![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 56 to 80 of 100. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 2, 2005, at 22:22:42
In reply to Re: Well, I can do part of that - on my end anyway. » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 22:14:56
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
In reply to Sigh, posted by Dinah on April 2, 2005, at 19:19:14
...if my passion was overwhelming.
I don't always understand what happens to me when I get immersed in a passion. I'm striving towards doing it in real time, and I'm pretty close to it....
It may seem less important to others than it does to me, but the mentally ill are surrounded by stigmas and stereotypes. Few, if any, of those are empathetic or complimentary. No, instead, they are used to exclude, to dismiss, to deride, to condescend, to trivialize, to marginalize, the mentally ill.
Again, it may not seem like much, but "Happy Pills" is a very dismissive stigma, in my mind. The very idea mocks the daily struggle I face, to even manage the most basic of human functions. As if. I reject this stigma. It does not apply to me. To accept it, to tolerate it, internalizes it. Instead, I disown it. I point it out. I shine a light on it. I am not a "happy pill" user. Do not use that phrase around me. Do not use that phrase around any of the mentally ill.
My problem was exacerbated by the fact a health professional propogated this stigma. I've already explained how his April Fool's presentation could have gone ahead, without employing the particular stigmatizing words.
But, and here is where my personal history enters into it, I am extremely triggered by anyone who would: a) try to debate my feelings; or b) turn away from me without validating me, at some level.
My feelings are not the subject of debate, by anyone. Even me. They are a true statement, by definition. I will not "lighten up." I will not be compared to others. I will not be labelled.
I also reject any attitude of others that suggests "Larry's emotions will not be accomodated or acknowledged....they are inconvenient for me". Tough. That's my reaction. Tough.
If I'm not done, I'm not done. If I brought something real to you, give me a bone.
Doc John cut off replies. I can't even imagine why that administrative function is even empowered. Look what sort of message it sends.
I started a new thread, and Doc John Poofed! the whole thing, without acknowledging so much as a single word I expressed to him.
I'm sorry that spilled over here, as it was a "there" thing. But I had no other forum to express myself, due to what he/they chose to do. There was a thread here, on topic, so that's where it went.
I'm seriously upset about the administrative functions over there. It's almost like Soviet communism. Shut down the voices of dissent. Eliminate all evidence of their existence. I'm surprised I wasn't banished to the Gulag. I did what others suggested, and I PM'd Doc John. He did not address a single point I raised with him. All he did was repeat the same message he'd given when he closed off debate the first time. Most people finding something funny does not address the issue of stigmatization. This is not a majority vote situation.
What started as a simple debate or expression about the issue of internalizing or propogating stigmatizing imagery became something else entirely. Hear me. Disagree with me. Decide the ideas have no merit. Whatever. But *hear* me. Give me a sign that you did, and I'm okay. That's all that I ask, but that's not what I got.
Anyway, I had a roast chicken to get on the table, kids to feed.....I couldn't really get through it all yesterday. I wasn't finished, but I think this message wraps it up for me.
Thanks for listening.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on April 3, 2005, at 10:53:04
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
There is not a soul on earth that understands that more than I do. Maybe as much, but not more. I too get caught up in passions that mean a heck of a lot to me, but may not be important to others. I know it probably happens on board here, where I get caught in an argument with Dr. Bob over something others might not find as important as I do. And it might cause distress to others as I argue with Dr. Bob over it. But ideas mean a whole lot to me, as I guess they do to you too. And I'm not sure there is an objective standard to what is important and what isn't. Theoretically we could look at the world in general and say that nothing whatsoever that happens on these boards is important. But these boards are a second home to some of us, and what happens at home is always important.
And I certainly agree with you about feelings. Acknowledgement and validation are quite a balm to a wounded soul, even if agreement isn't reached ultimately.
Lar, I care about you very much, and I'm sorry you were hurt. I appreciate your passion for ideas very much (and share it).
And Emmy, I care about you very much too, and I'm sorry you were hurt. I love your fierce loyalty and respect your dislike of conflict.
(And Lar, I really have to add that that was a brilliant statement of feelings. Have you considered volunteering with conflict resolution classes at school?)
Posted by henrietta on April 3, 2005, at 11:35:10
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
"Do not use that phrase around any of the mentally ill."
I am "mentally ill", and I'll make my own decisions about what may or may not be said around me.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 12:02:55
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Larry Hoover, posted by henrietta on April 3, 2005, at 11:35:10
> "Do not use that phrase around any of the mentally ill."
>
> I am "mentally ill", and I'll make my own decisions about what may or may not be said around me.I'm sorry you picked that one sentence to focus upon. Were I to be in earshot, I'd likely raise it as an issue, notwithstanding your beliefs and attributions.
