Psychiatry should be banned

[writergal]

I have not read ALL the posts, but it sounds like an interesting discussion and, I'm very sorry to say, there are posters who appear to be in a lot of emotional pain.

 

I may not be PC, but the horrendous experiments done by the Nazi's in WWII did lead to more ethical, and voluntary, testing and research and produced some good today. Would I rather step back medically a few decades to erase those atrocities? Yes -- and no. I'd be a widow now so on a completely personal and selfish level No. But on an intellectual level Yes, of course.

 

I have mixed emotions regarding psychiatry (yes - pun intended!). It is a soft science and prone to interpretation in the broadest sense. However, I think that there is hard science behind it just waiting for us to discover and understand it. We don't know nearly enough about the brain or how it works or even how it interacts with and/or controls the body. Where do thoughts come from? Dreams? Emotions? Is Love more than a chemical released by a gland?

 

Maybe in a few more generations, or maybe a few dozen generations, there will be hard science and what we know today will be read in text books with the same distance and cavalier attitude with which we read about medical care and hospitals before we know about germs, bacteria and what cleanliness means to health.

 

If someone is in pain and needs help - I think it's worth a try, as long as the person realizes that every doctor is very different and in this case a relationship must be developed in order to be helpful. We have a crisis hotline, but not urgent care centers for emotional or mental needs that require more indepth or long-term care. We have lawyers & their toadie witness therapists to slap on the labels without offering any help.

 

Having been a grief counselor for pet-loss; and having lost many loved ones and dealt with some harsh circumstances all my life; and marrying a man who was very much abused as a child (so much so, that it took decades for physical scar tissue to build up and for emotional scars and attitudes to develop) I don't dicsount the good the right therapy can do; or the right medications in conjunction with therapy -- but I also don't trust anyone. I saw someone for that once, but I didn't trust them. No, seriously. You have to BE in the right frame of mind and emotion to accept that kind of help.

 

I did call the crisis hotline once many years ago and the wonderful woman on the other end of the phone saved my sanity that night. I wasn't suicidal, but I was overwhelmed with a tragedy and all alone. I WAS in the right frame of mind then and I reached out to someone who helped. So, if someone out there is hurting - reach out. Be it here, or a crisis hotline, or a follow-up with a therapist (or several to find the right one) - all you may need is someone to help you sort out your life right now; or maybe someone to act as your support system while you find out if there is a medical reason behind your feelings.

 

Like I said, my husband has actual physical scar tissue in his brain that developed over 50+ years before it became noticable in his emotions and behavior. He thought it was "all in his head" for years - and it was, but not in the way he imagined. A diagnosis of scar tissue and some dead brain cells was actually a cause for celebration because it meant my husband was NOT crazy or responsible for some of his feelings. A 'mental health' professional was pivotal in us finding that out.

 

I think it's great that you offer grief counseling to pet owners. And I think crisis phone lines are very useful resources for people who need 15 minutes of counseling to help the person calm down. Did a psychiatrist diagnose your husband? I'm curious why you would elude to the type of 'mental health professional' instead of which kind of doctor made your husband's diagnosis.

 

A psychiatrist can't diagnose scar tissue in the brain, or "dead brain cells." They aren't licensed to do that. They would be disbarred if they did. All psychiatrists are licensed to do, is to prescribe medicine and diagnosis a mental health disorder. Neurologists and neuro-psychologists are the only licensed doctors who can diagnose brain conditions, diseases or disorders. I should know because of what I went through with my head injury over 10 years ago.

 

Whether or not to seek help isn't the issue in this thread. The issue of this thread is to debate the efficacy of psychiatric medicine in our society. Should it be banned or not? While it can't be banned, obviously, there are alternatives to psychiatry that offer much safer means to healing where mental illness is concerned. And psychiatry is a pseudo-science, meaning that it's not REAL science but has the appearance of, or tries to be. Psychiatry is not a true science.

 

Psychiatry is a billion dollar industry that has been indoctrinated into our society's consciousness as an acceptable method of treatment for mental health issues. To challenge the status quo (as I have tried to do here) means challenging people's thinking. I've repeatedly asked people who support psychiatry to show me proof other than their opinion that psychiatry is a safe, viable industry. So far, no one has. Why?

