On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:06:31 +0100, you wrote:
>
>And, excuse my impertinence, on what evidence do you base such a statement?
>Exactly how much work have YOU put into understanding mental illness? And
>how much work have you put into gathering the opinions of others of mental
>illness?
>
Smoke screen.
I could equally debunk the opinions of psychiatrists by saying that
they are financially dependant upon the existence of <treatable>
mental illness and therefore that their opinions are suspect.
Ever notice how quickly the workers in nuclear plants are to ignore
the effects of radiation on TV news shows?
>
>I think your point is primarily debased by repeatedly mis-spelling
>"psychology" as this does suggest that your reading in the area is
>seriously limited.
More smoke. You are not by any chance the child of a schoolteacher?
>
>Beyond that you make no real statement beyond the belief that the boundaries
>of mental illness are a human construct. Has anyone ever said otherwise? The
>normal curve (by means of which individuals are deemed 'sane' or not) is, by
>definition, a human invention. It attempts to be descriptive, applying rules
>('normalisation') where previously there was arbitration.
>
>> I believe
>> insanity did not exist in ancient times when ape-men roamed the earth.
>
>With respect, your 'beliefs' are irrelevant in regard to historical
>accuracy. If you can show evidence that this is case, we may be able to have
>a serious discussion on this topic.
The hypothesis stands undisputed. If you wish to debunk the hypothesis
it is your place to offer evidence which might illustrate that the
hypothesis is in error.
In any case, look to folklore. In the past someone wandering into town
describing having seen faeries or having a conversation with God was
taken in stride. Those who were truly experiencing problems would have
died in a world much less sterile than the current one.
Were a Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Buddha character to walk into a
psych ward for an evaluation do any of us believe that, barring divine
intervention, they would be evaluated as "normal"?
>
>
>
>Is it??? What is your experience in this field?? I happen to be a
>Psychologist and I am not sure I would agree.
Ah. Finally the point...
>Simply put someone who is "insane" (not a term that would be used, but for
>argument's sake I will allow it) will score, on normalised tests (as
>prescribed by the manuals) outside the normal range. It is quite simple
>really.
Um. Go to the back of the class.
This is frightening. It says so in the book therefore it is true. QED.
>Whether or not this is society's way of censoring individuals who
>may challenge the received wisdom is beside the point. That get's into the
>abuse of the system, NOT the efficiency of the system. I know the system to
>be efficient, in that it separates those pre-determined to be sane from does
>pre-determined to be insane. I suspect however that the system might well
>too easily allow abuse. But that is not at issue here.
That those diagnosed as mentally ill in Europe and the United States
have lower recovery rates compared against the same category of
patient in the Pacific Rim is ignored. Far less cash, using the same
basic precepts of technique and higher recovery rates for the more
debilitating types of illness.
As I recall 10% overall and higher in the case of schizophrenia,
bipolar and MPD.
>
>> but because of the certain morals of
>> modern society we persuade people to conform to these basic morals and if
>> they where to break these morals they would be classified as being insane
>as
>> Lila was in the book.
>
>
>Insanity tries not to concern itself with morality. It is a concept based in
>concern primarily for society and secondarily for the individual. The
>concept of mental illness has been a controversial one down centuries
>(primarily, it may inform you to know among psychologists and their
>antecedents). Those behaving 'immorally' have historically been persecuted
>not as insane but criminal. Those behaving 'inappropriately' or without
>rationality were treated as mentally ill.
>
Or those against whom a case could not be made. The sister of JFK dead
on a hospital table during a labotomy. The inappropriate behaviour
suggested to be sexual promiscuity. It was ok for John, he was a man.
For a woman it was illness. Does this suggest a socially constructed
metric or what?
>
>
>I find it difficult to listen to people talk of the social constructionism
>of mental illness when I myself work with people with serious illnesses on a
>day-to day basis.
>
I walk past my district acute psych ward on the way to work.
Occasionally you see somebody who is obviously in distress. One's
heart goes out to them.
