TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,813
Note: I was thinking about making separate threads on such a big topic, but instead I will merge some topics into one thread as it all relates to each other in some way, shape, or form.
As usual, existentialgoof has said in the past and yet again, albeit in different words, that psychiatry and the labels of mental illness is "political" as in it's derived not from medical evidence of disorders and diseases but rather the values and (current or past) social norms that are established by the people in power as well as the masses. (See examples here, #1, #2) He also cited good examples of the human rights abuses in the 20th century (see his post in another thread). This only goes to show how much damage and harm the field has done towards certain groups in society that don't fit the narrative or deemed unacceptable by the State and the masses.
This is unsettling as it is weaponized in such a way to curb a dissident's voice and freedom just because said person (the dissident) dares to challenge, doubt, criticize, or even question the status quo, or even the field itself. There is no other science or field that is weaponized in such a manner that restricts civil liberties, personal freedoms, and bodily autonomy of an individual. Furthermore, I believe that if it wasn't used as a weapon or means to exert force, control, compliance by the State, or even by other fellow citizens unto each other, it would be more receptive towards it's targeted audience. I do believe that if done for academic purposes and research purposes to benefit human rights, that would be a positive aspect towards humanity instead of it being used as a means and carte blanche justification to (temporarily) strip an individual of their autonomy just because they don't fit the moral values of the State or the masses (including society).
I do not know of many other fields (other than the legal system itself) that seeks to impose their will and strip individuals of their bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and civil liberties just because they don't fit a certain standard. A good quote by existentialgoof (in his response to another user's reply) summarizes this point really well (see quoted post below):
Can you imagine if general physical health imposed it's will onto people, for example, people who are obese or severely overweight? That would result in a public outrage!
An (Hypothetical) Example Scenario:
Person A is obese and according to the State, A is unhealthy and should be monitored, stripped of their personal freedom, regulated their diet, and monitored for compliance. A general health-police will monitor said person's eating habits, compliance with the regimen (of the diet), and also control the person's finances, what the person does, and if the person deviates from this plan, said person will be locked up in a health-prison where they will be fed the appropriate diet, compelled to participate in healthy activities (cardio and other exercises), take medication to curb appetite and/or regulate their metabolism, and more!
Obviously, this wouldn't happen in a free world and only in dystopic and dysfunctional societies. The point is, the majority of people will be outraged (and rightfully so) should this scenario ever become a reality. However, when it comes to the rampant abuse of civil rights, personal freedoms and liberties of people not enjoying life, people don't bat an eye to the issue, and worse yet, seems to approve of such practices. It's not only hypocritical, but also disgusting.
A mini-story (back almost a decade ago):
Back when I was still studying at a university, almost a decade ago, I found that counseling and mental health professionals weren't helpful and after some time, I stopped going and then one day, I gave them a piece of my mind about the system in general. (Yes, I should have known better that it wouldn't change anything, but this was pre-SaSu and even before I discovered SaSu reddit.) Then in a future appointment, which was also my last one with that particular mental health professional, she decided to include a neutral witness (NW) (not really neutral imho as they are still a mental health professional ā but neutral to my case as NW was not directly involved in my case), and lo and behold, they (no surprise!) defended psychiatry and psychotherapy. They even tried to deflect, deny, dismiss, and even have the audacity to suggest finding other people outside of university! It was infuriating nevertheless and since that day, I've learned that one cannot simply reason with these people (perhaps they might even be bound by ethics not to question their own field or scrutinize their own). After that session, I felt like justice was NOT served and (at best) it was just a waste of time and effort. Luckily, they did not try to set subsequent appointments and just moved on from there.
Anyways, with the example I gave about the harms and violations of human civil rights by psychiatry and similar fields as well as my mini-story of trying to scrutinize and get some minuscule sense of justice from the system (back when I was naive and even before I discovered SaSu), the bottom line is that this thread serves as a vent as well as an PSA (if you consider it one) about how invasive, paternalistic, probing, and damaging psychiatry can be especially with things such as the right to die and civil liberties.
Additionally, I have written numerous threads scrutinizing and criticizing psychiatry and the use of it to enslave and oppress people who do not share mainstream values or upset the status quo. We are not really free if we cannot speak our mind without the fear of consequences and I'm glad that SaSu is a platform where I can expose the horrors of the fields and without being gaslit, shutdown, dismissed, or even risk intervention against my will for simply blowing the whistle.
What are your thoughts on this?
