity is easy to refute. In 1988, Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, said "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148). In 1992 a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47). In his book The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, Columbia University psychiatry professor Jack M. Gorman, M.D., said "We really do not know what causes any psychiatric illness" (St. Martin's Press, 1990, p. 316). In his book The New Psychiatry another Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., said "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them" (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., said "there is no evidence that any of the common psychological or psychiatric disorders have a genetic or biological component" (St. Martin's Press, 1991, p. 291).
It is sometimes argued that psychiatric drugs "curing" (stopping) the thinking, emotions, or behavior that is called mental illness proves the existence of biological causes of mental illness. This argument is easily refuted: Suppose someone was playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you forced or persuaded him to take a drug that disabled him so severely that he couldn't play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they do stop disliked behavior and may mentally disable a person enough he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or "depressed". But calling this a "cure" is absurd. Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.
When confronted with the lack of evidence for their belief in mental illness as a biological entity, some defenders of the concept of mental illness will assert that mental illness can exist and can be defined as a "disease" without there being a biological abnormality causing it. The idea of mental illness as a nonbiological entity requires a more lengthy refutation than the biological argument.
People are thought of as mentally ill only when their thinking, emotions, or behavior is contrary to what is considered acceptable, that is, when others (or the so-called patients themselves) dislike something about them. One way to show the absurdity of calling something an illness not because it is caused by a biological abnormality but only because we dislike it or disapprove of it is to look at how values differ from one culture to another and how values change over time.
In his book The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., a psychologist, wrote: "One of the prime tasks of the science of psychology is to provide definitions of mental health and mental illness. ...But there is no general agreement among psychologists and psychiatrists about the nature of mental health or mental illness - no generally accepted definitions, no basic standard by which to gauge one psychological state or other. Many writers declare that no objective definitions and standards can be established - that a basic, universally applicable concept of mental health is impossible. They assert that, since behavior which is regarded as healthy or normal in one culture may be regarded as neurotic or aberrated in another, all criteria are a matter of `cultural bias.' The theorists who maintain this position usually insist that the closest one can come to a definition of mental health is: conformity to cultural norms. Thus, they declare that a man is psychologically healthy to the extent that he is `well-adjusted' to his culture. ... The obvious questions that such a definition raises, are: What if the values and norms of a given society are irrational? Can mental health consist of being well-adjusted to the irrational? What about Nazi Germany, for instance? Is a cheerful servant of the Nazi state - who feels serenely and happily at home in his social environment - an exponent of mental health? "(Bantam Books, 1969, pp. 95-96, emphasis in original). Dr. Branden is doing several things here: First, he is confusing morality and rationality, saying that respect for human rights is rational when in fact it is not a question of rationality but rather of morality. So psychologically and emotionally locked into and blinded by his values is he that Dr. Branden is evidently incapable of seeing the difference. Additionally, Dr. Branden is stating some of his values. Among these values are: Respect for human rights is good; violation of human rights (like Naziism) is bad. And he is saying: Violating these values is "irrationality" or mental illness. Although their practitioners won't admit it and often are not even aware of it, psychiatry and "clinical" psychology in their very essence are about values - values concealed under a veneer of language that makes it sound like they are not furthering values but promoting "health". The answer to the question Dr. Branden poses is: A person living in Nazi Germany and well-adjusted to it was "mentally healthy" judged by the values of his own society. Judged by the values of a society which respects human rights he was as sick (metaphorically speaking) as the rest of his culture. A person like myself however says that such a person is morally "sick" and recognizes that the word sick has not its literal but a metaphorical meaning. To a person like Dr. Branden who believes in the myth of mental illness, such a person is literally sick and needs a doctor. The difference is that a person like myself is recognizing my values for what they are: morality. Typically, the believer in mental illness, such as Dr. Branden in this quoted passage, has the same values as I do but is confusing them with health.
One of the most telling examples is homosexuality, which was officially defined as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 but hasn't been since then. Homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder on page 44 of the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference book, DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the 2nd Edition), published in 1968. In that book, "Homosexuality" is categorized as one of the "Sexual deviations" on page 44. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from it's official diagnostic categories of mental illness. (See "An Instant Cure", Time magazine, April 1, 1974, p. 45). So when the third edition of this book was published in 1980 it said "homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder" (p. 282). The 1987 edition of The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy states: "The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a psychiatric disease" (p. 1495). If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease. But mental illness isn't "an illness like any other illness." Unlike physical disease where there are physical facts to deal with, mental "illness" is entirely a question of values, of right and wrong, of appropriate versus inappropriate. At one time homosexuality seemed so weird and hard to understand it was necessary to invoke the concept of mental disease or mental illness to explain it. After homosexuals made a big enough spectacle of themselves and showed their "strength in numbers" and successfully demanded at least a small measure of social acceptance, it was no longer necessary and no longer seemed appropriate to explain homosexuality as a disease.
A cross-cultural example is suicide. In many countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, a person who commits suicide or attempts to do so or even thinks about it seriously is considered mentally ill. However, this has not always been true throughout human history, nor is it true today in all cultures around the world. In his book Why Suicide?, psychologist Eustace Chesser points out that "Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have any intrinsic objections to suicide and in some forms of Buddhism self-incineration is believed to confer special merit." He also points out that "The Celts scorned to wait for old age and enfeeblement. They believed that those who committed suicide before their powers waned went to heaven, and those who died of sickness or became senile went to hell - an interesting reversal of Christian doctrine" (Arrow Books Ltd., London, England, 1968, p. 121-122). In his book Fighting Depression, psychiatrist Harvey M. Ross, M.D., points out that "Some cultures expect the wife to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre" (Larchmont Books, 1975, p. 20). Probably the best known example of a society where suicide is socially acceptable is Japan. Rather than thinking of suicide or "hara-kiri" as the Japanese call it as almost always caused by a mental disease or illness, the Japanese in some circumstances consider suicide the normal, socially acceptable thing to do, such as when one "loses face" or is humiliated by some sort of failure. Another example showing suicide is considered normal, not crazy, in Japanese eyes is the kamikaze pilots Japan used against the U.S. Navy in World War II. They were given enough fuel for a one-way trip, a suicide mission, to where the attacking U.S. Navy forces were located and deliberately crashed their airplanes into the enemy ships. There has never been an American kamikaze pilot, at least, none officially sponsored by the United States government. The reason for this is different attitudes about suicide in Japan and America. Could suicide be committed only by people with psychiatric illnesses in America and yet be performed by normal persons in Japan? Or is acceptance of suicide in Japan a failure or refusal to recognize the presence of psychological abnormalities which necessarily must be present for a person to voluntarily end his or her own life? Were the kamikaze pilots mentally ill, or did they and the society they come from simply have different values than we do? Even in America, aren't virtually suicidal acts done for the sake of one's fellow soldiers or for one's country during wartime thought of not as insanity but as bravery? Why do we think of such persons as heros rather than lunatics? It seems we condemn (or "diagnose") suicidal people as crazy or mentally ill only when they end their own lives for selfish reasons (the "I can't take it any more" kind of reasons) rather than for the benefit of other people. The real issue seems to be selfishness rather than suicide.
