Posted by Squiggles on December 3, 2006, at 17:45:29
In reply to Re: Illness increases vulnerability to the irratio » Squiggles, posted by Quintal on December 3, 2006, at 17:24:03
>
> Yes, I have most of the freedoms I want right now, but it seems many would be curbed or outright prohibited under a mental health system guided by the ideas Dr. Torrey, of which you seemed very supportive. That is my objection.I think that since the sixties, the idealistic
push for deinstitutionalization of asylums has
saved the government a lot of money, and left
many mentally ill people out on the street, or
in situations where they have acted beyond their ability for self-protection and self-interest; sometimes even committing crimes without intent.You may be imagining that I am proposing asylums of the Victorian Era or even the 50s where in poor public environments, patients were treated without respect of rights and dignity. I am not proposing a return to that. I am suggesting that clinics (apart from public health) specifically for mental illness or social discord be open. And yes, I think that is necessary not only because hospitals cannot handle the surge of patients now, but because there IS a stigma against the mentally, and NO you cannot get over it with the good will posters of various government associations. You have a society to deal with that is much larger, and not part of the inner circle of academic psychiatry.
>
> I have considerably deeper and broader knowledge of psychoactive substances than all bar one psychiatrist that has tried to treat me. That's not arrogance, it's an unfortunate fact. I refer to my earlier post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061129/msgs/709925.
htmlI do too, but I would rather not speak of it.
>
> >Some people here have died it seems from
> accidents or suicide. For most, if you
> can type legibly and make sense on the computer,
> you need not worry about severe psychosis
>
> I'm not sure what you mean there. Some people who have psychotic disorders are very articulate and artistically talented.I mean that for most who are not seriously disable d by a mental crisis, the internet is accessible and makes sense. If as you say you have experienced more serious states, you will surely understand that research on the net is definitely a challenge, at least until the crisis is over.
>
> >It's funny how someone with appendicitis is
> rushed to the hospital and loses his freedom
> under anaesthesia
>
> That's a different set of circumstances entirely and not particularly relevant to psychiatry. If the patient is conscious they are invariably asked to sign their consent to surgery. If they happen to fall unconscious it is assumed they would prefer to have an appendectomy, as is a doctor's duty under the Hippocratic oath to preserve life I believe?
>
> >but the freedom of someone who is ready to jump off a bridge or drown their children, is considered inalienable, by the
> anti-psychiatrists.
>
> No it isn't. The freedom of people to go about their daily lives in safety is the inalieble right. If a person for any reason - terrorism, activism, insanity - tries to jeopardise that right they should be restrained against their will if necessary. The fear I think for the anti-psychiatrists is vulnerable people being incarcerated against their will for indefinite periods of time and forced to take powerful drugs with dangerous side effects. It's something I think we should all fear here lest it happen to us, and it saddens me to hear a fellow bipolar advocating a regime where that type of abuse could flourish. The book "Repossessing Ernestine" comes to mind when I think of this subject.Well, you may be right there. But there are many incidents where one cannot predict how a person who is depressed will respond if he or she is not observed by a doctor.
>
> >I think it reveals a hidden
> antipathy, perhaps even fear for the mentally ill.
>
> Perhaps with good reason? I refer to my earlier post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061129/msgs/709986.html
>
> >But they are just as treatable as if they would have heart disease-- the mental illness originating or affecting the brain
>
> That isn't true for some people - the ones who are considered treatment resistant. I'm not convinced all psychiatric problems are entirely due to brain dysfunction.Ah - there's the rub. I think mental health as well as mental illness depend on brain function.
To call it a dysfunction is a value judgement-- but that is what our culture is-- a set of judgements; it is conceivable to have a society of schizophrenics and call it a kind of Dystopia.Squiggles
>
> Q
poster:Squiggles
thread:709872
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061129/msgs/710024.html