Edited July 7, 2012 by writergal

[xxoo]

But you didn't read the article I posted a link to. Did you? So you think that psychiatrist who prescribed 3 antidepressants to that woman in the article, who was already suicidal, had her best interest in mind? I disagree. I think it was a completely irresponsible thing to do and clearly what she used to commit suicide with. She had no alcohol in her system, just 3 antidepressants.

 

Would you take 3 antidepressants at the same time if prescribed to you, willingly? And not be worried how that would effect your mindset?

 

I understand what you're saying, that its impossible to predict how an individual will respond to a drug they take. I agree that doctors have more knowledge (as they should since they have a medical license) of drug efficacy than the consumer. After all, you're supposed to trust a doctor, aren't you?

 

If doctors are so concerned about drug interactions, then why do they over-prescribe all the time? How is that justifiable? Just seems really irresponsible to me esp. since there are no true blood tests to measure the effectiveness of a drug. All those blood tests do is show the levels of the drug in the body, if the levels are normal, too high or too low. Then doctors ask patients how they feel, but at the same time tell patients how they should feel while on a drug. That's not science. That's guess-work.

 

"Sales before safety, marketing before evidence" is the drug industry's motto.

 

Industry funded drug research is not-trustworthy, and, I think, presents a very distorted picture of the truth. The goal of these so called drug studies is to promote the drug in clinical trials as being effective, and line their pockets with consumers money, when really, the results are inconclusive.

 

[O-F4-01] The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and its Consequences. A Qualitative, Systematic Review of the Literature on Possible Influences on the Findings, Protocols, Quality, Authorship, Access to Trial Data, Trial Registrati

 

Which article? I read the link regarding the autopsy.

 

I am a dr, nor her dr, and I have no idea how her dr decided to prescribe whatever meds were prescribed. In fact, I don't even know from that article if a dr did prescribe those ADs concurrently, only that she took them.

 

If I had a "lifelong struggle with depression", as described in the article, I'd probably be willing to try to try different combos of meds to find some relief. Fortunately, when I did suffer from depression, I found relief on the second med. The first med, otoh, made me feel much worse. It is not a perfect science, but it can be life saving.

 

I am not doubting the fact that there are problems in the drug industry, and that some drs (all types of drs) are corruptible--but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

[carhill]

Reading the abstract (I don't have access to the full text) of the latest link, and combining it with the thrust of the posting containing it, I can only conclude that this line of debate is focusing more on the pharmaceutical industry in general rather than psychiatry. Pharmaceuticals cross all branches of medicine and I think you'll find many commonalities of complaint along those specific lines in specialties ranging far and wide of psychiatry.

 

Having personally managed the 'drugstore' for a psychotic paraphrenic, I'll vouch for the steep learning curve, educated guesses and variability of results attendant. No doubt, it's imperfect science. I spent the equivalent of a full-time job every week on medical research and management, like reading the research, questioning the professionals, journaling results, watching for side-effects, etc, etc. All that to give one individual some quality of life for a few years. No doctor would ever have, nor did, slip a cocktail (relevant to the three med example) in without answering a battery of questions and getting my full cooperation based on independent research and consultation (like with a second, unrelated doctor as well as a pharmacist).

 

I found, personally, and this could attend to an end patient too, if the care manager is educated and cares, then doctors care more and the team is more successful. Once they saw I didn't accept everything at face value and talked their language, care and treatment improved.

 

If psychiatry and psychiatric meds were banned, my care charge (mother) would have ended up just howling at the moon and running naked in the streets, which she ended up doing a couple of times anyway, and would have ended up in a locked facility in a rubber room. Remember, no drugs, no care, just containment. Not something I'd want for myself or a loved one. Though research is still in its infancy, we also experimented with natural substances as alternatives to medications so, if synthesized drugs were banned, I guess that might stimulate more research in the natural substances area. Hopefully, regardless, more research will occur. The more we know, the better we can treat.

[xxoo]

I am a dr,

 

Meant to say "I am not a dr"

[denise_xo]

I am not doubting the fact that there are problems in the drug industry, and that some drs (all types of drs) are corruptible--but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

I can only conclude that this line of debate is focusing more on the pharmaceutical industry in general rather than psychiatry.

