Ian,
> > > I think insanity is a largely misunderstand subject.
> >
> >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.
Agreed, we all have agendas. The best we can do is be aware of them and make
others aware of them. The original comment shows a failure to do either.
> Ever notice how quickly the workers in nuclear plants are to ignore
> the effects of radiation on TV news shows?
Point being?
> >
> >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?
Now now. I was just being honest with the original commenter (Geoff) in
explaining why i found his comments difficult to accept. There is a very
interesting conversation to be had here but it behoves people to get at
least try to get their facts straight.
> >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.
This is my major point. You seem to have missed it.
> >> 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.
Eh? In my world evidence is first offered in support of an hypothesis, then
we can begin discussion. I am not about to dispute his BELIEF in something
as I trust he is correct that these are his beliefs.
> 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"?> >
Indeed. This is the interesting point. Does society abuse the concept of
mental illness in an effort to reinforce the status quo?
> > > In modern society
> > > this
> > > still exist in some ways. It is still very hard to define the
difference
> > > from an insane person and a sane person
> >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.
EXCUSE ME???? it seems like you are trying to be offensive!
Let me take you through this 'real slow'.
Geoff states that it is very hard to define the difference between the sane
and the insane. In real clinical practice this is not the case. However much
i might disagree with the system (and i do to such an extent that i am
leaving the profession) it is the case that sanity or otherwise is
determined by standardised tests. These are laid out by strict guidelines in
'the book' (DSM IV....a standards manual). It is on the basis of these
standardised, normalised tests that individuals are deemed legally sane or
not.
Again i am not saying it should be thus but it most certainly IS.
> >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.
If you want to talk about treatment (as opposed to diagnosis) fine. That,
however, was not the original issue.
> As I recall 10% overall and higher in the case of schizophrenia,
> bipolar and MPD.
So we maybe should learn from them.
> >
> >> 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?
>
Abuse of the system. I was the one who brought this up. It happens. It's
wrong. We should work to change it.
> >
> >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.
And psychologists (often) are scathing of psychiatrists. We see them as
being over-eager to use invasive treatments such as drugs and (in limited
extreme cases) ECT ('shock therapy'). The fact is though that both work
together in every mental health setting I know of. True, psychologists
cannot 'cure' schizophrenics of their halucinations but that is why drugs
are administered. Put simply, drug treatment is used where other methods are
found to be ineffectual. The aim of this drug treatment is not (or at least
SHOULD not be) primarily to 'cure' the client but to allow further
treatment. Further treatment can be supervised by either a clinical
psychologist or a psychiatrist. This treatment can draw from many
disciplines to help increase the chances of full recovery. The approach is
most often multi-disciplinery from start to finish. The advantage of this
approach is that it allows for the possibility of changes which will PREVENT
relapse and hopefully provide the context by which the drugs can be
withdrawn.
> 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.
That is a great shame indeed, and another interesting debate for the future.
However, regrettable as the franchising of social roles is, it is hardly the
fault of psychology.
>
> >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.
That is fairly insensitive.
> 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.
I think both need attention.
> 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.
Does anyone dispute that social factors play a huge role (the most
significant even) in suicide rates???
Did I?
What can we learn from your example? That Catholic W Belfast is worse off
post cease-fire than before? Not the case, economically.
This just illustrates how complex the relationship is, because generally
things are better now in W Belfast than they were ten years ago (people are
better off, less people are being killed and maimed, less of the population
is imprisoned) yet the crime rate and (as you point out) suicide rate have
rocketed.
> >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.
You seem to think that treatment is not a change in the circumstances of
their lives. It very often is. While i would be the first to acknowledge the
need for political action to counter the inequities in modern society which
pre-disposes poorer sections of society to health (physical and mental)
problems, such action is, at best, preventative. There will still remain the
question of what to do with those already afflicted. The question of
treatment.
> 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.
so you favour doing nothing in the HOPE that things will improve? I could
not reconcile myself with such behaviour....
> By what metric do you suggest that the outcomes are influenced for the
> clients betterment in a statistically significant way?
>
I'm not sure what you are asking me here, but i think you wish to know what
my measure of 'better' would be. This is naturally a contentious issue in
the field, but i would generally support self-report measures of Quality of
Life. These are not without problems themselves but i don't think go into
this too deeply.....i've researched in the area for 3 years so i'm afraid i
would become a bore rather quickly!
> >
> >
> >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. :)
I'm not sure what you found offensive about my comments and am saddened that
you cannot accept that i meant them good-homouredly. I was animated yes, but
i did not mean to cause offense. As for you causing me offense.....i suspect
you were trying to at points, but i am sorry to inform you that you have
not.....
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Agreed. I am not comfortable working in a mental health setting but find it
difficult to find work (in psychology) elsewhere
I do have a good vantage point from which to comment on the work done by
psychologists in mental health and i don't consider that it should be
rubbished.
If there is defensiveness in my tone it is for this reason.
Regards,
Derrick
> 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
>
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