As usual, existentialgoof has said in the past and yet again, albeit in different words, that psychiatry and the labels of mental illness is "political" as in it's derived not from medical evidence of disorders and diseases but rather the values and (current or past) social norms that are established by the people in power as well as the masses. (See examples here, #1, #2) He also cited good examples of the human rights abuses in the 20th century (see his post in another thread). This only goes to show how much damage and harm the field has done towards certain groups in society that don't fit the narrative or deemed unacceptable by the State and the masses.
This is unsettling as it is weaponized in such a way to curb a dissident's voice and freedom just because said person (the dissident) dares to challenge, doubt, criticize, or even question the status quo, or even the field itself. There is no other science or field that is weaponized in such a manner that restricts civil liberties, personal freedoms, and bodily autonomy of an individual. Furthermore, I believe that if it wasn't used as a weapon or means to exert force, control, compliance by the State, or even by other fellow citizens unto each other, it would be more receptive towards it's targeted audience. I do believe that if done for academic purposes and research purposes to benefit human rights, that would be a positive aspect towards humanity instead of it being used as a means and carte blanche justification to (temporarily) strip an individual of their autonomy just because they don't fit the moral values of the State or the masses (including society).
I do not know of many other fields (other than the legal system itself) that seeks to impose their will and strip individuals of their bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and civil liberties just because they don't fit a certain standard. A good quote by existentialgoof (in his response to another user's reply) summarizes this point really well (see quoted post below):
"But psychiatry is uniquely dangerous in the fact that it can pathologise behaviour and ideas. Other fields of medicine can certainly be used to abuse people; but they don't really have the same power to enforce and uphold social mores, because they deal in the purely biological realm of physical symptoms. Whereas psychiatry has the power to stigmatise behaviours such as homosexuality and suicidality, and to disenfranchise those groups of people." -existentialgoof
Can you imagine if general physical health imposed it's will onto people, for example, people who are obese or severely overweight? That would result in a public outrage!
An (Hypothetical) Example Scenario:
Person A is obese and according to the State, A is unhealthy and should be monitored, stripped of their personal freedom, regulated their diet, and monitored for compliance. A general health-police will monitor said person's eating habits, compliance with the regimen (of the diet), and also control the person's finances, what the person does, and if the person deviates from this plan, said person will be locked up in a health-prison where they will be fed the appropriate diet, compelled to participate in healthy activities (cardio and other exercises), take medication to curb appetite and/or regulate their metabolism, and more!
Obviously, this wouldn't happen in a free world and only in dystopic and dysfunctional societies. The point is, the majority of people will be outraged (and rightfully so) should this scenario ever become a reality. However, when it comes to the rampant abuse of civil rights, personal freedoms and liberties of people not enjoying life, people don't bat an eye to the issue, and worse yet, seems to approve of such practices. It's not only hypocritical, but also disgusting.
A mini-story (back almost a decade ago):
Back when I was still studying at a university, almost a decade ago, I found that counseling and mental health professionals weren't helpful and after some time, I stopped going and then one day, I gave them a piece of my mind about the system in general. (Yes, I should have known better that it wouldn't change anything, but this was pre-SaSu and even before I discovered SaSu reddit.) Then in a future appointment, which was also my last one with that particular mental health professional, she decided to include a neutral witness (NW) (not really neutral imho as they are still a mental health professional ā but neutral to my case as NW was not directly involved in my case), and lo and behold, they (no surprise!) defended psychiatry and psychotherapy. They even tried to deflect, deny, dismiss, and even have the audacity to suggest finding other people outside of university! It was infuriating nevertheless and since that day, I've learned that one cannot simply reason with these people (perhaps they might even be bound by ethics not to question their own field or scrutinize their own). After that session, I felt like justice was NOT served and (at best) it was just a waste of time and effort. Luckily, they did not try to set subsequent appointments and just moved on from there.
Anyways, with the example I gave about the harms and violations of human civil rights by psychiatry and similar fields as well as my mini-story of trying to scrutinize and get some minuscule sense of justice from the system (back when I was naive and even before I discovered SaSu), the bottom line is that this thread serves as a vent as well as an PSA (if you consider it one) about how invasive, paternalistic, probing, and damaging psychiatry can be especially with things such as the right to die and civil liberties.
Additionally, I have written numerous threads scrutinizing and criticizing psychiatry and the use of it to enslave and oppress people who do not share mainstream values or upset the status quo. We are not really free if we cannot speak our mind without the fear of consequences and I'm glad that SaSu is a platform where I can expose the horrors of the fields and without being gaslit, shutdown, dismissed, or even risk intervention against my will for simply blowing the whistle.
What are your thoughts on this?