 

That would be my take on it, too. I mean, there is nothing surprising about this, taken from the abstract of one of the articles linked further up:

 

Published drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies may present a distorted picture

 

But that conclusion doesn't tell me that ADs never provide results that aren't statistically significant, and it doesn't explain why so many people report that ADs or other medication have drastically improved their life quality (even if we allow for placebo effects, which I personally think are under rated in terms of exploiting their potential). I am quite open to the general ideas that a) we are a society that is over medicating, and b) that we are in a process of medicalising a lot of behaviours that previously were seen as 'normal'. However, I don't think those development are reducible to Big Pharma only, but are reflective also of a whole range of conditions associated with the so called modern condition. Where I live, psychiatrists are not needed to prescribe ADs, and most doctors will not offer you any unless you agree to try therapy and to discuss various other aspects of your life with them (including exercise, diet, stress management, etc). So, I just don't see the black and white picture that's being painted in many of the threads here.

[Feelin Frisky]

Yes, that is what psychiatry is, but I'm against sponsored drug addiction for un-provable mental disorders and conditions (that's what I believe psychiatry is). Or haven't you been following the thread?

 

No one here is arguing for/against psychology. That's completely different than the practice of psychiatry. A huge difference.

 

As far as calling this thread moronic...that's moronic.

 

The OP posed a question to find out if psychiatry serves a valid purpose. I argued that psychiatry doesn't serve a valid purpose and I provided all kinds of evidence to support that argument, whereas other posts just rely on their subjective, personal opinion (which is their right) as proof that psychiatry does work.

 

Slow down there, speed-reader before you jump in barking out insults.

I'm against "sponsored drug addition" too. Most definitely so. But you are making a big mistake by lumping non-addictive medicines that represent great engineering, lengthy testing and long track records of resulted in with old sedatives or amphetamines that were prescribed for depression four decades ago. No one is in any rehab for addiction to SSRIs. NO one.

 

I am not in favor of being liberal with SSRIs on children because for an SSRI to work, the patient has to know them self and be able to make small realizations about progress or lack thereof. Children don't have this perspective nearly as much as grown ups. And I believe that not enough has been done to study sleep patterns to be able to diagnose childhood behavioral problems not caused by diseases like autism. You should really get up to date on medicine--some of it is excellent and life saving, and none of the SSRI class has abuse potential or is addictive.

[todreaminblue]

In a discussion like this where two sides debate, yes, an opinion isn't enough if you want to convince the other side why your argument is credible. Life experience is subjective, so if you want to persuade me that psychiatry has a benefit you'll really have to show me proof other than your opinion that its helped you.

 

So let me ask you this, why won't you post links to articles, etc. that back up your opinion that psychiatry works? It's easy for you to attack my POV because you disagree, yet you don't show me any proof of why psychiatry works on a general level (excluding your experience with it). It comes across like you don't respect me, period. And I went out of my way to find resources that prove why I think psychiatry is bad. Have you even clicked on the links to read/listen to the other side of where psychiatry is wrong? If you did that then came back to me and said, "I can see why you think this, but here's where you're wrong (then present me with an outside source who backs up your point), that would show me that you are really interested in this discussion rather than just stating your opinion as fact, and that's it, no need to expand beyond that.

 

I respect you for sharing your opinion that its helped you of course, but that isn't enough to convince me to believe that psychiatry benefits society, especially considering how much more safe and effective I think the Integrative Medicine approach is, since it treats the whole person. Psychiatry just bilks people of their money and addicts them to unsafe prescription drugs for disorders and conditions that can't be proven to actually exist for which there are no tests or cures.

 

As far as the drumming experience goes, why wouldn't I reach out to a child who was affected by the drum's noise? Of course I would, did, and do. All of the children who participated for those two months at that center wanted to be there, and none of them shied away from the drum circle. Not one. Some were very shy but participated. If any of them got distressed of course we helped the children. I've been drumming for 12 years and have taught children African drumming in schools, at autistic centers, coffee shops and churches and at farmers markets. Children of all ages, backgrounds and personalities. What does that have to do with psychiatry, exactly?

 

It is my opinion that my argument is credible,you talk about subjectivity.....the work that you did with those children was admirable.....but whether or not it will help them in the future is an unknown quantity and not predictable by you or any statistics......you don't know if some of those children will have to go through psychiatry at a later date........that's what it has to do with psychiatry.....actually I do respect you and your opinion......I actually even participate in alternative therapy in conjunction with my prescribed medication.......In another post I wrote I hoped that I hadn't been disrespectful to you, that I found your posts to be eloquent and that the bigpharma rep had valid points.......I guess you didn't bother to read those posts by me ......who is disprespecting who.....you have taken this thread on fired up and bulldozing me with links written by people who you have never worked with you are mirroring their words......why should I trust the links even if they do have valid points....The internet is full of information good and bad.....some of it true.....some of it not......and some of it will be proven down the track to be of no help ..... and I understand your passion but here is your quote "that would show me that you are really interested in this discussion rather than just stating your opinion as fact, and that's it, no need to expand beyond that." I have to show you I am interested in this thread to post anything or question you by posting links and articles to back up my opinion.......I have respected you and you have shown a lack of respect overall for my opinion, my experiences and the fact I say alternative therapy is great used in conjunction with psychiatry......I have never once wrote your opinion is not credible.......I have tried to validate my opinion by honesty, a real face to a statistic.....you want the statistic.......this site is not about statistics......this site is called LOVE shack .....and love is subjective......so is the shack part subjective because I don't see a shack anywhere....this is a thread on a subjective site where everybody has a right to share their opinion whether or not we want to provide statistics.....should be up to the individual......you show me that this thread has rules and that this is a debate for starters.....I have read your links......but honestly I am interested in reading what people on ls have to say......including you.....which you rather rudely don't reciprocate.....i am used to being discounted, I am used to being a statistic on a government data base.....I have a right to share my opinion here without backing it up by links and articles.......since when do you have the right to tell me that I can't join in and that i show a lack of interest.....is that your learned opinion of me now....or is it subjective......? You need to go back and read my posts.....i am interested' actually extremely passionate about this topic......someone might appreciate me posting some other poster may feel i have something useful to offer..........putting a different perspective......a human link..some emotive responses.....or no one gives a **** what i have to post.....the government hard drive doesnt......join the queue...ill keep posting....deb

Edited July 8, 2012 by todreaminblue

[threebyfate]

From what I've observed on LS, the people who need the help of therapy the most, don't believe in it.

[writergal]

From what I've observed on LS, the people who need the help of therapy the most, don't believe in it.

 

I'm sure that's true for some posters here. Not for me since it's obvious that's what you're implying. On the contrary, I'm a HUGE proponent of therapy - CBT or DBT, just not prescription medication. I had CBT after my head injury over a decade ago and found it very helpful.

 

I believe that CBT, DBT therapies combined with Integrative Medicine are better alternatives to treating people than the way psychiatry does with strong medications.

 

I know people who've done CBT and DBT and found those approaches more helpful than just medication. There are studies that show CBT to be effective for people with skizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, regular depression, anxiety, basically the whole gamut of mental illnesses and disorders, especially when the CBT is mindfulness based.

 

CBT and DBT involves the patient with homework, reading, and even group therapy or classes. Both therapies teach coping skills and give the patient tools to analyze their own thinking patterns in proactive ways. Both therapies show patients "if you change your thoughts, you change your behaviors." What’s the Difference Between CBT and DBT? | Psych Central

 

What I am against, is the efficacy of pharmacological practices by psychiatry as a pseudo-science. Psychiatry is as credible to me as Scientology (which was founded by a science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard on a bar bet with Robert Heinlein, another science fiction writer. The two were drinking and Hubbard said the quickest way to get rich was to invent a religion. So the myth goes).

 

I've already shown that even the psychiatric industry admits its "chemical imbalance" theory was created for marketing purposes, videos where psychiatrists explain how their DSM-IV committees get together at conferences and categorize behaviors and moods into new diseases and disorders that they can justify medication for, videos and articles where psychiatrists admit that no, there aren't any sufficient tests to prove the existence of the mental disorders and conditions listed in the DSM-IV manual. I've tried to coral many different sources that support my argument why psychiatry isn't beneficial and does more harm than good, and I've offered Integrative Medicine as an alternative.

Edited July 8, 2012 by writergal

[writergal]

Reading the abstract (I don't have access to the full text) of the latest link, and combining it with the thrust of the posting containing it, I can only conclude that this line of debate is focusing more on the pharmaceutical industry in general rather than psychiatry. Pharmaceuticals cross all branches of medicine and I think you'll find many commonalities of complaint along those specific lines in specialties ranging far and wide of psychiatry.

 

Having personally managed the 'drugstore' for a psychotic paraphrenic, I'll vouch for the steep learning curve, educated guesses and variability of results attendant. No doubt, it's imperfect science. I spent the equivalent of a full-time job every week on medical research and management, like reading the research, questioning the professionals, journaling results, watching for side-effects, etc, etc. All that to give one individual some quality of life for a few years. No doctor would ever have, nor did, slip a cocktail (relevant to the three med example) in without answering a battery of questions and getting my full cooperation based on independent research and consultation (like with a second, unrelated doctor as well as a pharmacist).

 

I found, personally, and this could attend to an end patient too, if the care manager is educated and cares, then doctors care more and the team is more successful. Once they saw I didn't accept everything at face value and talked their language, care and treatment improved.

 

If psychiatry and psychiatric meds were banned, my care charge (mother) would have ended up just howling at the moon and running naked in the streets, which she ended up doing a couple of times anyway, and would have ended up in a locked facility in a rubber room. Remember, no drugs, no care, just containment. Not something I'd want for myself or a loved one. Though research is still in its infancy, we also experimented with natural substances as alternatives to medications so, if synthesized drugs were banned, I guess that might stimulate more research in the natural substances area. Hopefully, regardless, more research will occur. The more we know, the better we can treat.

 

Psychiatry is definitely an imperfect science - but it's not even a science. It just appears to be, hence its pseudo-science label. It can't claim to be scientific for many reasons.

 

Well you can't separate pharmacology with psychiatry as the two are synonymous with each other. The whole field of psychiatry is built on prescribing patients medication for disorders. That's the sole function of psychiatry as an industry, and that's where a majority of problems exist. We haven't discussed the ethics of psychiatrists which is also important. I agree that there are just as many complaints regarding over-medication outside the psychiatric industry. But my complaint is strictly with the psychiatric industry.

 

Well, during your years as a medical researcher I'm surprised you didn't come across cases where a psychiatrist was accused of over-prescribing a patient, esp. because that happens a lot Georgia Psychiatrist Sued For Medical Malpractice After Patient Kills Mother | Goldberg & Osborne and even sexual misconduct Madison Park Blogger: Longtime Madison Park psychiatrist suspended and sued over sexual misconduct.

 

Your mother's condition I can't comment on, except to say that I'm sure medication was justified in her case, as well as being hospitalized. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

 

And I agree with you about the need for ethical research (not private research funded by pharmaceutical companies which is biased and untrustworthy) where synthetic drugs are concerned. The human body is a precious capsule and loading it with un-necessary toxic chemicals from medications (that already exist in our food and water) is wrong. After all, all we have is now, in this life.

[xxoo]

I believe that CBT, DBT therapies combined with Integrative Medicine are better alternatives to treating people than the way psychiatry does with strong medications.

 

I know people who've done CBT and DBT and found those approaches more helpful than just medication. There are studies that show CBT to be effective for people with skizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, regular depression, anxiety, basically the whole gamut of mental illnesses and disorders, especially when the CBT is mindfulness based.

 

CBT and DBT involves the patient with homework, reading, and even group therapy or classes. Both therapies teach coping skills and give the patient tools to analyze their own thinking patterns in proactive ways. Both therapies show patients "if you change your thoughts, you change your behaviors." What’s the Difference Between CBT and DBT? | Psych Central

 

CBT is often used in conjunction with pharmaceuticals. It isn't like psychiatric providers are unsupportive of CBT.

[writergal]

I'm against "sponsored drug addition" too. Most definitely so. But you are making a big mistake by lumping non-addictive medicines that represent great engineering, lengthy testing and long track records of resulted in with old sedatives or amphetamines that were prescribed for depression four decades ago. No one is in any rehab for addiction to SSRIs. NO one.

 

I am not in favor of being liberal with SSRIs on children because for an SSRI to work, the patient has to know them self and be able to make small realizations about progress or lack thereof. Children don't have this perspective nearly as much as grown ups. And I believe that not enough has been done to study sleep patterns to be able to diagnose childhood behavioral problems not caused by diseases like autism. You should really get up to date on medicine--some of it is excellent and life saving, and none of the SSRI class has abuse potential or is addictive.

 

Well, non-addictive medicines that are synthetic are still harmful and dangerous, in my opinion. Regardless of how far engineering synthetic drugs has come in the past 50 years, synthetic drugs come with risks.

