Thoughts on Anti psychiatry?

[Bblconsumer]

Title should be self apparent but I was curious on your guys thoughts on anti psychiatry, it's a mixed field to me but seeing as most of us has suffered from psychiatry and it's medicalization I was wondering your feelings and thoughts.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

I understand the idea. I do agree with it on some levels but psychiatry in theory is not bad. I would also be anti surgery if if a rusty saw with 50 blood types was used on me but luckily today it is advanced. Psychiatry is in it's early stages, yes it will not be able to cure and treat everything but I believe as humanity continues to develop it (or not) it can get to where it's something that is objectively helpful, right now, it's not that.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Personally, I don't really trust it and, it frustrates me. I don't think simply analysing someones described symptoms is an accurate way to diagnose. To then prescribe pretty strong, mind altering drugs based on that, I think borders irresponsible.

Obviously, there needs to be something and I don't blame people wanting help when they feel desperate. I hate how experimental it seems to be though.

Plus- that they sometimes hide that. They obviously don't want to give the impression that they don't fully know how something works but I'm not even sure people really understand the possible side effects. We do have members here who are now suffering more because of long-term SSRI use.

I suppose physical health can be experimental too. They can't always predict how a patient's body will react to a medication. Not to the same extent it seems though.

There does at least seem to be more science in physical medicine! They wouldn't automatically rip open your chest if you complained of chest pain. It could just be indigestion! They'd run blood tests, do cardiograms, take x-rays. They wouldn't just prescribe dynamite drugs! (You'd hope.)

I don't understand why the brain itself isn't being examined more. Obviously, not invasively! I mean, maybe it is but- you don't really hear people saying it: Tests show I have less grey matter, less neurotransmitters, less activity in an area of the brain. Surely, mental illness must be showing up physcally in the organ it affects? Obviously, they don't want to be flooding the brain with radioactive xrays all the time but still, I just find it weird. Cost prohibits it- maybe.

I think there can even be resistance towards considering new research and data. That I find troubling. How can these be proper scientists/ doctors if they're not interested in important new data related to their area of 'expertise'? It almost seems like some are maybe so protective of their dusty old books and the thoeries they took time to learn, they maybe don't want to consider physical evidence that contradicts or, supports it even. This is people's brains they're messing about with though! Surely, the focus should be to find the best way to diagnose and treat patients. I've linked this before but...

 

[darksouls]

many animals are abused in animal testing for psychiatric purposes
the pharmaceutical industrie benefits most from this
the people who most urgently need help still have to suffer

 

[timechained]

YouTube: @tippingpoints24

 

[bleeding_heart_show]

I understand the idea. I do agree with it on some levels but psychiatry in theory is not bad. I would also be anti surgery if if a rusty saw with 50 blood types was used on me but luckily today it is advanced. Psychiatry is in it's early stages, yes it will not be able to cure and treat everything but I believe as humanity continues to develop it (or not) it can get to where it's something that is objectively helpful, right now, it's not that.

I am partial to your "rusty saw" comparison. Do you believe psychiatry can be refined the way surgery has been?

I believe surgery's advancement is attributable to the (mostly) objective nature of the human body. We know how it works when it is healthy and unhealthy because it is observable from the outside and measurable.

The mind is almost the complete opposite. Our understanding of the mind is barely equatable to Herophilos' understanding of the body in his time. The efficacy of "treatment" is reported by the patient in nearly all instances and is rarely measurable.

Even if psychiatry were to somehow advance to an objective science freedom of thought would consequently be heavily restricted due to pathologization of any sort of deviance from what is deemed "healthy". I find this brief article relevant.

Apologies for this being so disjointed.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

I am partial to your "rusty saw" comparison. Do you believe psychiatry can be refined the way surgery has been?

I believe surgery's advancement is attributable to the (mostly) objective nature of the human body. We know how it works when it is healthy and unhealthy because it is observable from the outside and measurable.

The mind is almost the complete opposite. Our understanding of the mind is barely equatable to Herophilos' understanding of the body in his time. The efficacy of "treatment" is reported by the patient in nearly all instances and is rarely measurable.

Even if psychiatry were to somehow advance to an objective science freedom of thought would consequently be heavily restricted due to pathologization of any sort of deviance from what is deemed "healthy". I find this brief article relevant.

Apologies for this being so disjointed.

