Discussion [Theory] “Don’t discourage others from seeking help!” (glib statement by MHPs)

[TAW122]

One of the most ironic things I heard from MHPs or advocates of psychiatry and therapy are "Don't discourage other people from seeking help" or something along those lines. This is especially said by MHPs to gaslight the people who are victims of the mental health system whether said victims did not improve their condition, were harmed by it, and/or otherwise suffered some sort of negative repercussion. Anyways, after pondering a bit, I just had an thought about just how ironic that statement really is. It could go either way and in the next paragraph, I will explain my theory and my interpretation, inference of said statement.

Given how ubiquitous and over-promoted therapy and psychiatry is, and even to the point of paternalistic policies being rolled out (which includes the authoritarian use of force by those in power, or the State), the normies and masses spewing therapy as forms of platitudes, it is a far cry to even imagine that others' may be discouraged from seeking help! Therapy culture is so mainstream and almost everyone and their family knows about, so it couldn't be the fact of the ignorance of the existence of therapy that is the problem, nor is it anywhere at risk of being extinct. It's like religion back in the older days where it has control all over aspects of a person's life, whether educational, financial, legal, social, and personal. So I find it ironic that they fear about some dissidents (including pro-choicers) speaking up to expose the harm that is inflicted on them by the system and how that would result in them losing a lot of potential patients.

Think about it this way: If a service or product is really good, then why would an organization or manufacturer be afraid of some dissidents or people who find it otherwise? Or exposing said service or product for what it is? That wouldn't make any sense! If a service or product is really amazing, then people will naturally want to seek it out, through word of mouth, and/or otherwise succeed on it's own! It doesn't need shameless and relentless promotion to prop it up (through embellishments) and will advertise for itself!

An alternative theory: Perhaps the MHPs feared the truth going out, similar to how religion lost it's power over time:
Alternatively, another possibility is that perhaps these people in power know that since they have control over the masses that if the "truth" was revealed or became mainstream, they would lose their grip/power with the masses. Thus, they will no longer able to sell the 'lie' and false promises that things always get better or that CTB is never an option, or therapy and psychiatry is the ultimate solution, or any false/overrated notion! This is something that reminds this video at the 3:48 mark where Danny (a co-founder of TRTNLE) had a debate against a former therapist about the right to die. At that point in the video, Danny quoted his former therapist, who said "If everyone had the right to die, I would be out of a job." (-Danny's former therapist), and this implies that the mental health system is very fickle at it's core and without smoke and mirrors, the threat of coercion and force, and unfalsifiable claims (including the classic "If you don't agree with me that 'life is good, sacred, or valuable', then you are irrational by default!"), it would go the way of religion and no longer has influence in day to day life, or those in power!

What do you think about this, do you think there are other explanations or are there any flaws in my premise?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yeah- definitely- they need customers/clients/patients. Of course they don't want people scared off. Psychiatry has links to drugs which make corporations and no doubt governments rich. Plus- it's their go-to in terms of pretending that they care and are actively trying to solve people's problems- just speak to someone (and that will solve everything.)

Also- if these services are publically funded- they need to keep up the impression that they work. They're not going to admit they've sunk millions of taxpayers money into something ineffective. (I'm not saying it is ineffective- truth is- I don't know the statistics.)

it's the same as things like vaccinations and even nuclear power. When they go wrong- they go terribly wrong. Yet- they're debatably for the greater good and they make rich corporations/individuals even richer. So- any accidents are greatly down played to save face and people who speak out against them are attacked.

 

[TAW122]

Yeah- definitely- they need customers/clients/patients. Of course they don't want people scared off. Psychiatry has links to drugs which make corporations and no doubt governments rich. Plus- it's their go-to in terms of pretending that they care and are actively trying to solve people's problems- just speak to someone (and that will solve everything.)