What these examples show is that "mental illness" is simply deviance from what people want or expect in any particular society. "Mental illness" is anything in human mentality greatly disliked by the person describing it.
The situation was aptly summed up in an article in the November 1986 Omni magazine: "Disorders come and go. Even Sigmund Freud's concept of neurosis was dropped in the original DSM-III (1980). And in 1973 APA [American Psychiatric Association] trustees voted to wipe out almost all references to homosexuality as a disorder. Before the vote, being gay was considered a psychiatric problem. After the vote the disorder was relegated to psychiatry's attic. `It's a matter of fashion,' says Dr. John Spiegel of Brandeis University, who was president of the APA in 1973, when the debate over homosexuality flared. `And fashions keep changing'" (p. 30).
What is wrong with this approach is describing people as having a psychiatric "disease" or "illness" only because he or she doesn't match up with a supposed diagnostician's or with other people's idea of how a person "should" be in standards of dress, behavior, thinking, or opinion. When it involves violating the rights of others, nonconformity with social norms or values must be curbed or stopped with various measures, criminal law being one example. But calling nonconformity or disliked behavior a "disease" or assuming it must be caused by a disease only because it is unacceptable according to currently prevailing values makes no sense. What causes us to do this is not knowing the real reasons for the thinking, emotions, or behavior we dislike. When we don't understand the real reasons, we create myths to provide an explanation. In prior centuries people used myths of evil spirit or demon possession to explain unacceptable thinking or behavior. Today most of us instead believe in the myth of mental illness. Believing in mythological entities such as evil spirits or mental illnesses gives an illusion of understanding, and believing a myth is more comfortable than acknowledging ignorance.
Calling disapproved thinking, emotions, or behavior a mental illness might be excusable if mental illness was a useful myth, but it isn't. Rather than helping us deal with troubled or troublesome persons, the myth of mental illness distracts us from the real problems that need to be faced. Rather than being caused by a "chemical imbalance" or other biological problem, the nonconformity, misbehavior, and emotional reactions we call mental illness are the result of difficulties people have getting their needs met and the behavior some people have learned during their lifetimes. The solutions are teaching people how to get their needs met, how to behave, and using whatever powers of enforcement are needed to force people to respect the rights of others. These are the tasks of education and law enforcement, not medicine or therapy.THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients".
1996 UPDATE:
"... modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness." David Kaiser, M.D., "Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry," December 1996 (found elsewhere on this web site).
1997 UPDATE:
"We really do not know what causes any psychiatric illness." Jack M. Gorman, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, in his book The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs - Third Edition (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1997), p. 314. The same statement in the 1990 edition was quoted above in Mr. Stevens' article, "Does Mental Illness Exist?"
1998 UPDATES:
"Contrary to what is often claimed, no biochemical, anatomical, or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients." Elliot S. Valenstien, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Michigan, in his book Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 125."...there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder." From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association.
1999 UPDATES:
"... all 5 million to 6 million children on these drugs [for hyperactivity] are normal. The country's been led to believe that all painful emotions are a mental illness and the leadership of the APA [American Psychiatric Association] knows very well that they are representing it as a disease when there is no scientific data to confirm any mental illness." Neurologist Fred Baughman, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13 (underline added)."...there is no evidence that these mental illnesses, such as ADHD, exist." Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13. ADHD is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
2000 UPDATES:
"In medicine, strict criteria exist for calling a condition a disease. In addition to a predictable cluster of symptoms, the cause of the symptoms or some understanding of their physiology must be established. ... Psychiatry is unique among medical specialties in that... We do not yet have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis. ... In recent decades, we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent though these attempts have been, not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false. ... No claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation." Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in his book Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), pages 192-193, page 196, and page 198."There is no evidence that any psychiatric or psychologial disorder is caused by a biochemical imbalance." Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in his book Reclaiming Our Children (Persues Books, Cambridge, Mass., 2000), page 139.
"First, no biological etiology has been proven for any psychiatric disorder (except Alzheimer's disease, which has a genetic component) in spite of decades of research. ... So don't accept the myth that we can make an 'accurate diagnosis.' ... Neither should you believe that your problems are due solely to a 'chemical imbalance.'" Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), pages 15-16. Dr. Drummond graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine and was trained in psychiatry at Harvard University.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Buffet on October 30, 2000, at 0:00:00
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
In my opinion, humans have a tendency to place everything in a box and stick a label to it. In regards to 'mental illness', everything from mildly depressed to schizophrenic to pedophilia gets placed in the same box. Insurance companies (at least the ones I've dealt with) use this label to their advantage. Once you get prescribed prozac, you are permentally marked with the scarlet letter- mentally ill. Then, if you ever change insurance companies all the benefits go in the toilet. Once you take an antidepressant, everything else such as anxiety, add, etc. seems to get lumped into one class, and if youre ever diagnosed as having one of these after the bout with depression, often the coverage gets denied.
I've never liked the term mental illness. I don't see myself as ill. Also, the term has such a horrible connotation to it.
Interesting article!
Buffet
Posted by dj on October 30, 2000, at 3:23:08
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by Buffet on October 30, 2000, at 0:00:00
> I've never liked the term mental illness. I don't see myself as ill. Also, the term has such >a horrible connotation to it.
True! However there is more and more evidence of the negative impact of depression on one's mind (not to mention one's soul) and memory, which makes the argument for some sort of effective intervention more powerful and compelling.
For instance:
http://www.tdwsyn.com/articles/behavior/depressn_5/#1
http://www-east.elsevier.com/bps/abstracts/994895abs.htmhttp://www-east.elsevier.com/bps/abstracts/5133abs.htm
http://www-east.elsevier.com/bps/abstracts/5250abs.htm
http://www-east.elsevier.com/bps/abstracts/994898abs.htm
http://www-east.elsevier.com/bps/abstracts/5146abs.htm
http://www-east.elsevier.com/bps/abstracts/994899abs.htm
Sante!
dj
Posted by Miguy on October 30, 2000, at 19:38:03
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
This guy must not have an overabudance of clients if he has the time to blather nonsensically for that long. How many of you, when ill (whether a "real" illness or not) visit an attorney for answers? Does this man go to the doctor for legal advice? I'm not saying he can't comment on the subject, but he ought to at least take a serious look at the consensus of the medical community at large. How arrogant to take a stand against something out of your field, having no evidence, when the vast majority of those *in* the field disagree!