Not as refined but at least more helpful, but I personally hate lies so most of psychiatry's techniques at the moment won't work with me. Honestly lobotomization is probably one of the most good examples of how the problem is solved by creating a lie, you just physically alter the brain to not feel that psychological pain anymore. Some cases are just impossible to fix, stories where you can watch the oncoming train and can never stop it. So no, I don't think it can ever be as objective as physical surgery but it might at least have some better effect for things like alzheimers/schizophrenia/etc.

 

[vitbar]

It saved my life, and the lives of other people I'm close with. A close friend got completely psychotic before he started taking medication. For me I find my life worthwhile again.

Still I'm suspicious of medication being used for milder depression as the evidence is weak. At least here in the UK I found the given information adequate in terms of risks.

A line I heard from medical staff a lot: Medicine isn't an exact science.

 

[6138]

I used to identify as being an anti-psychiatrist. I don't *really* anymore, but I am definitely leaning that way.
Psychiatry, despite it's claims, hasn't changed all that much in recent decades. It's still authoritarian, paternalistic, and very, very cruel.
Patients rights are a joke, and you can be treated more as property than as a person, particularly if you tell them you're suicidal.

I have had run-ins with psychiatry, and as a result, I would be very, very, very, reluctant to trust them again.

 

[Tumblewillow]

The Body Keeps The Score really changed my view on psychiatry. Its written by a psychiatrist who was treating trauma patients before trauma was even a known thing. There is enough evidence there to show that it's beneficial (though he wasn't too keen on a lot of medications as they were completely ineffective on certain groups but were still being prescribed like candy) but it also underlines a lot of the problems in society that prevent it from being effective.

A lot of people just require a much more intense level of care that is not available. There are dozens of different types of therapeutic practices and treatments but time and time again we prescribe the most commonly available and not the ones most suited to the patients.
Some of the more intense and newer treatments are too expensive for the people that need it, as trained therapists/clinics that do them are rarer, and the people that need it the most are more likely to come from poorer demographics that can't afford it.

If hospitals had a ton of different therapists and treatment options all in one place I think it would reduce this sense of being beyond help for patients who receive care and don't improve. So much of its success rests on getting the right psychiatrists/therapists doing the right therapy for the right patients and those things don't always align the first handful of times.

 

[SchizoGymnast]

There's some merit to the movement but its ties to Scientology prevent me from having anything to do with it.

 

[6138]

There's some merit to the movement but its ties to Scientology prevent me from having anything to do with it.

That's a very good point that you make, however, it's not that anti-pyschiatry has ties to scientology, it's that scientology has ties to anti-psychiatry.

Anti-pyschiatry was around long before scientology, and it will be around long after. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with scientology at all, I would not, at all, consider the two related.

 

[SchizoGymnast]

That's a very good point that you make, however, it's not that anti-pyschiatry has ties to scientology, it's that scientology has ties to anti-psychiatry.

Anti-pyschiatry was around long before scientology, and it will be around long after. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with scientology at all, I would not, at all, consider the two related.

That's fair. I would say it's a buyer beware sort of situation. Someone who is desperate for an alternative voice might stumble across some of the most famous faces of anti-psych, like CCHR, and not do any digging and get into serious trouble. I think Scientology is to anti-psych as Opus Dei is to Catholicism, if that makes sense.

Just a PSA: While not strictly anti-psych, Narcanon is also an infamous Scientology front group posing as drug rehab. They came to my school in the 3rd grade telling us not to do drugs and how Narcanon saved their lives. It's so eerie to look back and think that my school recruited kids into a cult and no one knew.

 

[6138]

That's fair. I would say it's a buyer beware sort of situation. Someone who is desperate for an alternative voice might stumble across some of the most famous faces of anti-psych, like CCHR, and not do any digging and get into serious trouble. I think Scientology is to anti-psych as Opus Dei is to Catholicism, if that makes sense.

Just a PSA: While not strictly anti-psych, Narcanon is also an infamous Scientology front group posing as drug rehab. They came to my school in the 3rd grade telling us not to do drugs and how Narcanon saved their lives. It's so eerie to look back and think that my school recruited kids into a cult and no one knew.

Exactly, yeah, the CCHR/scientology connection is dangerous, and insidious. As is scientology in general, in fact.

Good point on narcanon too, scientology has it's fingers in many pies.

Many celebrities too (Of course Tom Cruise being one) are scientologys. The "group" (for want of a better word) is going after people with money, and vulnerable people with nowhere else to turn.

Wow, did you school know about the scientology connection? Or just not care?