![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
so, its like this...
...sometimes, I wonder if shrinks do more harm than good. call it "the mental patient blues."
Seems like they destroy lives. Seems like they don'[t have answers for anything, really.
Posted by rjlockhart37 on August 7, 2014, at 23:47:13
In reply to psychiatry...friend or foe?, posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
only the ones that treat the patient like a number.....they don't connect with their personality, and only treat whats being stated, but more on blues is using antipsychotics and other crap anxiety meds that don't work....
leaving you feeling not so good....
some shricks will work happly to choose any med...others don't do much, and usally say no, and find another doctor....
Posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2014, at 1:12:14
In reply to psychiatry...friend or foe?, posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
I bet many of us have experienced both bad and good psychiatrists and therapists . I certainly have.
It's a great topic to talk about, because people starting out seeking help may wrongly assume that the first professionals they see will be competent and helpful. I saw four psychiatrists before I found one who was caring and helpful, and two therapists who were harmful before finding a truly helpful one.
When I am depressed, I tend to think it is my fault if things don't go well . But, often, the therapist or psychiatrist is a poor fit, or is incompetent or poorly trained. Sometimes, they.can have more severe problems than you do!
Many of us learned this through trial and error. But I do think it's wonderful advice to everyone to choose very carefully and trust your instincts. If something doesn't feel right about them, trust that feeling 100%!
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 8, 2014, at 6:30:32
In reply to Re: psychiatry...friend or foe? » Christ_empowered, posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2014, at 1:12:14
yeah......what's weird for me is that I've had better luck with public mental health (community mental health) than private practice docs. seriously.
Therapists...ugh. My counselor now is hands off and helpful. I've had one who pencil whipped me and despised me. I've had one who did intensive therapy with me that triggered psychotic depression. :-(
I'm just wondering about those people who walk in with fairly minor problems and then have "bipolar disorder I" after a couple years and end up unemployed, etc. Pill pushers and pencil whippers are a dime a dozen, it seems.
Posted by herpills on August 8, 2014, at 19:29:55
In reply to Re: psychiatry...friend or foe? » Christ_empowered, posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2014, at 1:12:14
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 8, 2014, at 20:00:38
In reply to Re: psychiatry...friend or foe? » Christ_empowered, posted by Twinleaf on August 8, 2014, at 1:12:14
..as I mellow out with age and experience (3-0 recently, lol), I realize that mental illness is real, and can be quite devastating.
That said, Mental Health, Inc. seems to be part of the problem. Maybe its because I'm a progressive Born Again Christian, but I don't feel that their values are my values.
Mental health people routinely diagnose and treat social problems--poverty, racism, sexism-=-as diseases. They drug kids up on a fairly regular basis, especially poor kids and those in foster care.
I'm just wondering...
OK. THe meds are helpful, or can be. Right med(s)+Right person=good results. But the potential is obviously there for abuse, and I feel that mental health industry is taking something very real, and potentially very tragic--severe mental illness--and turning this into a money and power making scheme.
I'm also concerned by how the therapeutic jargon has permeated all levels of society. We all have "issues." Everybody has a diagnosis.
Ugh! I'm over Szasz, I promise, but I wonder...
Posted by herpills on August 9, 2014, at 8:41:55
In reply to good points..., posted by Christ_empowered on August 8, 2014, at 20:00:38
>
> Mental health people routinely diagnose and treat social problems--poverty, racism, sexism-=-as diseases. They drug kids up on a fairly regular basis, especially poor kids and those in foster care.
>I had a friend who used to work at a foster home, said all the kids were on Seroquel. That made me sad. I have a hard time believing that they all had schizo or bipolar. I totally get what you're saying here. Just because someone's poor, comes from a broken home/family life, doesn't mean they have a mental illness. If anything it's the other way around...mental illness can lead to poverty, can lead to parents beating their kids, etc.
Posted by Chris O on August 13, 2014, at 15:22:06
In reply to psychiatry...friend or foe?, posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
I say "friend," though with their own limitations of how deep they can empathize which each of our individually tortured conditions. They are merely human beings doing the best they can like the rest of us.
Chris
Posted by LostBoyinNC45 on August 13, 2014, at 19:43:53
In reply to psychiatry...friend or foe?, posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
Like people everywhere, Pdocs come in all types. There are some hyper sensitive Pdocs who are super, duper worried about being sued. There are more laid back Pdocs who tend to listen to their patients pretty well. There are Pdocs who prefer to hospitalize their outpatients at the drop of a hat if the outpatient mentions the word "suicide," even if the outpatient is not actually suicidal but just maybe needs a medication adjustment.
Ive seen all types. If you get the wrong one, they can make your (already) miserable mentally ill life a total living hell. If on the other hand, you get a decent to good Pdoc, they can keep you reasonably stable and treat you decently and keep you feeling OK.
It all "just depends" on your particular Pdoc. My opinion.
Eric AKA "LostBoyinNC"
Posted by baseball55 on August 13, 2014, at 21:00:26
In reply to Re: a lot of it depends on your Pdoc, posted by LostBoyinNC45 on August 13, 2014, at 19:43:53
There are Pdocs who prefer to hospitalize their outpatients at the drop of a hat if the outpatient mentions the word "suicide," even if the outpatient is not actually suicidal but just maybe needs a medication adjustment.
>I don't know how it works in NC, but my experience is that outpatient p-docs can't hospitalize you at their discretion. First, you have to go through an emergency room and get there somehow (I guess a p-doc could call the police, but they can't really keep you in their office until the police arrive unless you stay willingly.)