To the seriously mentally ill psychology is irrelevant. I've never
heard of a psychologist curing a schizophrenic of hearing voices.
Treating the voices is the job of a psychiatrist, he gives tablets
that do <something/we know not what>. Of the psychiatrists I've spoken
to over the years they have been rather scathing of psychology as next
to useless in the treatment of mental illness.
Telling someone how to deal with panic attacks, explaining how to deal
with life traumas. To me these are the jobs of societies elders,
speaking from experience not from a text-book. Sadly we have de
constructed our communities and replaced them with professionals who
offer tables from books as wisdom.
>Do YOU think it is 'well' to cut yourself every day? To hate yourself so
>passionately that desire only to end your life? To shit yourself rather than
>walk five yards to the toilet?
>
Just like your argument this is just emotionally loaded material. If
one hates oneself to the level one wants to die then one would have to
be pretty stupid to fail at this task.
As we are well aware those who fail want to fail and are, most likely,
looking for attention. Treating the person rather than the society
that causes a person to have to do this strikes me as bizarre.
To illustrate the point I'll point to the data emerging from West
Belfast (Northern Ireland) since the ceasefire has been in place. The
West Belfast (RC) community was notably for markedly lower rates of
suicide than the rest of the UK. Since the ceasefire these suicide
rates have risen to be comparable to the rest of the UK. Change to
society, change to suicide rate. QED.
>Do you suggest that these people be left untreated?
Unless they represent a clear and present danger to themselves or
others, YES. I would suggest that changing the circumstances of their
lives will have a far better effect upon them and their behaviour.
How we might achieve this is outside of the scope of this debate.
>
>Do you acknowledge the possibility of a breakdown of rationality in the
>individual? Do you consider this to be problematic to the individual? to
>society?
Yes.
I consider the instability of society, in that it seems incapable of
accepting that people behave in this way occasionally, a concern.
Of the individual :- sometimes they recover, sometimes they don't.
Giving psychologists a job is going to have little effect on the big
picture one way or the other.
Of those that develop this problem some will represent a danger to
other individuals in society and others will not. Those who represent
a danger are potential criminals and we need to remove/mitigate this
danger.
Again the statistics would suggest that even in the more severe cases
of mental illness the incidence of criminality or violent behaviour
are no greater than that of the normalised population.
<Straw Man>
To which you might offer the anecdotal evidence of a psych ward where
you might have seen extremely aberrant behaviour. The answer to which
would be that any society that offers those stressors in the normal
environment has far more to worry about than a few mentally ill people
wandering the streets.
</end Straw Man>
That people get violent in situations where there are people paid to
hold them down and force them to do things that they do not wish to do
is no different than the norms of society.
>Do you understand that the vast majority of the clients I deal with (and I
>don't imagine that I am in a unrepresentative setting)
>1) Are clinically SICK.
>2) Receive treatment voluntarily
>3) Respond well to treatment and go on to live happy much-improved (by their
>own self-assessment of their own Quality of Life) lives
Call me Mr Sceptical.
As suggested above. TIME heals.
By what metric do you suggest that the outcomes are influenced for the
clients betterment in a statistically significant way?
>
>
>
>I'm trying to respond calmly (and good-humouredly) here because I realise
>there IS a good discussion to be had here. I myself have found myself on the
>Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz 'Myth of Mental Illness' side of the argument
>more times than not, but please try to inform yourself a small bit before
>jumping in with your (possibly offensive) opinions. :-)
Derrick, in humour there is a fulcrum. It stops being funny when it
starts being you. I read your comments and found them offensive (and
defensive). As I am relatively sure you will find mine. :)
The work of psychology is a great benefit to humanity. Understanding
the cognitive methods of the human mind are a boon to one and all.
Like any technology it can be wielded well or wielded brutally.
That most psychologists are now employed in the mental health systems
of our society is sad. I would have thought that deploying these
people into our school systems where they might disseminate the
information about how some of the stressors of life might be
alleviated to be a better use of a <limited> resource.
regards,
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST