Hi Struan and All
On 26 Apr 2000, at 12:23, Struan Hellier wrote:
> Sanity IS determined by standardised tests and, yes, those tests
> ARE culturally defined. This is not a contradiction. Derrick was very
> clear in his posting that this is the case and unless one wants to argue
> that sanity (in our respective cultures and legal systems) isn't
> determined by standardised tests, then it is impossible to take issue.
> The fact is that those respective cultures and legal systems do determine
> sanity by standardised tests and so there is no argument.
> Derrick himself made it clear that this is not necessarily the best way
> of doing it.
Sure, insanity is determined by standardised tests which are are culturally defined - in the
sense that they are necessitated by political and legal requirements (and let's not forget
traditional 'moral' requirements). And this must be the most blatant case of the lunatics
running the asylum.
Here we have an 'illness' or 'disease' which is defined to suit the requirements of the day.
My 'illness' all depends on what is legally and politically required and defined to accomodate
these requirements.
Can you imagine the effect this would have if a similar system were implemented for
'physical' illnesses. At the moment I'm coming down with a cold but, using something similar
to the above system of re-classification and definition, in a couple of weeks I could have
exactly the same symptoms and my condition could have been re-defined as either my not
being ill at all or I might have leprosy.
Not only is the current system open to abuse, it appears to be designed in order to be
abused.
.
> Whether a patient can be treated against his will (very rare indeed)
As far as I'm aware, sectioning under the present Mental Health Act (in the UK) makes it
very easy to incarcerate and 'treat' a person against their will and as for the rarity of these
occasions what means do we have to assess this? Persons with access to knowledge of
abuse of the system (not just the mental health system but other official systems) have
been regularly silenced by the bureacracy (and bureaucrats) of the same system that
instigates the abuse - hence the recent introduction of the whistleblowing legislation.
> or whether a patient should be manipulated into accepting treatment
> they would otherwise reject (probably a lot less rare although very
> difficult to determine) are extremely problematic ethical issues.
To you and me and other reasonable people they are problematic ethical issues but to the
cultural systems that have initiated the problem the only problem appears to be what can be
gotten away with and for how long.
Problem? What problem?
Horse
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