Also- if these services are publically funded- they need to keep up the impression that they work. They're not going to admit they've sunk millions of taxpayers money into something ineffective. (I'm not saying it is ineffective- truth is- I don't know the statistics.)

it's the same as things like vaccinations and even nuclear power. When they go wrong- they go terribly wrong. Yet- they're debatably for the greater good and they make rich corporations/individuals even richer. So- any accidents are greatly down played to save face and people who speak out against them are attacked.

Good points and yes, I think in terms of their bottom line, they are in fact, a business seeking to make money (just like many other industries). Therefore, they would do anything, even at the cost of the truth and harm towards a few (a small price for them to pay, written off as collateral damage, but acceptable to them). With respect to publicly funded health care systems like the NHS (I'm based in the US and not the UK so I don't know everything about it other than it is government funded and public) in the UK, I do believe what you said is true, the government MUST have some way to make themselves look benevolent and useful to the public, to help continue their funding. So yes, I think a lot of it does boil down to money first, especially in capitalistic societies and then morals and ethics a close second.

With regards to vaccinations and nuclear power, at least vaccines, they are not involuntarily forced onto the public (there are people who disagree), at least not in the sense of detainment and forced drugging (at least not that I'm aware of). However, I do believe certain countries and certain places may have policies and conditions contingent on vaccination status (e.g. if one is a healthcare worker, if one works in a particular industry, etc.), but those would then be up to the individual, but violently forced down like psych holds or involuntary commitments. As for nuclear power, yes there are stories of major disasters and I'm sure there are near-misses and close calls too, but I think like you said, unless it has impacted a majority of people in a particular place or region and with no way to ignore it, then they would keep quiet and silence/censor those who try to expose it otherwise.

 

[R_N]

Psychiatry didn't help me and many others. It destroyed our bodies.

So discouraging people from chemicals might actually help them suffer less.

 

[theslasher]

Psychiatry didn't help me and many others. It destroyed our bodies.

So discouraging people from chemicals might actually help them suffer less.

I don't think all psychiatrists are bad, but the one's who rely on drugs to fix their problems and extract as much money as they can from their patients for life can go fuck themselves. I know a family in my neighborhood, they have 5 daughters (in the ranges of about 19 years old to 5 years old) and all 5 of them are on antidepressants. At the neighborhood pool every single day in the summer, they're always acting crazy, loud, announcing to everyone how they just peed in the pool, screaming, and they're overall just insane. That's just an example lol, but drugs can definitely make things worse.

There is a good psychiatrist on youtube though who focuses more on therapy and healthier thinking (as opposed to just taking drugs). I definitely recommend checking him out. Also a good book to read is Psycho-Cybernetics by Dr. Maxwell Maltz, it's a laborious read but damn it is impactful.

 

[KuriGohan&Kamehameha]

Every patient deserves to have a wealth of information at their disposal before they choose to engage with any sort of medical service or undertake a course of treatment. That includes both potential benefits and risks. Straight from Wikipedia: "Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law and media studies, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. "

When people document their experiences with a certain drug or therapy, there is going to be a mix of good, bad, and neutral accounts because no medical intervention is ever going to be one size fits all and work for every person on this planet. Yet when it comes to the mental health sphere, the institutions are almost ironclad when it comes to being immune to criticism. Any less than positive experience with a psychiatric drug, or form of psychotherapy is quickly regarded as hearsay, when this does not happen with any other domain of medical treatment.

If a person doesn't want to engage with a particular service or take a specific drug, there is usually a reason behind it. Rather than address people's fears head on and acknowledge there are legitimate reasons to be wary or something, or conjure up an alternative treatment plan, the MH industry likes to whine and cry that any criticism of it's shortcomings is "dissuading others from treatment." Psychiatry holds a lot of power for a medical specialty, because they can override a patient's consent in many cases if that person is subjectively deemed a risk to themselves, but they don't seem to understand that this power imbalance actively prohibits many people from seeking their services out. When the risk of losing one's bodily autonomy can be at stake, how can trust and openness be established?