The extent of my passion in this regard ought not to be argued to distract from the foundation upon which it rests.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on April 3, 2005, at 12:07:59
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
Of course, I suppose that those of us who feel passionately about things have to prepare ourselves for some fallout from it, because others feel passionately too. And if we stick our necks out, they're more vulnerable. That's just simple physics.
(comaradely smile)
Posted by henrietta on April 3, 2005, at 12:23:43
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » henrietta, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 12:02:55
I feel quite passionately that this is not a distraction, but is indeed the very foundation.
Thanks for not invalidating my choice of focus.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 12:45:27
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Larry Hoover, posted by henrietta on April 3, 2005, at 12:23:43
> I feel quite passionately that this is not a distraction, but is indeed the very foundation.
> Thanks for not invalidating my choice of focus.All right. I accept that I am not to speak for you about stigmatization. I regret that you may hear my voice, nonetheless.
Lar
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 13:38:02
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive » Larry Hoover, posted by ed_uk on April 2, 2005, at 18:12:25
Happy Pills is the trademarked product name of a nutritional supplement offered by a German firm.
http://www.worldclassnutrition.com/happypills.html
Regardless some people being offended by colloquial understandings of neuropharmacology, serontonin enhancing drugs are largely offered as a remedy for anhedonia, which is a primary symptom of depression. It is the one and only symptom for which friends encourage me to apply for a prescription. I say "I'm unhappy and I have been for a long time," they say "your depressed, take a pill like i do."
I expect that a fair linguistic study would find the term used among groups with widely divergent views on pharmacological approaches, including anti-depressent-drug users, those who prescribe the drugs, the press and those who scorn anti-depressants. While some might not like the term, it is not an "n" word used primarily to disparage a particular group.
Anhedonia is an inability to find pleasure in things that are expected to cause pleasure. A drug that treats the condition can be considered a hedonic remedy. Hedonic refers to hedonism and hedonism is the doctrine that happiness is the chief good in life.
Maybe the pills don't make directly make a person happy, they just facilitate the pursuit of pleasure from secondary sources. But for those of us who feel anhedonia is a proper response to an cold, unrewarding culture, "happy pills" is a perfectly apt description of a drug offered to control our minds and to silence our disquieting persistent protests. For those of us who don't consider happiness to be particularly relevant, much less the chief good in life, those who push pills based on the notion that hedonic status is a measure of mental health are a threat to our creed and to our political liberty to react as we choose in response to circumstances we find unacceptable.
As far as Grohol using the term in a parody, then silencing discussion, well maybe psych pros aren't as god-like as the profession represents itself and his unwelcome expression revealed a ch*nk in the armor of a profession that is not nearly as coherent as it claims to be.
For my part, I remain deeply offended by a medical establishment that suggests the only cause of long-term anhedonia is illness, and that the only causes of the illness to be considered are chemical conditions inside my brain, or my cognitive outlook. For me, anhedonia is a an appropriate response by a caring person in a cruel world. I encourage the anhedonic to maintain their blank expressions toward this hedonic culture until a critical mass chooses to treat the actual causes of social pain that lead so many to present anhedonic symptoms.
Those who don't care to consider social symptomology are more than welcome to take a pill, and to complain when the pill is classified in lay terms that are synonymous with those used to describe its neuropharmacological effect.
(Moreau JL, Jenck F, Martin JR, Mortas P, Haefely WE (1992).Antidepressant treatment prevents chronic unpredictable mildstress-induced anhedonia as assessed by ventral tegmentumself-stimulation behavior in rats. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol)
(Antidepressant reversal of interferon-alpha-induced anhedonia.Sammut S, Bethus I, Goodall G, Muscat R.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Laboratory of Behavioural Neuroscience, University of Malta, Msida. )
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 14:13:13
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive » ed_uk, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 15:48:58
>
> I PM'd Doc John, and he was dismissive, and refused to discuss my concerns.
>
>Larry,
We probably disagree on the propriety of classifying SSRI's as Happy Pills, or of a psych-doc using the classification as parody within a quasi-clinical setting where parody is not a standard feature.
However, I recognize that you have certain rights to be heard when reporting adverse reactions to events that occur in these quasi-clinical on-line forums.
I'm not prepared with a full brief on appropriate causes or courses of action, but if he does not acknowledge the merits of your concern, he is at least obligated to record your concern, to make his collection of recorded concerns available to his peers and to allow whatever institution facilitates his on-line clinical research complete access to all complaints he receives related to the project. This is especially true of docs who posture their work, with publications and organizational memberships, as leading the way into new approaches, as these forums tend to be.
