1. STIGMA LEADS TO UNEMPLOYMENT WHICH THEN CREATES HOMELESSNESS 2. STIGMA SUBTLY CONDONES FORCED TREATMENT AND PSYCHIATRIC ABUSE 3. STIGMA ULTIMATELY JUSTIFIES THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MENTAL ILLNESS
THE MEDIA REVEALS IT'S BIAS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH, TRAGEDY
On Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, immediately following the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, while most of the offices around them were shutting down and "heading for the hills", Sandra Lowe, the Director of Community Access's Employment and Training Center (a mental health community service agency which is located four blocks away from "ground zero") refused to evacuate and close her doors, and instead, the training center became a sanctuary of refuge for hundreds of stunned survivors who were frightened, confused and disoriented. Within minutes, those very people whom the media typically portrays as violent and deranged were on the front lines offering support and providing comfort in this time of dire need. Even the NYPD and Fire Department personnel were directing debris-laden victims to the center. The cruel irony of this story is that, with all of the heroes who were being recognized and honored on a daily basis following this disaster, not one member of the media felt that this was a story worthy of mention. Why has no national media conglomerate come forward to report this story? Is it because then there would be no one left to conveniently scapegoat? Or is it because then the American taxpayers might get wind of the fact that their hard-earned tax dollars are being squandered on forced "treatment" and incarceration which only re-traumatizes "the mentally-ill", thereby justifying the need for more of their hard-earned tax dollars? 1/1/02
PHARMACEUTICALS DISTORTING THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH (THE GUARDIAN: 9/10/01)
Thirteen of the world's leading medical journals have mounted an outspoken attack on the rich and powerful drug companies, accusing them of distorting the results of scientific research for the sake of profits. The "Lancet", the "New England Journal of Medicine", the "Journal of the American Medical Association" and other major journals accuse the drug giants of using their money (or the threat of its removal) to tie up academic researchers with legal contracts so that they are unable to report freely and fairly on the results of drug trials. The editors say that a study produced for publication may be skewed in the interests of the pharmaceutical company which hopes to make big profits from any new drug. Academic scientists have little choice but to accept the restrictions imposed on them, the editors say, because they know that the funding they need for research would otherwise go to the increasing number of private contract research organizations. Those organizations last year in the United States received 60% of the research grants handed out by pharmaceutical companies. ("The Guardian", London, September 10th, 2001).
ARE PSYCHIATRISTS IN NEED OF FORCED TREATMENT AND INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT?
In 1997 Psychology Today reported: "psychologists and other mental health professionals may actually be more screwed up than the rest of us." The article entitled "Why Shrinks Have so Many Problems" reveals that psychiatrists commit suicide at rates twice those of other physicians, and citing a 1980 APA (American Psychiatric Association) study, states: "The occurrence of suicide by psychiatrists is quite constant year-to-year, indicating a relatively stable over-supply of depressed psychiatrists." (Psychology Today, July/August 1997, page 62). And as if that were not enough, another article in the "Journal of Clinical Psychiatry" reports that not only do psychiatrists have the highest suicide rate among medical practitioners, but that their suicide rates are three times higher than the general population. ("Suicide by Psychiatrists...", Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 41, no. 8, August 1980). Prescription drug abuse is another disturbing revelation. One survey of 500 practising psychiatrists reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1988 revealed that psychiatrists have much higher rates of psychoactive drug use - the usage rate being 83% - with 48% of those drugs being prescribed for self-treatment. In fact, according to the APA study quoted above, 56% of those who committed suicide, did so under the influence of self-prescribed psychotropic medications. Marital breakdown rates were also similarly disturbing, with psychiatrists leading every other branch of the medical profession. Psychiatrists were more likely to have marriages of shorter duration and were more likely to have problems due to extramarital affairs. ("What Makes Our Marriages Lousy", Medical Economics, 10/1/79). And let's not forget that between 1950 and 1964, more people died in United States federal, state and county "mental hospitals" than the number of Americans killed in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War combined. (1995 "World Almanac and Book of Facts")
PRIVATE INTEREST GROUPS BRING US ONE STEP CLOSER TO A "BRAVE NEW WORLD!"