Sure he quoted some doctors. Big deal! They agreed with him! One who is truly logical, wise and honest will present all opposing views and refute them individually. He will accomplish this with *evidence*.
It's true, there's a whole lot we don't know about the mind. We don't know a lot about the drugs that we use to treat it either, except that they seem to work. The search to determine how will bring greater understanding of the processes that bring the conditions in the first place, and perhaps aid us in their prevention.
I think I understand where he is coming from. I too have been frustrated with the "mental illness" or "temporary insanity" defense. We could argue ad nauseum about whether these are valid, but the fact is that a crime was committed. I want the criminal off the streets regardless of the specific mental processes involved.
It's true that mental illness is often initiated and perpetuated by life events. But the illness that ensues is very real. Since many heart attacks are instigated by severe stress, does that mean that heart disease is a man's denial of his stress problem? No. Then why is it when a life event such as divorce initiates panic attacks it is "all in my head"?
I think this guy wanted to write a paper, but didn't really want to take the time to understand the topic and give it a fair shake.
There. That's off my chest.
< < Stepping down off my soapbox...... > >
Scott
Posted by KenB on October 30, 2000, at 20:33:43
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
From the Lawrence Stevens, JD citation:
“[Goodwin suggests] a narrow definition of disease that requires the *presence* of a biological abnormality" (ibid). In this pamphlet I will show that there are no biological abnormalities *responsible* for so-called mental illness, mental disease, or mental disorder, and that therefore mental illness has no biological existence”
Stevens does not address the proposed definition. The narrow definition, based on “presence of a biological abnormality” does not require a “biological abnormality responsible.”
Commentators often attempt to discredit studies that show correlations between biological indicators and mental problems in an effort to counter aggressive marketing of psychopharmaceuticals and related diagnoses. To casually dismiss evidence of biological patterns that correlate with mental difficulty serves to complicate the identification of biological indicators of social and cultural problems that likely contribute to mental difficulties.
Posted by dj on October 30, 2000, at 23:01:34
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by KenB on October 30, 2000, at 20:33:43
The University of Michigan
News and Information Services
News Release 412 Maynard
Ann Arbor, Michigan
48109-1399July 27, 2000 (35)
Nursing study: depression inhibits memory, concentrationANN ARBOR---New research by a team of researchers from the University of Michigan School of Nursing confirms what health-care professionals suspected about depression: it inhibits short-term memory and directed attention, or concentration.
Up until now, researchers who study depression, and therapists and physicians who treat people with depression, did not have a sensitive measure to assess the subtle changes in memory or attention in the early stages of depression in patients. Yet patients regularly complain of having memory problems and having difficulty concentrating. U-M researchers were interested in learning more about memory and attention impairments in depressed patients. When do the symptoms strike? What are the early signs?
"Prior to this study, my colleague Bonnie Hagerty and I conducted a study that examined the early signs of depression. We were struck by the number of people who said that one of their earliest symptoms was lack of concentration. One of the clients said that she knew she was getting into trouble with another episode of depression when she began to make a lot of errors in her checkbook," said Reg. A. Williams, a U-M associate professor of nursing who is senior author of the study that appears in the May issue of the Journal of Psychiatric Research. The study is co-authored by Hagerty, a U-M associate professor of nursing who specializes in depression.
The research is based on a series of computer-based and written tests. The tests measured directed attention---which is the ability to focus on the task at hand---and short-term memory, the ability to recall an event that happened within two minutes.
The researchers studied 52 people over a 10-week period. There were 25 people in the group diagnosed with depression and 27 in a comparison group of people without depression. They took five written tests and six computerized tests that were given three times over the course of the study.
Of the 25 in the depressed group, 12 were receiving drug therapy and counseling, while 13 managed their symptoms by relying on self-administered stress reduction techniques, such as yoga or an herbal remedy.
Some of the test results clearly showed memory and attention impairments.
In a computer-based test that measured ability to balance a checkbook, 67 percent of the depression group made errors at the start of the study compared with 48 percent in the comparison group. By the end of the study, both groups made the same number of errors, which, Williams said, clearly indicated progress.
All test scores for those in the depression group improved over time, which Williams attributes to the lifting of depression under drug therapy and counseling. However, he also noted that depressed clients worked harder to compensate for memory and attention impairments. Their desire to succeed---even under the cloud of depression---didn't affect their desire to perform well.
In scientific terms, having difficulty with short-term memory and concentration are often considered prodromal signs of depression, or early signs of depression. The symptoms can suddenly creep up on people, most of whom don't recognize them as precursors of depression.
"Our findings reinforce the fact that depression is an illness and not a character flaw or a weakness. It affects your ability to think. When you suffer from depression, people think it just affects your mood. Our study clearly shows it does more than that: It affects your cognitive ability," said Williams.
The study was funded by the U-M's Center for Enhancement and Restoration of Cognitive Function and the U-M School of Nursing.
Other co-authors include:
Bernadine Cimprich, Ph.D., R.N., associate professor of nursing who specializes in directed attention.
Barbara Therrien, Ph.D., R.N., associate professor of nursing specializing in neuroscience.
Research assistants Esther Bay, M.S.N., R.N., and Hiroaki Oe, M.S.
Posted by KenB on October 31, 2000, at 0:24:19
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? - Yes, encore!, posted by dj on October 30, 2000, at 23:01:34
Stevens’ practice has apparently not focused on countering insanity pleas, but rather has occasionally included representation of clients at committal hearings. Stevens’ pamphlets seem to be written, in part, for trial attorneys defending people at committal hearings. The mission of attorneys is to zealously defend their clients. To restrict arguments in court to only that of the majority of any industry would not serve justice.
Many lawyers lack experience in the defense of clients at committal hearings, or at hearings to require forcible outpatient medication. Unprepared trial attorneys feed appellate courts. Cases that rise to the appellate level, after being bungled by inexperienced and uninformed lawyers, cost taxpayers money.
That Stevens takes time to produce and distribute uncopyrighted pamphlets reflects a commitment to civic service, and suggests that he enjoys some financial security. The pamphlets are available not only to defense attorneys, but also to states’ attorneys who wish to better prepare themselves for arguments they might encounter at a committal hearing. The availability of prepared arguments for use by attorneys in trial courts tends to resolve cases that would otherwise move on to appeals courts. Savvy argument at trial can offer appellate jurists an opportunity to address new controversies, rather than require them to rehash and correct persistent trial errors.
The downside of an adversarial legal system is that parties are encouraged to polarize their arguments, to the point of excluding the kind of information that otherwise can advance understanding of some matters.