If grousing here about the offense doesn't provide the relief you seek, I encourage you to explore his institutional chain of command and use the experience to at least be sure the complaint process meets the requirements associated with whatever funding he receives.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 14:37:03
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 14:13:13
While I can certainly understand debating the merits of differing admnistration styles, perhaps that aspect of this discussion belongs on admin?
And if that discussion continues, I personally would prefer to see it continue with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles or policies without naming specific administrators.
I remember seeing a similar issue come up with discussion on this board and the one discussed above. I felt very uncomfortable posting on either site for a period of time during and after, and I witnessed friendships crack and even end. I just hate to see that happen again.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 15:18:00
In reply to Different boards, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 14:37:03
> While I can certainly understand debating the merits of differing admnistration styles, perhaps that aspect of this discussion belongs on admin?
>
The published criteria for the admin board is for posting "about the operation of this site." This site, of course, being http://www.dr-bob.org/babble aka Psycho-babble. Nothing in this thread can be construed as being about the operation of psychobabble except now this post asserting this discussion should go elsewhere.Posting information about one's adverse reaction in another social setting, albeit an on-line setting similar to this one, appears consistent with the purpose of this page which is for "general discussion and support."
The "alternatives" board would not be appropriate because participation in on-line discussions is not represented as a method of treatment, but rather as a source of support for those undergoing treatments. On-line forums are a social setting, and would seem appropo for discussion in a mental health social forum.
I support the style of on-line support and educational socialization where operators of experimental on-line forums adhere to requirements that they record reports of adverse reactions. Unless there are legal liabilities involved, I don't see the merit in disallowing supportive educational posts about a possible course of action in cases where a clinician has been named in relation to a hurtful circumstance.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 15:52:34
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 15:18:00
I replied to you on Admin, as my concern is more admin related.
Here is a link to my reply.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/479358.html
gg
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 16:00:06
In reply to Re: Different boards » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 15:52:34
> I replied to you on Admin, as my concern is more admin related.
> Here is a link to my reply.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/479358.html
>
> gg
I reviewed the organization of this site and almost put my response to you on admin, where your first post might have gone, but I'm posting about how we use language in a supportive construct more so than about how this board should be administered.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 3, 2005, at 18:59:44
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 16:00:06
squish!
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 19:10:36
In reply to Happy Pills trademark, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 13:38:02
Do I know you? Did you change your posting name?
> Happy Pills is the trademarked product name of a nutritional supplement offered by a German firm.
>
> http://www.worldclassnutrition.com/happypills.htmlInteresting. It contains three herbal antidepressant agents, plus a few nutritional antidepressant augments. I wonder what it's like to take them altogether like that.
> Regardless some people being offended by colloquial understandings of neuropharmacology, serontonin enhancing drugs are largely offered as a remedy for anhedonia, which is a primary symptom of depression.
Sorry to snip so much, but the etiology of the phrase really isn't the issue I address. In the now censored post I had up for consideration at that other place, I discussed what these pharmaceuticals had actually been for me. If I recall, I said something like, "I have never been given Happy Pills. I have received Insomnia Pills, Impotence Pills, Weight Gain Pills, Hepatotoxic Pills, Stupidity Pills," and some more.....something like that.
I argued that the phrase is only generally used by the lay press, and the ignorant masses. Never in a complementary way. It is derogatory, dismissive, condescending.
Anyway, I grow weary of this all. DJ is not even willing to discuss it.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 22:37:21
In reply to Re: Happy Pills trademark » used2b, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 19:10:36
I should add Doc John apologized to me. I think I had him pretty PO'd with me before that. I can write some sharp rhetoric, but I don't always realize I'm doing that.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 23:40:12
In reply to Re: Happy Pills addendum, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 22:37:21
Lar,
Sometimes validation lags behind. :( Glad it finally caught up.gg
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 7:20:57
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 10:31:52
Larry, that's been my experience over there too, and I have been slammed for even discussing it.
I understand and respect the difference in cultures between the sites. I've been criticized for even looking there since I'm not terribly comfortable with the culture. But the very reason I *do* check there is because there are former babblers who post there with whom I want to be able to keep up - how else would I do that except by looking at the site?
'Nuff said from me. I feel badly only that I replied to Em's post in the first place and starting this ball rolling downhill so quickly. My tears weren't worth it, and the invalidation of having a discussion "poofed" is really enough to keep me away from that site permanently.
pc
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 7:39:23
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » Larry Hoover, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 7:20:57
> Larry, that's been my experience over there too, and I have been slammed for even discussing it.
I don't wish to broach a new topic, but I am reminded of Orwell.