In a stunning move guaranteed to usher in the era of the "Brave New World" prophesied by Aldous Huxley, New Mexico has become the first state to authorize psychologists to prescribe psycho-tropic medications (heraldsun.com). Ironically, because of the recent revelations that many people with physical illnesses are being misdiagnosed as "mentally-ill," this move by the state of New Mexico will insure that such cases remain undetected and continue to multiply. Allowing a psychologist, who has no medical training whatsoever to prescribe addictive and potentially dangerous medications, is the practical equivalent of allowing a podiatrist to perform heart surgery. Frighteningly, this one swooping decision will almost surely have a domino-effect and set a precedent that is likely to be followed by the rest of the nation. It is undoubtedly a major victory for the pharmaceutical giants. If Aldous Huxley were still alive he would be amazed at how prophetic his predictions about a "Brave New World" actually were (March 6th, 2002). I regret to inform you that the heraldsun.com has chosen to censor the link I posted to their original article. I am therefore including a new link to the actual Senate Bill (281). David@seecinemania.com
"In the Brave New World the soma [drug] habit was not a private vice, it was a political institution... The systematic drugging of individuals for the benefit of the state was a main plank in the policy of the World Controllers. The daily soma ration was an insurance against personal maladjustment, social unrest & the spread of subversive ideas. Religion, Karl Marx declared, is the opium of the people. In the Brave New World this situation was reversed. Opium, or rather soma, was the people's religion!" (Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited", Chapter VIII, Chemical Persuasion) Sign the CineMania Guestbook
VALUE OF SELP-HELP PEER-SUPPORT DENIGRATED BY FORCED "TREATMENT" ADVOCATES
In a no-holds-barred attempt to seize funds from the only form of treatment that has consistently proven itself - that of the integration between the medical model and the self-help peer-support model - advocates of forced treatment have begun to challenge the very boundaries of reason and logic. A March 22nd Newsday article boldly implies that the recent case of "a former mental patient (Peter Troy) who walked into a Lynbrook church and killed a priest and a parishioner" is directly related to the increasing number of "current and former patients who are managing the on-going care of severely ill residents (in Nassau)." This article goes on to point out that "one caseworker, who manages 23 mentally-ill patients, is being treated for paranoid schizophrenia" (I guess they still haven't heard about the gentleman who was was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994), and that "some agencies that contract with Nassau have complained about the assistants (peer counselors) saying that they sometimes behave bizarrely." Do I detect a taint of paranoia in that statement? Ironically, these advocates for forced treatment are the very same "experts" who regularly testify in courtroom proceedings that violent people are not responsible for their behavior because they are "severely mentally-ill", and yet now they would have us believe that certain "severely mentally-ill" people are behaving violently because their managing caseworkers are also "mentally-ill"! Are these "experts" for real? This almost sounds like a conspiracy theory. What will they report next? That these caseworkers are advising their clients not to take their medications?
One such "expert", Sally Satel from the Treatment Advocacy Center, illustrates the level to which these advocates of forced treatment will stoop in her new book, "PC, M.D. How Political Correctness is Corrupting America", which argues that patients organizations are ruining American healthcare. Ms. Satel sees no contradiction between her clearly-defined message that the control of medical treatment must be taken back from the patients and her insistence that patients are being discouraged from taking greater responsibility for their own healthcare. Yet in the very same breath she expresses grave concern over the thousands of dollars that are being spent on self-help peer-support initiatives which have consistently proven their effectiveness - but expresses no concern whatsoever over the millions of dollars that are being squandered on incarceration and forced "treatment", which only re-traumatizes "the mentally-ill". The motives behind Ms. Satel's book are clearly betrayed in her chapter entitled "Inmates Take Over the Asylum." I can't help but wonder if it is merely a coincidence that one of the videos in my research collection called, "Don't Look in the Basement", has an intro on the sleeve which reads: "Take a look at what happens one day when the insane take over the asylum." Is this just another profit-driven ideology under the guise of "treatment", or has Ms. Satel been a victim of CineMania? Besides, why would Ms. Satel refer to the patients as inmates? Isn't that a word which is normally used to describe criminals and prisoners? David@seecinemania.com
Mental Illness is presently classified and diagnosed according to the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (the DSM). It is interesting to note that in 1840 there was only one classification of mental illness, and that was "idiocy/insanity." Four decades after the formation of the APA (the American Psychiatric Association), the number of categories had risen to seven. Those being: mania; melancholia; monomania (irrationality on one subject); paresis; dementia; dipsomania (alcoholism); and epilepsy. In 1933, psychiatrists organized the first standard manual for catergorizing mental illness. This manual was called the "Standard Classified Nomenclature of Disease". It was in 1952 that the first "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" was published by the APA (usually referred to as "the psychiatrists' bible). The number of "mental disorders" had now grown to 112. In 1968, a revised edition, the DSM-II was released. This edition contained 163 "mental disorders. Commentary in the manual reveals that the "disorders" were established by a committee who voted as to whether or not the "disorders" existed. The DSM-III was released in 1980 and a further 61 new disorders had been "discovered." Thus the new total of "mental disorders" was now 224. In 1987, the manual was revised again (DSM-III-R). And now this time the total number of mental disorders had increased to 253. When the DSM-IV was released in 1994, the total number of "mental disorders" had reached 374. (Nexus Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, December 1999 - January 2000). Dr. Sydney Walker III, a neurologist, psychiatrist, and the author of "A Dose of Sanity" says that the DSM has "led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of Americans who could be diagnosed, treated and cured without the use of toxic and potentially lethal medications."