Stevens’ pamphlets, and a list of attorneys who represent clients in psychiatric cases are posted at the Anti-Psychiatry Coalition's on-line reading room. http://www.anti-psychiatry.org. Stevens’ contact information and a license number that would identify his practice are not included at that site.
Further, concerning the University of Michigan nurses’ study, in reference to which Reg. A. Williams, a U-M associate professor of nursing said:
> > “Our findings reinforce the fact that depression is an illness and not a character flaw or a weakness.”
Weaknesses of short term memory or of attention cited in the study are weaknesses. The inability to think clearly would seem to undermine “character.”
William’s well-intended comment seems directed at those who would morally stigmatize sufferers of mental distress. The risk of separating “illness” from “character” in studies of the mind is that to do so suggests character flaws exist that are not illnesses. The argument says either there are no character flaws, or that there are character flaws that are not illnesses. That argument, in a legal forum, encourages individual responsibility, but in a social forum, tends to reduce pathological character traits to an individual moral trait. The stance tends to overlook systematic stressors that seem to consistently correlate with a high population of sociopathic character traits in many, especially urban, neighborhoods. The presumption of character flaws that are not illnesses might delay discovery of ways to prevent mental illness.
Posted by coral on October 31, 2000, at 4:11:30
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
One point Stevens seems to be arguing is that mental disorders don't exist since there is not a corroborating biological cause. That's true for a good many illnesses. Examples include Lupus, MD, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, some cancers. We know WHAT happens, but not why. We know that some treatments work with some patients, other treatments work with other patients, some patients don't respond to any treatments and some patients spontaneously go into remission. Extrapolating, it seems that only diseases with bacterial, viral or external trauma as known could be classified as diseases.
Posted by pullmarine on October 31, 2000, at 22:59:48
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by Miguy on October 30, 2000, at 19:38:03
1. This guy must not have an overabudance of clients if he has the time to blather nonsensically for that long.
>REbuttal: a personal attack that has no impact on the validity of his arguments.
2. How many of you, when ill (whether a "real" illness or not) visit an attorney for answers?
We are not discussing whether psychiatrists can or do help people, but the validity of psychiatriac labels, and whether these labels are founded on fact, and If yes, is it beneficial to label people. Also, what are in the hands of psych's today were in the hands of clergy in days of yore, and they were the one's who guided and helped those who were going through existential or spiritual crises (i try hard to avoid using the word illness, since it is my belief that people go through cycles, just like the seasons and the economy). Unfortunatly, there are no double blind studies to evaluate who does a better job.
3. Does this man go to the doctor for legal advice?
Depends. An attorny may very well discuss the validity of the foundations of legal systems and their subsequent laws and consequences with anthropologists, sociologists, economists, socialists, laymen and many other groups.
4. Furthermore. I'm not saying he can't comment on the subject, but he ought to at least take a serious look at the consensus of the medical community at large. How arrogant to take a stand against something out of your field, having no evidence, when the vast majority of those *in* the field disagree!
Are you suggesting we make conclusions about our world via conscensus? Is that not somewhat medieval?
>
Furthermore, people are often not very critical of their own field of study. For instance, the people who brought an end segragation laws were not lawyers, law-makers or politicians, but laymen who did not need very much education to see the inconsistencies. Often people who are in their own field develop what is called 'myopia'. Hence, criticism from someone who is less familiar with the topic is oftem very enlightening.5. Sure he quoted some doctors. Big deal! They agreed with him!
>even if he had not quoted doctors, his arguments and doubts would still be valid, and fertile ground debate.
5.5 One who is truly logical, wise and honest will present all opposing views and refute them individually.
I have never seen this done, be it in science, politics, or marital arguments. Which leads me to conclude that no one is wise or honest.
6. It's true, there's a whole lot we don't know about the mind. We don't know a lot about the drugs that we use to treat it either, except that they seem to work. The search to determine how will bring greater understanding of the processes that bring the conditions in the first place, and perhaps aid us in their prevention.
>
Do they? there are quite a few flaws in the studies. At anyrate, the issue is not, are there persons with different temperaments and people who are in pain, but do the labels really have any significance, are they based on real facts or based on conscensus, and ultimately, is such labelling beneficial to patients? The feeling among many mental health care workers is that these labels cause a great deal more harm than good, both to the patients, and to the therapy, and this for quite a few reasons (doctors are less likely to listen to a patient's history, patients cling to labels and define their lives within that constraint, thereby reducing recovery.)7. I think I understand where he is coming from. I too have been frustrated with the "mental illness" or "temporary insanity" defense.
That is not the issue. Nowhere in his writing does he mention this.
8. We could argue ad nauseum about whether these are valid, but the fact is that a crime was committed. I want the criminal off the streets regardless of the specific mental processes involved.
>
Me too, depending on whether I hold that law to be just, the crime committed, whether there were extenuating circumstances, and the social and cultural norms in which the 'crime was committed.9. It's true that mental illness is often initiated and perpetuated by life events. But the illness that ensues is very real.
This argument is tautological and still does not answer the question we are debating, which is: does mental illness exist.
10. Since many heart attacks are instigated by severe stress, does that mean that heart disease is a man's denial of his stress problem?
Heart attacts, per se, are not considered to be an illnes. No more than high colesterol or obesity are illnesses. Do high collesterol and obesity impact one's health and well being? probably, but that does not make it an illness.
Then why is it when a life event such as divorce initiates panic attacks it is "all in my head"?
That's exactly what we're debating. My point is that these reactions are normal, though painfull (like a bruised arm), and that although they are not (in my opinion) illnesses, there are pills that can reduce the pain.
>
10. I think this guy wanted to write a paper, but didn't really want to take the time to understand the topic and give it a fair shake.I found him quite enlightning, helpful, and particularly knowledgeable.
(on a side note, I would like to add that I've met many many people in my life, and so far I have not met a single person that considered sane, but I have also never met anyone who I considered to be mentally ill.
john
Posted by Miguy on November 1, 2000, at 12:09:52
In reply to rebuttal to » Miguy, posted by pullmarine on October 31, 2000, at 22:59:48
Wow. I hesitate to even respond, because it seems logic doesn't work with you.
All I will say is that it's real easy to judge those who are different. It comes easy to many people to say that these conditions do not exist when they have not experienced them.
Re: illness. Ok, you pick a word. Malady. Affliction. Inconvenience. I don't care. But whatever a heart attack is, so is a panic attack. Whatever high blood pressure is, so is depression. You're right - they are symptoms. Partially due to environmental factors and partially due to biological factors. But they are very much real. If you choose not to believe this, fine. Debate with other 'healthy' people. But please don't express your views to people who need help.