In my opinion, the elephant in the room for as to why they hate criticism from patients (no matter how constructive it is) is because we are still so deep in the dark ages when it comes to understanding the brain and many clinicians desperately want to cling to the status quo and believe that every intervention has high success and low risks, because they don't want to face the facts that there is not a treatment for every ailment that exists.

They don't want to face the reality that people can be harmed by their methods, or remain stagnant and not see any sort of improvement. In the field of psychotherapy especially, there are very few studies about potential negative risks of therapy. Until those are conducted, clinicians will continue to blame and shame patients who are harmed because they will claim there's no evidence to support the negative encounters, despite many patients attempting to speak out yet getting ignored or shut down.

The whole field always feels like it is operating under a pretense of smoke and mirrors, refusing to acknowledge the experiences of patients that researchers and clinicians personally don't like because it's bad for PR. They never question if something is wrong with their methods, rather, the sanity of the patient is brought up as a way to discount their experience. By refusing to acknowledge the unpleasant sides of their practice and using that information to enact change, they are obstructing scientific progress and plugging their ears to the alarming revelation that the current state of mental health care is not helping a significant amount of people.

 

[lachrymost]

A lot of people know psychiatry and therapy can do harm, but they think harms are vastly overshadowed by benefits, so they worry informed consent will discourage people from treatments that are a net good. I suspect action bias is a big contributor to the mental health industry's incompetence. People want to do something about mental health; the last thing they want is to tell a mentally ill person that the most sensible thing, even if only for a while, is to lead a healthy lifestyle. This is a "bootstraps" mentality to them, even if the alternatives are a pill that may make you asexual or give you neuropathy, or a therapist who has the power to lock you up for thought crimes and whose treatment is gaslighting. At least they did something! And if they didn't mention those risks, or they don't know about them—awesome! Informed consent is a nocebo effect risk, after all.

 

[TAW122]

Psychiatry didn't help me and many others. It destroyed our bodies.

So discouraging people from chemicals might actually help them suffer less.

Yes, and sadly most people especially pro-lifers and the pro-psychiatry and therapy crowd won't admit it or even justify the means to an end. It's quite sickening that they even suggest more trauma to heal from the trauma they caused and justify it.

I don't think all psychiatrists are bad, but the one's who rely on drugs to fix their problems and extract as much money as they can from their patients for life can go fuck themselves. I know a family in my neighborhood, they have 5 daughters (in the ranges of about 19 years old to 5 years old) and all 5 of them are on antidepressants. At the neighborhood pool every single day in the summer, they're always acting crazy, loud, announcing to everyone how they just peed in the pool, screaming, and they're overall just insane. That's just an example lol, but drugs can definitely make things worse.

There is a good psychiatrist on youtube though who focuses more on therapy and healthier thinking (as opposed to just taking drugs). I definitely recommend checking him out. Also a good book to read is Psycho-Cybernetics by Dr. Maxwell Maltz, it's a laborious read but damn it is impactful.

With regards to the link you provided, I think this may be good for people who are focused on recovery, but not necessarily for those who have already made up their minds on when they will CTB.

Every patient deserves to have a wealth of information at their disposal before they choose to engage with any sort of medical service or undertake a course of treatment. That includes both potential benefits and risks. Straight from Wikipedia: "Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law and media studies, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. "

When people document their experiences with a certain drug or therapy, there is going to be a mix of good, bad, and neutral accounts because no medical intervention is ever going to be one size fits all and work for every person on this planet. Yet when it comes to the mental health sphere, the institutions are almost ironclad when it comes to being immune to criticism. Any less than positive experience with a psychiatric drug, or form of psychotherapy is quickly regarded as hearsay, when this does not happen with any other domain of medical treatment.

If a person doesn't want to engage with a particular service or take a specific drug, there is usually a reason behind it. Rather than address people's fears head on and acknowledge there are legitimate reasons to be wary or something, or conjure up an alternative treatment plan, the MH industry likes to whine and cry that any criticism of it's shortcomings is "dissuading others from treatment." Psychiatry holds a lot of power for a medical specialty, because they can override a patient's consent in many cases if that person is subjectively deemed a risk to themselves, but they don't seem to understand that this power imbalance actively prohibits many people from seeking their services out. When the risk of losing one's bodily autonomy can be at stake, how can trust and openness be established?