Second, the ER pdocs have to assess suicide risk. If you get to the ER and deny being suicidal, they'll probably let you go. The insurance companies certainly won't pay if you're not really suicidal. Third, if the ER docs, in consolation with the outpatient doc, decides to hospitalize you, they can only keep you for three days unless they get a court order and courts are very reluctant to commit people involuntarily.
Posted by LostBoyinNC45 on August 14, 2014, at 17:20:43
In reply to Re: a lot of it depends on your Pdoc » LostBoyinNC45, posted by baseball55 on August 13, 2014, at 21:00:26
Civil committment laws are highly variable, state to state. It is mostly a state law thing. NC has very liberal civil committment laws compared to say, most if not all Northern states such as Connecticut, NY, NJ...where civil liberties are taken very seriously. On the other hand, in those states where its harder to get a person committed (voluntarily or involuntarily), gun laws are generally much stricter. For example in CT and NY, it has become next to impossible to buy a new firearm and semi-automatic rifles are now outlawed.
When I was saying in NC outpatient Pdocs can put you in the hospital "at the drop of a hat," I was saying that as a figure of speech...please keep that in mind. They cannot indeed, "just put you in the hospital for any ole reason" down here. And there is a procedure for it, papers to be signed, etc.
The one time I have been in the hospital many years ago, (voluntary for nine days), my Pdoc told me he wanted me to "go to the hospital." I told him "OK" and they had to call my insurance company and had to arrange it with the psych ward of the general hospital I was going to. I drove myself to a local general hospital, went to the ER, never saw an ER doctor at all. Instead a psych nurse from the psychiatry ward came down to meet me, took me upstairs on the elevator where I was taken inside the psych ward area and had to fill out some very formal paperwork that clearly stated it was voluntary.
From my knowledge, the state with the strictest civil committment laws is not a state. Washington D.C. its very easy to get civilly committed.
Eric AKA "LostBoyinNC"
> There are Pdocs who prefer to hospitalize their outpatients at the drop of a hat if the outpatient mentions the word "suicide," even if the outpatient is not actually suicidal but just maybe needs a medication adjustment.
> >
>
> I don't know how it works in NC, but my experience is that outpatient p-docs can't hospitalize you at their discretion. First, you have to go through an emergency room and get there somehow (I guess a p-doc could call the police, but they can't really keep you in their office until the police arrive unless you stay willingly.)
> Second, the ER pdocs have to assess suicide risk. If you get to the ER and deny being suicidal, they'll probably let you go. The insurance companies certainly won't pay if you're not really suicidal. Third, if the ER docs, in consolation with the outpatient doc, decides to hospitalize you, they can only keep you for three days unless they get a court order and courts are very reluctant to commit people involuntarily.
>
>
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 14, 2014, at 21:19:14
In reply to Re: a lot of it depends on your Pdoc, posted by LostBoyinNC45 on August 14, 2014, at 17:20:43
social class and race issues also come into play. Here in SC, I haven't been committed or put on a "court order" because of my parents. Also, I'm white and male--gender is also a huge issue. Much easier to commit women, particularly poor, minority women.Anyway, in other states, they also do involuntary ECT on an in- and out-patient basis. Fun times, huh? I read about this one women in NYC, she's been through over 100 ECT treatments, and the hospital wanted to do more. She doesn't speak much English. An anti-psychiatry group intervened, thank God.
Posted by herpills on August 15, 2014, at 20:20:26
In reply to Re: a lot of it depends on your Pdoc, posted by Christ_empowered on August 14, 2014, at 21:19:14
>
> social class and race issues also come into play. Here in SC, I haven't been committed or put on a "court order" because of my parents. Also, I'm white and male--gender is also a huge issue. Much easier to commit women, particularly poor, minority women.
>What has led you to this conclusion?
I feel it's less about race/gender...and more about whether one has someone advocating for them or not. When you're severely depressed, it's hard to advocate for yourself...
Do poor, minority women have a smaller chance of someone advocating for them?
Posted by LostBoyinNC45 on August 15, 2014, at 20:36:39
In reply to Re: a lot of it depends on your Pdoc, posted by Christ_empowered on August 14, 2014, at 21:19:14
I am not against involuntary ECT in very rare and specific cases. Sometimes, such as when a person is catatonic and cannot speak or otherwise become mentally incompetent, ECT is the only thing that will really work.
I do believe in the rare cases of involuntary ECT, the Judge ought to be required by state statute to assign the involuntary ECT patient an advocate, someone who is not not in anyway financially connected to the hospital or doctors performing the ECT. And should be someone with a psychiatric medical background, such as a psychiatric nurse familiar with ECT and severe mental illness. If the "no conflicts" advocate believes the patient "has had enough of the ECT," they can write a letter or otherwise communicate their professional advocacy opinion to the Judge who originally ordered the involuntary ECT.
To me, "advocacy assigned by default" in involuntary cases is just simple psychiatric professionalism.
Eric AKA "LostBoyinNC"
>
> Anyway, in other states, they also do involuntary ECT on an in- and out-patient basis. Fun times, huh? I read about this one women in NYC, she's been through over 100 ECT treatments, and the hospital wanted to do more. She doesn't speak much English. An anti-psychiatry group intervened, thank God.
Posted by phidippus on August 16, 2014, at 14:38:58
In reply to psychiatry...friend or foe?, posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
You must be seeing the wrong shrinks.
Eric
Posted by phidippus on August 25, 2014, at 11:18:31
In reply to psychiatry...friend or foe?, posted by Christ_empowered on August 7, 2014, at 16:02:17
i take it you have had some bad experiences...eric
This is the end of the 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.