Why is it so easy to forgive a nearsighted person for wearing glasses, or an arthritic for taking NSAIDS? These people are not accused of not dealing with their issue. Or what about a diabetic who takes insulin to make up for an inherent decifiency as contrasted with someone taking a medication to make up for a deficiency of serotonin, dopamine or norepinephrine?
These drugs are not 'uppers'. If a normal healthy person takes them they will not become giddy. It will likely have no effect (except for usual side-effects).
I used to think along the same lines you do. I used to think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get over it. But that's just not reality. If our brain is so complicated that we barely understand it, then why is it so difficult to believe that it may become ill? I agree that many "mental illnesses" (use whatever word you prefer here) are used as crutches by people who could benefit by counseling, responsibility and by simply "growing up". I'm not talking about these cases. I'm talking about people who literally cannot get out of bed, or who find going to the market unimaginable because of their anxiety. I'm not pushing drugs, I'm pushing acceptance. Acceptance of the fact that their are hurting people who need help. It may require counseling, medication, therapy, .... who knows? (Probably not an attorney, though.)
Posted by pullmarine on November 1, 2000, at 14:39:57
In reply to Re: Back at ya, posted by Miguy on November 1, 2000, at 12:09:52
> All I will say is that it's real easy to judge those who are different. It comes easy to many people to say that these conditions do not exist when they have not experienced them.
>
The question is one of epistemilogy!!! Nowhere did I say that there is no pain, and nowhere did I say that people should not take medication to alleviate their pain.> Re: illness. Ok, you pick a word. Malady. Affliction. Inconvenience. I don't care. But whatever a heart attack is, so is a panic attack. Whatever high blood pressure is, so is depression. You're right - they are symptoms. Partially due to environmental factors and partially due to biological factors. But they are very much real. If you choose not to believe this, fine. Debate with other 'healthy' people. But please don't express your views to people who need help.
>I never said pain (mental, physical, or emotional)was not real. The question is, is pain an illness. Is a badly bruised arm or a broken bone an illness. I never said, 'don't get help for your emotional problems', a broken bone, though not an illness, does require tending.
> Why is it so easy to forgive a nearsighted person for wearing glasses, or an arthritic for taking NSAIDS? These people are not accused of not dealing with their issue. Or what about a diabetic who takes insulin to make up for an inherent decifiency as contrasted with someone taking a medication to make up for a deficiency of serotonin, dopamine or norepinephrine?
>
I do not judge, I take medications myself! However, I do question the labels, and the foundations on which they are based. It's a question of epistemology and liberal enquiry.
> These drugs are not 'uppers'. If a normal healthy person takes them they will not become giddy. It will likely have no effect (except for usual side-effects).
>I never said they were uppers. I never said they didn't help. I never said don't take pills. I merely raise questions about the validity of labels and the belief that normal cycles constitute an illness.
> I used to think along the same lines you do.Your writing indicates the contrary.
> I used to think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get over it.
Contrary to you, I have never taken this position!
>If our brain is so complicated that we barely understand it, then why is it so difficult to believe that it may become ill?
I do not question certain illness (alzeimers, parkinsons, terciary syphillis)
>I agree that many "mental illnesses" (use whatever word you prefer here) are used as crutches by people who could benefit by counseling, responsibility and by simply "growing up".
> The words I would choose would be 'existential crises, emotional hardship, etc.
> I don't believe people use their difficulties as excuses, I think they are very real and need to be addressed.
I'm talking about people who literally cannot get out of bed, or who find going to the market unimaginable because of their anxiety. I'm not pushing drugs, I'm pushing acceptance. Acceptance of the fact that their are hurting people who need help. It may require counseling, medication, therapy, .... who knows? (Probably not an attorney, though.)
> I fully agree with this point, but this point still does not answer the question posed!
John
Posted by SLS on November 3, 2000, at 0:15:18
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? more Feedbak pleez » pullmarine, posted by pullmarine on November 2, 2000, at 22:01:44
I know this proves nothing, but I thought it might be interesting to see what the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has to say about the nature of depressive disorders as the result of decades of scientific investigation.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depresfact.cfm
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolarresfact.cfm
- Scott
Posted by Miguy on November 3, 2000, at 11:39:40
In reply to Re: Back at ya » Miguy, posted by pullmarine on November 1, 2000, at 14:39:57
Ok. So you're talking about semantics. The article seemed to me to take the position that the condition (whatever you call it) did not exist. I disagree with that.
If you want to Call it something other than an illness.... I don't know what I think about that. I agree that at times (many times?) these conditions very well could be called emotional crises or something of the sort. But when someone has a natural deficit of serotonin, norepineprhine or dopamine which requires pharmaceutical assistance, I don't see that any different from the person who has to supplement their insulin. Do you? So, if not an illness, what is it? It's certainly a medical condition due to a malfunction or shortcoming of an organ.
Like I said, it appears we may be quabbling over semantics. It sure sounded to me as if the article was speaking of more than semantics though. He seemed to be proposing that disorders of the brain do not exist.
I apologize for assuming that this was your point of view. I run into a lot of people who believe that. It's really not very rational to believe that every organ and system of the body *except the brain* may be diseased, malfunction or be out of balance.
Scott
Posted by pullmarine on November 3, 2000, at 19:54:06
In reply to Re: Back at ya, posted by Miguy on November 3, 2000, at 11:39:40
> Ok. So you're talking about semantics.
Nope, I'm taking primarily about epistemilogy!
>The article seemed to me to take the position that the condition (whatever you call it) did not exist.
>The article discusses some of the epistemological issues that underlie any science.
It does not claim that there are no variations in brain chemicals. It does not claim that these changes in levels do not affect mood or thought. It does not claim that psycho-emotional crises do not exist. It does not claim that people should not get the help or the medications they need in order to deal with their pains and troubles.
> If you want to Call it something other tha
n an illness.... I don't know what I think about that. I agree that at times (many times?) these conditions very well could be called emotional crises or something of the sort. But when someone has a natural deficit of serotonin, norepineprhine or dopamine which requires pharmaceutical assistance, I don't see that any different from the person who has to supplement their insulin. Do you?
Well, different people produce different amounts of insulin. some produce a lot, some less, and some none at all.So, if not an illness, what is it? It's certainly a medical condition due to a malfunction or shortcoming of an organ.
>
I'd call it a variation in temperament.> Like I said, it appears we may be quabbling over semantics. It sure sounded to me as if the article was speaking of more than semantics though. He seemed to be proposing that disorders of the brain do not exist.
IN some cases, neurological disorders are clearly organic and can be refered to as an illness . these imclude, but are not limitted to :tertiary syphilis, alzeimer's, parkinsons.
> I apologize for assuming that this was your point of view.