In my opinion, the elephant in the room for as to why they hate criticism from patients (no matter how constructive it is) is because we are still so deep in the dark ages when it comes to understanding the brain and many clinicians desperately want to cling to the status quo and believe that every intervention has high success and low risks, because they don't want to face the facts that there is not a treatment for every ailment that exists.

They don't want to face the reality that people can be harmed by their methods, or remain stagnant and not see any sort of improvement. In the field of psychotherapy especially, there are very few studies about potential negative risks of therapy. Until those are conducted, clinicians will continue to blame and shame patients who are harmed because they will claim there's no evidence to support the negative encounters, despite many patients attempting to speak out yet getting ignored or shut down.

The whole field always feels like it is operating under a pretense of smoke and mirrors, refusing to acknowledge the experiences of patients that researchers and clinicians personally don't like because it's bad for PR. They never question if something is wrong with their methods, rather, the sanity of the patient is brought up as a way to discount their experience. By refusing to acknowledge the unpleasant sides of their practice and using that information to enact change, they are obstructing scientific progress and plugging their ears to the alarming revelation that the current state of mental health care is not helping a significant amount of people.

Excellent points, and yes I believe that one should have all the wealth of information available to them before they make a medical decision. Also, yes I feel like the mental health sphere it seems like secular religion because one is not allowed to criticize, question, nor even hold contrary views to anything except for worshipping, sycophantic, and/or otherwise supporting it along with all it's abusive practices. It is a disgrace that such an institution is set up in an infallible and unfalsifiable position. Additionally, yes the immense (almost) absolute power that psychiatry has to put people away, silence, and/or otherwise invalidate them with almost no way to disprove or counter their claims is very problematic - not just in the realm of human rights, civil rights, but also many other facets of one's life (social, professional, financial, and personal). Also, the lack of trust for fear of intervention and one's bodily autonomy (as well as civil rights) being at stake greatly hinders people from coming forward (especially those who are determined to CTB).

Pretty much the other points you make is true and is echoed through many stories of patients who have suffered through the system and seek recourse, but are denied it every step of the way. I think even if there were studies performed on the negative risks of therapy and psychiatry, the clinicians will continue to double down and keep blaming and shaming patients whom were (collectively) harmed by their practices. I do believe that perhaps if there are enough people who are significantly adversely impacted (not just by the pro-psychiatric studies and statistics, but independent studies), then it may force them to no longer ignore the ugly truth in front of them. I would like to think that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as well as women's rights towards better treatment in society are examples of where psychiatry and the mental health system are forced to adapt and change because it was no longer politically viable as well as lacking 'evidence' to prove that someone's sexual orientation and gender identity are basis for disorders and mental illnesses. I'm hoping that the right to die can also become demedicalized and no longer pathologized as a mental illness or the product of an irrational mind.

A lot of people know psychiatry and therapy can do harm, but they think harms are vastly overshadowed by benefits, so they worry informed consent will discourage people from treatments that are a net good. I suspect action bias is a big contributor to the mental health industry's incompetence. People want to do something about mental health; the last thing they want is to tell a mentally ill person that the most sensible thing, even if only for a while, is to lead a healthy lifestyle. This is a "bootstraps" mentality to them, even if the alternatives are a pill that may make you asexual or give you neuropathy, or a therapist who has the power to lock you up for thought crimes and whose treatment is gaslighting. At least they did something! And if they didn't mention those risks, or they don't know about them—awesome! Informed consent is a nocebo effect risk, after all.

Well said, it seems like they just care about trying to help rather than whether said person benefited or had a good outcome. It's quite disheartening how they feel like the meager benefits are acceptable despite the harm done to those people.