 

As far as your comment that no one has ever attended rehab for an SSRI addiction, wrong again: here's a Time Magazine article about SSRI addiction concerning the SSRI Effexxor: http://ezinearticles.com/?Addiction-and-SSRI-Medications&id=1368570 and this movie about a husband's addiction to the SSRI Paxil. Home

 

People suffer SSRI Discontinuation Syndrome, trying to go off SSRIs. That implies that the SSRI is addictive on a physiological level, the same way that alcohol, Heroine and Cocaine is addictive. The body builds up a tolerance of the SSRI in the bloodstream, to the point where trying to wean off of the SSRI is like going through drug-withdrawl. I know that doctors and medical websites say, "oh SSRI addiction is a myth because those are safe to take." Well, I think that's hogwash.

 

And I'm disgusted with the way that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs as safe for children to take. Look at all the suicides of children and young adults who were on SSRIs. It's despicable. Antidepressants: Good Drugs or Good Marketing?: Scientific American

[bentnotbroken]

Psychiatry is definitely an imperfect science - but it's not even a science. It just appears to be, hence its pseudo-science label. It can't claim to be scientific for many reasons.

 

Well you can't separate pharmacology with psychiatry as the two are synonymous with each other. The whole field of psychiatry is built on prescribing patients medication for disorders. That's the sole function of psychiatry as an industry, and that's where a majority of problems exist. We haven't discussed the ethics of psychiatrists which is also important. I agree that there are just as many complaints regarding over-medication outside the psychiatric industry. But my complaint is strictly with the psychiatric industry.

 

Well, during your years as a medical researcher I'm surprised you didn't come across cases where a psychiatrist was accused of over-prescribing a patient, esp. because that happens a lot Georgia Psychiatrist Sued For Medical Malpractice After Patient Kills Mother | Goldberg & Osborne and even sexual misconduct Madison Park Blogger: Longtime Madison Park psychiatrist suspended and sued over sexual misconduct.

 

Your mother's condition I can't comment on, except to say that I'm sure medication was justified in her case, as well as being hospitalized. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

 

And I agree with you about the need for ethical research (not private research funded by pharmaceutical companies which is biased and untrustworthy) where synthetic drugs are concerned. The human body is a precious capsule and loading it with un-necessary toxic chemicals from medications (that already exist in our food and water) is wrong. After all, all we have is now, in this life.

 

 

One of the links you provided involved sexual misconduct...isn't this true for all sciences and professions? Does it make those professions invalid and not real?

[writergal]

CBT is often used in conjunction with pharmaceuticals. It isn't like psychiatric providers are unsupportive of CBT.

 

It's a choice. But you can do CBT without pharmaceuticals. It's just as, if not more effective without drugs. Studies have proven that about CBT.

[writergal]

One of the links you provided involved sexual misconduct...isn't this true for all sciences and professions? Does it make those professions invalid and not real?

 

Don't stray from the argument, which is about psychiatrists and ethical treatment of patients. We're not talking about other sciences and professions so to bring those in to the argument is just a deflective tactic.

[bentnotbroken]

Don't stray from the argument, which is about psychiatrists and ethical treatment of patients. We're not talking about other sciences and professions so to bring those in to the argument is just a deflective tactic.

 

 

Sorry. You posted a link that I thought you were using to support your argument. I will bow out of the conversation.

[xxoo]

It's a choice. But you can do CBT without pharmaceuticals. It's just as, if not more effective without drugs. Studies have proven that about CBT.

 

Studies have shown combined therapy to be an improvement on either CBT or SSRIs alone.

 

Don't stray from the argument, which is about psychiatrists and ethical treatment of patients. We're not talking about other sciences and professions so to bring those in to the argument is just a deflective tactic.

 

Actually, the OP asks what use psychiatry serves. The ethical issues within psychiatry may be off topic.

[writergal]

Sorry. You posted a link that I thought you were using to support your argument. I will bow out of the conversation.

 

I posted two links in response to Carhill's statements about psychiatrists. I threw in the one about the psychiatrist's sexual misconduct to support my argument. I don't want to talk about other sciences since this thread is about psychiatry.

[bentnotbroken]

Studies have shown combined therapy to be an improvement on either CBT or SSRIs alone.

 

 

 

Actually, the OP asks what use psychiatry serves. The ethical issues within psychiatry may be off topic.

 

 

Indeed you are correct. So the majority of this thread and posts are off topic. Maybe it's that time.

[writergal]

Studies have shown combined therapy to be an improvement on either CBT or SSRIs alone.

 

 

 

Actually, the OP asks what use psychiatry serves. The ethical issues within psychiatry may be off topic.