> Normally, ehen people apoligize, i reply: apologies are the foundations of future offenses, but in this case i say: thank you!
I run into a lot of people who believe that. It's really not very rational to believe that every organ and system of the body *except the brain* may be diseased, malfunction or be out of balance.
I think very few people would take this position. But I must add the the natural condition of things is not balance, but a constant strive for/towards balance.>
john
Posted by Mark H. on November 10, 2000, at 20:51:55
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
"When [mental illness] involves violating the rights of others, nonconformity with social norms or values must be curbed or stopped with various measures, criminal law being one example."
(Quote from Stevens' "Does Mental Illness Exist?")
I've enjoyed reading everyone's contributions to this thread. The above excerpt is at the crux of this issue for me.
I believe that "Does mental illness exist?" is the wrong question, because it assumes there is a sweeping yes-or-no answer with far-reaching implications in both medicine and law.
The author cites familiar examples of cultural and personal differences being pathologized by psychiatry. To his list, I would add dissidents in the former Soviet Union who were declared "mentally ill" and imprisoned for disagreeing with the Communist Party line as a gross abuse of the label.
But in the other direction, the "mental illness doesn't exist" direction, there are countless equal abuses, especially now in the United States, where for economic reasons most of our publicly supported in-patient mental health facilities have been closed, and even floridly psychotic individuals are warehoused in prisons that rival the medieval "insane asylums" in their deprivation and total lack of care for people who are incapable of caring for themselves.
I think we need to ask, "Who asks the question, and why?" (I mean this rhetorically, pullmarine; I'm glad you raised the issue.)
One group, the Scientologists, are one of the most outspoken and adamantly anti-psychiatric organizations in the United States. Since they are also notoriously litigious, I won't speculate on their reasons, except to say that they offer a very expensive alternative that would benefit greatly if psychiatry and psychopharmacology were banned. Follow the money.
Likewise, pharmaceutical companies have an enormous interest in promoting the use of their products, which necessarily includes finding the maximum number of conditions for which a medicine can be used (lucky for them if an anti-depressant helps people stop smoking and also reduces chronic pain, for instance). Again, just follow the money.
The war on drugs is a multi-billion dollar a year industry in itself. Criminalization of self-medication, especially by politically less powerful minorities, is big business by any standard. Why is law enforcement so universally reluctant to adopt a medical model of addiction and drug abuse? Again, follow the money. If forfeiture revenues make up 10% to 30% of your department budget, would you be for or against continuing to define drug use as criminal?
There is a man, a truly evil man in my opinion, who testifies in court cases all over the country, who has never met a murderer who he could not convincingly prove to a jury was "legally sane." It's just a job for him -- a very well paid job -- to misuse logic so that frightened juries can send lunatics to prison on a technicality. Even the former head of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Division believes this man has gone too far on some occasions.
Historically, the lower classes self-medicated with street drugs. The upper class expected their doctors to make them feel well, regardless of the cause. For those of us who are middle-aged, we can well remember that not that long ago the vast middle class was expected to "suck it up" and go to work, well or ill, and to go through life mostly untreated for mental and emotional ailments.
That has changed -- there are millions of us who refuse to use illegal drugs, who have given up alcohol and even caffeine abuse, but don't think we should suffer without treatment just because we aren't rich or poor. In time, some of our notions will prove folly, while others will be accepted as "it was about time you guys figured out how to get some help for that."
In the end, it doesn't matter whether mental illness exists or not, as long as individuals are free to experiment with improving their lives in a private, secure and legal relationship with their doctors, and with the reasonable assurance that their treatment will be respected and covered as it is for any other "complaint." For now, that freedom is best respected by retaining a fairly broad definition of mental illness.
Just within the last couple of weeks in the Times, there were articles on new gene research showing multiple links with specific chromosomes for schizophrenia. Thank heavens!
All of the psychoses are profoundly disabling. When such disability exists, the question becomes whether to treat people who have them as ill and therefore deserving of compassionate care or as criminals to be locked away in concrete cubicles, forgotten and unmedicated. Since in our hard and cruel times this question has been increasingly answered in economic terms, it is good to note that finally people are beginning to notice that we cannot afford our prisons either, and that perhaps a more humane approach doesn't have to cost any more.
Thanks for reading my thoughts,
Mark H.
Posted by pullmarine on November 11, 2000, at 9:49:17
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? Why Do We Ask?, posted by Mark H. on November 10, 2000, at 20:51:55
Hi mark,
You're very eloquent, and u argue well, and I agree with all of your points 100%. The problems I have with the labels of mental illness are:
1. that they are abused (BDS, PTSD, etc). Be real, normal reactions to stress or life events are being treated as illnesses for reasons of profit. NOt that these people should not be given compassion, understanding and treatment (pharmaceutical or other);
2. once a person accepts a label, it's very hard to get them to give it up. This holds true for psychiatric labels or any other;
3. Mental illness implies that a person is incapable of rational thought and rational decision making; this can be used as an excuse to make decisions on behalf of a person, both regarding medical care and financial. In my case, one family member was considering getting control over my financial assets. At another point, I was medicated without my knowledge and consent, eventhough I was not dangerous to myself or others.
Most TRuly,
JOHN
Posted by Kaarina on November 11, 2000, at 13:35:41
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? Why Do We Ask?, posted by Mark H. on November 10, 2000, at 20:51:55
I haven't read the whole thread, because I've lived with a parent who has an illness, schizophrenia. I remember what life was like before the illness took. He still has the same personality, values - humour etc. Yet the illness has affected his functioning.
I do not doubt that some people do have a hard time functioning due to how they view the world, and for them this causes psychological pain. Yet to diagnose them as having an illness is counterproductive and not helpful to these individuals.
> Just within the last couple of weeks in the Times, there were articles on new gene research showing multiple links with specific chromosomes for schizophrenia. Thank heavens!
>
> All of the psychoses are profoundly disabling. When such disability exists, the question becomes whether to treat people who have them as ill and therefore deserving of compassionate care or as criminals to be locked away in concrete cubicles, forgotten and unmedicated.
Posted by Mark H. on November 14, 2000, at 17:35:12
In reply to Re: Mark's comments, posted by Kaarina on November 11, 2000, at 13:35:41
Dear John and Kaarina,
Thank you for your comments, which offered me additional perspective. I've accepted the label of "mental illness" without stigma, so I forget how it was for me in the beginning, when I paid my psychiatrist in cash to avoid leaving a paper trail! I can laugh at myself now, but I do remember how scared I felt at the time that someone would find out I was having "mental difficulties."
There should be no more "shame" or stigma attached to mental illness than there is to having the flu or needing an operation. However, I realize that insurance companies, Congress and the general public have not yet reached that level of acceptance.