DIODIAGNOSTOMANIA: NEW DISORDER "DISCOVERED" BY A FORMER "MENTAL PATIENT"
Diodiagnostomania: the obsessive, compulsive need to diagnose every behavior exhibited by others as an incurable mental illness - thereby elevating oneself to the status of God."
In an experiment written up as "Being Sane in Insane Places" Dr. D.L. Rosenhan, of Stanford University, and 8 associates (3 women and 5 men) voluntarily entered twelve psychiatric institutions. They complained to the staff psychiatrists of hearing voices which said "hollow", "empty", or "thud". They reported no other symptoms. The "patients" were chosen for the experiment on the basis of being normal everyday people who represented a wide range of occupations, including housewife, artist and pediatrician. After being admitted to the hospitals, all the "patients" told the staff that their symptoms had disappeared, and all acted as they normally did. In these research trials it took the "patients" between 7 to 52 days to be released. In almost all the cases they were discharged with diagnoses of "schizophrenia in remission"; not once were they discharged as being sane. Once the "patients" were on the psychiatric wards they observed many enlightening facts about what happens to a person when others think he is crazy. They found that patients were considered less than human and were treated as though they were invisible. Often they would address the staff with simple questions such as when a particular doctor would be in, and they would be totally ignored. There was little privacy or activity allowed and when discord arose due to these conditions they were attributed to the patients' illness. Many of the "patients" took notes of their observations, first secretly and then openly when they found out that nobody cared. One nurse, commenting on her "patient's psychosis," mentioned his "compulsive note-taking behavior." All the researchers combined were given a total of 2,100 pills, which they, like many "real" patients, discarded. An interesting sidelight to the experiment was the fact that although not one psychiatrist or nurse suspected the hoax, 35 "real" patients out of the 118 residing in the wards with the researchers suspected that they were faking. You're not crazy... you're some kind of inspector or journalist checking up on conditions here at the hospital" was heard over and over again. To confirm their findings, the researchers notified a leading hospital that within a 3-month period 1 or 2 researchers would attempt to gain admittance to their hospital. The hospital staff was notified well in advance about the experiment. Of the 193 patients admitted during the 3-month period, 41 were alleged to be researchers by staff members, including 23 by psychiatrists. Actually, not one researcher had attempted to gain admittance during that period!
In retrospect, I would like to make clear that I am not anti-psychiatry, but that I am, however, anti-abuse, and having been emotionally scarred and traumatized by the very people who were sworn to uphold the highest ethical standards, as a result of psychiatric abuse and psychiatric oppression, I feel compelled to redeem not only myself, but those who believe as I do in the Hippocratic Oath to "Do No Harm". In the forward to Dr. Seth Farber's book "Madness, Heresy, and the Rumor of Angels, Dr. Thomas Szasz wrote: "For as far back as I can remember, it has seemed to me self-evident that people who have knowledge and skill do not need power to coerce others; that people who have power are "ipso facto" dangerous to others; that, as Lord Acton warned, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Aldous Huxley put it more succinctly in his book "Brave New World Revisited" where he wrote: "If the first half of the 20th Century was the era of the technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of the social engineers, and the 21st Century, I suppose, will be the era of the World Controllers, the scientific caste system and the Brave New World. Who will then mount guard over our guardians? Who will engineer the engineers? The answer is a bland denial that they need any supervision. There seems to be a touching belief among certain Ph.D.'s in sociology that Ph.D.'s in sociology will never be corrupted by power!!!" David@seecinemania.com