 

Well, the ethical issues within psychiatry can easily be a reason why psychiatry should be banned, so I disagree with you that it's off topic.

 

Here are some different arguments that could easily support my stance that psychiatry should be banned (which are covered in all the links I've provided throughout my posts in this thread):

 

Psychiatry is a pseudo-science not a medical science.

 

Psychiatrists create DSM-IV teams to manufacture mental disorders and conditions which are class and culturally based moral judgments aka a way to control social order of society against people who think or act 'differently' than the status quo. It's a form of social control, punishment. Not treatment.

 

Psychiatrists misinform, abuse, and deceive patients frequently violating the Hippocratic Oath and violating people's civil rights.

 

Inappropriate use of medical concepts and tools such as categorizing normal behavior in extreme situations as abnormal to justify medication and treatment.

 

No development of objective tests to determine a patient's true mental state.

 

Abuse of power, mistreating patients against their will.

 

Over-prescription of Antidepressants.

 

Compromising medical and ethical integrity because of ties to pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies.

 

Using the DSM manual which is un-scientific and stigmatizes patients.

 

These reasons sum up my argument that psychiatry should be banned or more realistically, regulated by the US Gov't (which it isn't).

[writergal]

Indeed you are correct. So the majority of this thread and posts are off topic. Maybe it's that time.

 

You're wrong, actually. All of the reasons I've argued are completely related to the topic of why I think psychiatry should be banned. You have yet to provide a valid counter argument to the OP's question. "Because it helps people" isn't good enough.

[writergal]

Studies have shown combined therapy to be an improvement on either CBT or SSRIs alone.

 

 

 

Actually, the OP asks what use psychiatry serves. The ethical issues within psychiatry may be off topic.

 

You and the poster Bentnotbroken haven't contributed anything relevant to the OP's question, so if anyone is off-topic, it's you two.

[todreaminblue]

I'm sure that's true for some posters here. Not for me since it's obvious that's what you're implying. On the contrary, I'm a HUGE proponent of therapy - CBT or DBT, just not prescription medication. I had CBT after my head injury over a decade ago and found it very helpful.

 

I believe that CBT, DBT therapies combined with Integrative Medicine are better alternatives to treating people than the way psychiatry does with strong medications.

 

I know people who've done CBT and DBT and found those approaches more helpful than just medication. There are studies that show CBT to be effective for people with skizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, regular depression, anxiety, basically the whole gamut of mental illnesses and disorders, especially when the CBT is mindfulness based.

 

CBT and DBT involves the patient with homework, reading, and even group therapy or classes. Both therapies teach coping skills and give the patient tools to analyze their own thinking patterns in proactive ways. Both therapies show patients "if you change your thoughts, you change your behaviors." What’s the Difference Between CBT and DBT? | Psych Central

 

What I am against, is the efficacy of pharmacological practices by psychiatry as a pseudo-science. Psychiatry is as credible to me as Scientology (which was founded by a science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard on a bar bet with Robert Heinlein, another science fiction writer. The two were drinking and Hubbard said the quickest way to get rich was to invent a religion. So the myth goes).

 

I've already shown that even the psychiatric industry admits its "chemical imbalance" theory was created for marketing purposes, videos where psychiatrists explain how their DSM-IV committees get together at conferences and categorize behaviors and moods into new diseases and disorders that they can justify medication for, videos and articles where psychiatrists admit that no, there aren't any sufficient tests to prove the existence of the mental disorders and conditions listed in the DSM-IV manual. I've tried to coral many different sources that support my argument why psychiatry isn't beneficial and does more harm than good, and I've offered Integrative Medicine as an alternative.

 

To me the subjective emotive thinking medicated discounted and ignored unimportant poster you have not been able to provide rock solid proof that psychiatry does more harm than good.....you have provided links and articles that were informative and interesting that show benefits of alternative therapies which I already utilize....its funny that you should use scientolgy in your post as being about as credible as psychiatry and yet you believe basically the same thing as scientologists believe Scientology and Psychiatry - Why Scientology Is Against Psychiatric Treatment but you discount them as being credible this is basically what scientologists are taught to steer clear of and your posts mirror the scientology beliefs.........

In short, Scientologists believe psychiatric treatments do much more harm than good, which is why they warn Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike to steer clear of them. As one official website states: "At best, psychiatry suppresses life’s problems; at worst, it causes severe damage, irreversible setbacks in a person’s life and even death." (Scientology Catechism - Why Is Scientology Opposed to Psychiatric Abuses?)