Not too many centuries ago, people were persecuted for any form of mental illness, for birth defects, for epilepsy, for all sorts of conditions over which they had no power or choice.
The idea of allowing that these differences were illnesses rather than moral defects, character weaknesses, or evidence of possession by evil spirits, was relatively enlightened. I still hold to the compassion implied by labeling those experiences "illnesses" rather than some sort of personal flaw.
Insurance companies and Congress, in particular, will only be swayed when enough people overcome their embarrassment of talking about "mental illness" as an ordinary thing, and insist that it be treated no differently than any other disease, ailment or complaint.
We still see otherwise educated people on television refer to schizophrenia as having a split or "double" personality -- such basic ignorance! We still see people making the foolish assumption that being "mentally ill" means that one is automatically incompetent.
Thank you again for your comments, which are good reminders that daily hundreds of thousands of people with mental illnesses suffer unnecessary additional problems because of ignorance and stereotypes.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by RH on November 9, 2004, at 18:27:33
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? - Yes, encore!, posted by dj on October 30, 2000, at 23:01:34
This study (below), cited by a member of this discussion board who believes that mental illness does exist, actually proves very little if anything, except that it shows how constrained thinking allows individuals to form conclusions that they "beleive" to be based on the evidence, when in fact they are not.The nature of the discussion in the article referenced betrays the constrained thinking. Here's the problem: No mention is given as to the exact series of events that lead to depressed type inattention. Someone reading the article from another galaxy would be led to beleive that the depressed persons mind is intermittantly turning on and off, literally going from thought to non-thought, while the "normal" persons mind is always on.
(It is almost impossible to turn off thinking. It is the goal of Zen meditation to acheive this state. Few Zen practitioners actually achieve this, (if they can do it with regualirty they are a Zen master) although the striving in Zen for such levels of mind control seems to be very beneficial to it's practitioners)
No mention is made of what we actually know, namely that the depressed person's mind is spinning, devoting most of it's processing time to things in the category of worry, self-doubt and resentment. These are psychodynamic issues.
The various anti-depressants achieve their effects of relieving symptoms by retarding spinning thoughts. Then the mind has more processing time to devote to will directed tasks, which usually are tasks performed in compliance with someone else's will (like your boss, or your annoying spouse, or your domineering manipulative mother, or some aspect of the capital/industiral system that values you only for your labor and directed attention)
Just because a neurotoxin can retard some negative thoughts, in no way does that suggest a cure. The causes of the doubt, worry and resentment are still "in there". Your pleasure seeking and pain avoidance are still operating to help generate confusion in your mind. All the literature, philosphy and art of the world has not been automatically instilled in you with your favortie psychotropic, which is not unlike marijuana or heroin. If you were an ignorant fool before you saw a pdoc, you are still one after you start your prescription.
So by the non-inclusion of the psychodynamics of the situation in the referenced article, we can conclude some kind of hidden agenda, as all deception has a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda may also be hidden from the researchers themsleves, especially if they don't question the validity of the capitalist/industrialist organization of society, and also if they are enjoying a certain amount of pleausres by their participation in the "system". (Yes, people are not all that more complex than lab rats, ask any advertising exec)
In fact, note the choice of balancing a checkbook as a "theme" of the research. Do I need to elaborate?
Then there is the ubiquitous claim that mental illness is not a character flaw, or weakness. In fact, the article claims to prove that statement, when in fact it did no such thing. For instance, no definition of character or strength was given, which would have to be established in order to show that something was or was not flawed or weak.
An objective view shows that what some call "mental illness" is a weakness of the mind - just as diabetes is a weakness of the pancreas. The word "weak" has to do with power, and with will. So to even begin to understand the concept of "weakness" one has to underestand power and will. I can't take the time now to explain these things.
But here's an example that may help: In a power hierarchy, like Western society, individuals and organizations are constantly vying with each other, to take things from each other, and to get others to do things for them. When you can't balance your checkbook, you will likely have NSF charges imposed by your bank when a check bounces. In that case, your bank has taken something from you. The amount they collect on an NSF does not just cover their expenses for handling your bad check, it also includes a profit. Thus, you lost the tug of war because you were weak. Does anyone really think that biologic psychiatry will ever convince the banking industry to refund such charges because you had a chemical imbalance? (Of course, some of you will fantsize that his may one day come to pass. Fantasy is another sign of weakness)
As far as the term "character flaw" goes, well, that is a value judgement. There is no ablsolute definition of "character". Thus, anyone who applies the phrase "character flaw" to another is niether right, nor wrong, excpet within that person's own context. If you need that person, or they exert some control over your life, then the label sticks to you. If you are independent of that person, the label bounces off.
Note that much of the money that pays for anti-depressants and mood stabilizers comes from the insurance companies and government. It is money that is redistributed from the general population to the "mentally ill". All those who "like" these drugs, including psychiatrists, will see this as morally correct. But this is simply "Slave morality", as in the final analysis all morality is concerned with power, actually Will To Power. You think it is "morally correct" that you should ("should" is a guilt word) get your various drugs, and that others should pay for them. Of course you think that , because it is self-serving. (The psychiatrists like you on these drugs as well, becuase then you are not so intolerable to be around.) "Slave morality" descibes how a group posits good and evil to serve their own needs/desires. To understand this, read Friedrich Nietzsche's "Geneolgy of Morals" and "Human, All Too Human" and his unfinished work "Will To Power".
I have yet to meet anyone who has been "cured" by their psychotropic drugs. They continue to struggle, and become dependant on the drugs. Those of you who are in such a condition are "the weak", by definition. You are easier to take advantage of by those with the will to do so. For instance, it is easier to induce most of you to consume more sugar, fats and alcohol. You will buy something to make yourselves feel better - why shouldn't you treat yourself, after all? Many of you have debt problems. Thus you are parted from your money and you recieve nothing of value in return. See how it works? Now, on the count of three, Wake up. One...two...
> July 27, 2000 (35)
> Nursing study: depression inhibits memory, concentration
>
> ANN ARBOR---New research by a team of researchers from the University of Michigan School of Nursing confirms what health-care professionals suspected about depression: it inhibits short-term memory and directed attention, or concentration.
>
> Up until now, researchers who study depression, and therapists and physicians who treat people with depression, did not have a sensitive measure to assess the subtle changes in memory or attention in the early stages of depression in patients. Yet patients regularly complain of having memory problems and having difficulty concentrating. U-M researchers were interested in learning more about memory and attention impairments in depressed patients. When do the symptoms strike? What are the early signs?