> I understand and respect the difference in cultures between the sites. I've been criticized for even looking there since I'm not terribly comfortable with the culture. But the very reason I *do* check there is because there are former babblers who post there with whom I want to be able to keep up - how else would I do that except by looking at the site?
I generally only frequent the drug/medication board, updating maybe a dozen times a day. Sometimes people want/need a quick medication-related answer, and I like to be able to provide that quickly. It was seeing that banner every time I reloaded that got me so disturbed....rubbing salt, as it were.
> 'Nuff said from me. I feel badly only that I replied to Em's post in the first place and starting this ball rolling downhill so quickly.I really hope that people can disconnect from what went bad here? *I* had a dispute with another man *Doc John*, and it wasn't meant to involve anyone else. Absolutely, spectators were all over the place, but the dispute itself was one man to one man.
I know I write good prose. Meaningful, good construction, blah blah. Most of the time I'm explaining. But I use the same skills when I'm complaining, and I think I got under some skins. For that, I am sorry. For complaining at all, I am not. I received a number of quiet messages, thanking me for speaking up. There *is* a silent but hurt population segment to consider.
> My tears weren't worth it, and the invalidation of having a discussion "poofed" is really enough to keep me away from that site permanently.
>
> pcI'm sorry it upset you. Truly sorry.
Doc John told me my thread had been "moved", when I accused him of censorship. It took me a couple of pointed emails to get him to define "moved" for me. It sounded like a euphemism, and it is. The thread has been "moved" offline, until it can be considered by a group of moderators. If they verify the decision made, the "move" becomes permanent, without further notice or chance at appeal (as if). Orwell again.
I'm glad I learned how things really work over there. I am reminded of a group of people, all in a row, fingers in their ears, chanting, "There is no dissent in Psych Central Land! La La La La La La Laaa!"
Lar
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 8:42:10
In reply to Re: I'm sorry... » partlycloudy, posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 7:39:23
...is also with person who owns the site, and it's all due to the "Orwellian" revisions that take place there. Even my reference to a particular book written by that author resulted in my hand being slapped, which stung.
I've never bothered to take it up with the man, mostly because he refered to the dispute as something immature - and by extension, I took it to mean that he considered me in the same light. I only need to be insulted once - OK, twice - to know when I am someplace I don't belong.
I did understand the "happy pill" joke as soon as I read further about it, but I consider that it was in poor taste, and my funny bone was out of joint that day, too. A bad combination, on April Fool's day.
((((Larry))))
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 4, 2005, at 8:52:47
In reply to My dispute... » Larry Hoover, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 8:42:10
{{{{{{{{{{{partlycloudy, changing to full sun}}}}}}}}}}}
That's one my big old bear hugs.
Lar
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on April 4, 2005, at 11:14:04
In reply to Re: Pfizer link offensive, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 2, 2005, at 17:02:31
Gabbix,
That's the spirit I took it in. If you read a lot of articles Dr. Grohol writes, it is completely obvious his disdain for pharmaceutical claims (in my opinion at least). Knowing his stance on that, and the complete overprescription of "happy pills," by general practitioners, etc., I found this quite funny!
Posted by TamaraJ on April 4, 2005, at 11:28:48
In reply to My dispute... » Larry Hoover, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 8:42:10
an April Fool's joke played at one site was brought to another site. Unfortunate because of what has transpired in the past between the posters of the two sites. Reading this thread was like a re-opening of an old wound that I was under the impression had begun to heal :-(
Oh well, such is life I guess.
Posted by used2b on April 4, 2005, at 11:49:26
In reply to Re: Happy Pills trademark » used2b, posted by Larry Hoover on April 3, 2005, at 19:10:36
>
> Sorry to snip so much, but the etiology of the phrase really isn't the issue I address.Okay, good enough. I stipulated that we likely disagree on whether "happy pills" is an apt euphemism, but primarily I cited that etiology as a preface to the assertion that you likely have recourse for your complaint, if it really matters.
I'd seen the name of this not-to-be-mentioned funny doctor previously and needed to look around to see if my recollection was accurate. Indeed, it is ironic a person who professionally postures as leading the way in developing ethical standards for on-line delivery of mental health services would curtly dismiss evidence of an adverse reaction to that person's casual humor in a quasi-clinical context.
Anyway, all this huggy parenthesis stuff isn't exactly my style nor do I think there is a lot to be gained beyond a brief change in one's own mood by campaigning in forums such as this. If one wants to banish the term "happy pills" or to force mental health providers to comply with ethical standards, one usually needs funding, allies and a campaign strategy. Otherwise, the myth of democracy tends to produce a clamor of idle chatter.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.