 

Criticism of The Psychiatric Profession

 

The Church of Scientology is highly critical of the entire psychiatric profession. It considers psychiatrists and related professionals to be peddling pseudo-science for profit to such an extreme that they have labeled psychiatric practices as violations of basic human rights. To combat psychiatry, the Church formed the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (or CCHR) in 1969. Psychiatric medical professionals are also accused of treating humans as soulless beings, no different from animals, an idea quite anathema to Scientology.

Finally, Scientologists view psychiatry as a tool used in brainwashing, murder and other heinous acts. They blame the profession for the development of Hitler, Stalin, the 9/11 terrorists, the Columbine killers, and others guilty of committing some of the most heinous acts in modern history.

 

Non-Scientology Objections to Psychiatry

 

Scientologists are not the only people to severely criticize psychiatry. The CCHR has non-Scientology members, and there are organizations independent of the Church of Scientology also dedicated to combating the practice of psychiatry in whole or in part. Objections include:

• Failing to meet the definition of a hard science, which ergo places psychiatry into the category of pseudo-science
  
• People being treated against their will
  
• Definitions of disorders being too vague to produce non-arbitrary diagnoses.
  
• Overly brutal forms of treatment (including ECT and lobotomy)
  
• Overly controlling and demeaning forms of treatment
  
• The profession too often being used to marginalize those who do not fit the social status quo, misdiagnosing their outlooks or behaviors as an illness
  
• Treatments generally causing more harm than good
  
• Psychiatrists’ overly-close relationship with pharmaceutical and insurance companies
  

Non-Scientologist objectors, however, generally do not view psychiatry as a conspiracy theory, nor do they blame the profession for modern world tragedies like the Church of Scientology does.

 

 

You say that scientology is not credible but yet everything you have said in your posts is what they believe to be absolute truth.....so what again is not credible about scientology...what is it that you find ludicrous about scientology....for you personally..... because it sounds exactly the same as what you believe as far as psychiatry goes.......or do you pick and choose what to believe...keep this one from that and take that idea from there.....according to how it might prove your point......you have proven that a lot of the views that you hold are exactly the same as scientology which you deem to be not credible or as credible as psychiatry......that speaks for itself.....you have proven that scientology holds exactly the same views as yourself.....and that particular cult would you call it? will back you up and welcome you with open arms........and spy on you and censor all your posts as well...tell you how to act what to say......who to be friends with .....tell me now the scientology is not credible but correct when it comes to psychiatry......when you class them together in credibility as having no value.......enlighten me......

 

alternative therapy is important, beneficial and can aid recovery in the mentally ill but psychiatry is also beneficial to some where alternative leaves off and more research is required for psychiatry to have more success

[bentnotbroken]

You're wrong, actually. All of the reasons I've argued are completely related to the topic of why I think psychiatry should be banned. You have yet to provide a valid counter argument to the OP's question. "Because it helps people" isn't good enough.

 

 

1) I am not wrong...I just do not agree with your stance. There is a difference.

 

2) You have done well with your argument...I don't feel the need to argue. As I said in a previous post here .....I was enjoying the conversation but disagreed with it.

 

3) What you see as valid...I see as nothing more than a "cause" that many of us have. For me the valid is the fact that I have seen with my own eyes over a good part of my life time the difference in psychiatric (PsyD) attention and those who couldn't afford the opportunity. Those people would include ME. My life is livable again. I am here for my children, my family and my friends and really don't give a rat's butt who believes what I "should have", "could have" or "ought to do". What my doctor and I do to manage my physical and mental health works for me.

 

4) Others who have come here with opposing opinions and why mental health professionals have worked for them have basically been dismissed as ....oh, I don't know....off topic and deflecting.

 

5) Maybe the links shouldn't be provided if you don't want them read and discussed.

 

6) My response of "because it is helps people" is more than good enough for those of us that have been helped.

 

Thank you for the discussion.

[xxoo]

You're wrong, actually. All of the reasons I've argued are completely related to the topic of why I think psychiatry should be banned. You have yet to provide a valid counter argument to the OP's question. "Because it helps people" isn't good enough.

 

Helping people is exactly why psychiatry remains important, despite its shortcomings and limitations.

 

No one is denying the shortcomings and limitations, although we seem to strongly disagree on the degree of shortcomings and limitations.