>
> "Prior to this study, my colleague Bonnie Hagerty and I conducted a study that examined the early signs of depression. We were struck by the number of people who said that one of their earliest symptoms was lack of concentration. One of the clients said that she knew she was getting into trouble with another episode of depression when she began to make a lot of errors in her checkbook," said Reg. A. Williams, a U-M associate professor of nursing who is senior author of the study that appears in the May issue of the Journal of Psychiatric Research. The study is co-authored by Hagerty, a U-M associate professor of nursing who specializes in depression.
>
> The research is based on a series of computer-based and written tests. The tests measured directed attention---which is the ability to focus on the task at hand---and short-term memory, the ability to recall an event that happened within two minutes.
>
> The researchers studied 52 people over a 10-week period. There were 25 people in the group diagnosed with depression and 27 in a comparison group of people without depression. They took five written tests and six computerized tests that were given three times over the course of the study.
>
> Of the 25 in the depressed group, 12 were receiving drug therapy and counseling, while 13 managed their symptoms by relying on self-administered stress reduction techniques, such as yoga or an herbal remedy.
>
> Some of the test results clearly showed memory and attention impairments.
>
> In a computer-based test that measured ability to balance a checkbook, 67 percent of the depression group made errors at the start of the study compared with 48 percent in the comparison group. By the end of the study, both groups made the same number of errors, which, Williams said, clearly indicated progress.
>
> All test scores for those in the depression group improved over time, which Williams attributes to the lifting of depression under drug therapy and counseling. However, he also noted that depressed clients worked harder to compensate for memory and attention impairments. Their desire to succeed---even under the cloud of depression---didn't affect their desire to perform well.
>
> In scientific terms, having difficulty with short-term memory and concentration are often considered prodromal signs of depression, or early signs of depression. The symptoms can suddenly creep up on people, most of whom don't recognize them as precursors of depression.
>
> "Our findings reinforce the fact that depression is an illness and not a character flaw or a weakness. It affects your ability to think. When you suffer from depression, people think it just affects your mood. Our study clearly shows it does more than that: It affects your cognitive ability," said Williams.
>
> The study was funded by the U-M's Center for Enhancement and Restoration of Cognitive Function and the U-M School of Nursing.
>
> Other co-authors include:
>
> Bernadine Cimprich, Ph.D., R.N., associate professor of nursing who specializes in directed attention.
>
> Barbara Therrien, Ph.D., R.N., associate professor of nursing specializing in neuroscience.
>
> Research assistants Esther Bay, M.S.N., R.N., and Hiroaki Oe, M.S.
>
>
>
Posted by saw on November 10, 2004, at 3:37:33
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? - Not Really, posted by RH on November 9, 2004, at 18:27:33
<<I have yet to meet anyone who has been "cured" by their psychotropic drugs. They continue to struggle, and become dependant on the drugs. Those of you who are in such a condition are "the weak", by definition. You are easier to take advantage of by those with the will to do so. For instance, it is easier to induce most of you to consume more sugar, fats and alcohol. You will buy something to make yourselves feel better - why shouldn't you treat yourself, after all? Many of you have debt problems. Thus you are parted from your money and you recieve nothing of value in return. See how it works? Now, on the count of three, Wake up. One...two...>>
I do not appreciate an insinuation that because I have a mental condition (that does *not really* exist?) that I am weak. I do not appreciate that I might be labelled as a weakling because I consume a little more sugar, or whatever, or take drugs because I am searching for relief from a very crippling condition.
I have received a lot of value for my money. The fact that I am still alive is testament to that.
I will NOT be led to believe that I am weak, I have an illness and many of my weaknesses are part of that illness. But they are MINE. For once, I am proud to be weak!!
Oh, and I am WIDE AWAKE!
Sabrina
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 10, 2004, at 8:07:28
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? - Not Really, posted by RH on November 9, 2004, at 18:27:33
> Those of you who are in such a condition are "the weak", by definition.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 3.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by KaraS on November 10, 2004, at 14:13:38
In reply to DISBELIEF!!!!!!!!!, posted by saw on November 10, 2004, at 3:37:33
> <<I have yet to meet anyone who has been "cured" by their psychotropic drugs. They continue to struggle, and become dependant on the drugs. Those of you who are in such a condition are "the weak", by definition. You are easier to take advantage of by those with the will to do so. For instance, it is easier to induce most of you to consume more sugar, fats and alcohol. You will buy something to make yourselves feel better - why shouldn't you treat yourself, after all? Many of you have debt problems. Thus you are parted from your money and you recieve nothing of value in return. See how it works? Now, on the count of three, Wake up. One...two...>>
>
> I do not appreciate an insinuation that because I have a mental condition (that does *not really* exist?) that I am weak. I do not appreciate that I might be labelled as a weakling because I consume a little more sugar, or whatever, or take drugs because I am searching for relief from a very crippling condition.
>
> I have received a lot of value for my money. The fact that I am still alive is testament to that.
>
> I will NOT be led to believe that I am weak, I have an illness and many of my weaknesses are part of that illness. But they are MINE. For once, I am proud to be weak!!
>
> Oh, and I am WIDE AWAKE!
>
> Sabrina
>
>YOU GO GIRL!
Posted by mindevolution on January 16, 2007, at 3:56:12
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
well interesting question, and although I have read the "it doesn't exist perspective", it is difficult when a person presents saying that the voices are stopping them from working and enjoying themselves to deny they are not suffering from some sort of affliction. likewise it is difficult to believe the diagnosis of a temperamental teenager as psychotic/schizophrenic when they are just going through an antiauthoritarian stage, or maybe just doesn't get on with his/her parents, indeed nobody gets on with everybody, and one can't choose one's parents. finally anyone who has had a nervous breakdown due to series of stressful events such as a partner dying or losing a job suffers greatly from their predicament.
so I propose that it may well exist in three forms, 1. as yet undiagnosible biological diseases e.g. in the early 1900s encephalitus lethargica produced symptoms that was diagnosed as schizophrenia until the virus causing it was identified, 2. illnes from a psychological cause, 3. illness from drug abuse be it illegal or prescription.
however once you apply the concept of mental illness within the context of society, the establishment, the medical fraternity, government, and the law the question takes on a whole new dimension. which is why some people prefer, taking into account the operation of these competeting perspectives power and influence, to deny the existence of it in the first place. although i myself find it limiting to deny not the illnesses which are invented by psychiatrist and voted on every year, but the suffering of an individual, not to be confused with diagnosing suffering in an individual for alterior reasons.
Posted by FredPotter on January 16, 2007, at 18:25:48
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
It would be strange if the brain was the only organ in the body incapable of malfunctioning
Posted by shadowplayers721 on January 16, 2007, at 19:42:44
In reply to Does Mental Illness Exist? Feedback Requested!, posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 21:18:59
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.