Definitely. That would be statements of a factual nature which I myself, not too terribly long after I made them, would have said “umm, strike that”.
When they finally got around to it, manic-depressive. Now known as bipolar disorder.
OK
My understanding is that drinking can mask symptoms of many mental illnesses. Other posters have suggested bipolarism as a possible explaination of your friend’s behavior. Whether that’s the case, or not, I don’t know; but since alcohol is a depressant it would seem to me that it might have had the specific effect of ‘damping down’ the manic phases that your friend had been experiencing.
So, no, I don’t think that quitting drinking can be linked to causing mental illness. It may make mental illness more visible to observers, however.
Can I ask a return question: Did you ever challenge any of the more outrageous statements your friend made? If you did, what was his reaction?
BTW, AHunter3, given that the person in the thread has been described as having become unemployed, and unable to provide for himself, doesn’t that imply that he’s no longer in the position that he’s safe to leave alone? There are more ways to be a threat to oneself or friends than simply the physical, after all.
As mentioned above, radical changes in personality can also be a sign of a brain tumour our other severe neurological condition that needs medical attention.
It’s not like the OP is going to sneak up on him, tie him up, and covertly drop him on a shrink’s doorstep. The guy agreed that maybe he should talk to a doctor. That’s a good thing.
If the individual in question is sufficiently lacking in capacity that he would fail a standard competency hearing, he’s no longer entitled to make a good portion of his own decisions, including medical ones. That’s what such hearings exist for.
But we collectively permit a wide range of decisions that you and I as individuals would regard as the wrong ones, bad ones, self-destructive ones. A man on his 100th birthday decides to jump out of a plane with a parachute? His business. Joyce Brown chooses to live on the streets rather than in a homeless shelter where they force her to take psych meds she doesn’t want? Her choice. Your neighbor just stops going to work and spends time lying face down in the garden? Different strokes, man.
I don’t disagree that there’s a lot of room for failure in the allowing for individual choices. And I don’t know that the OP’s situation meets the standards of lack of competence. But neither do I know that it doesn’t.
To my mind, “leave him alone” implies letting him go on as he is, however he’s doing it. I’m not saying that there’s reason to force him into treatment, at this time. But that’s not the only choice available - there’s also simply getting him evaluated, with his permission, for a number of potential conditions, which is all that the OP seems to be doing. And which seems a reasonable choice IMNSHO.
Fair enough, I’d go along with that.
As y’all can probably tell, I’ve got a “button” response to any situation where folks regard an acquaintance or associate as “having mental problems” and in a flurry of compassionate concern call in the shrinks without that person’s OK.
In my experience, psychiatric professionals don’t run around with butterfly nets scooping up schizzies and depressives when they aren’t bothering anybody, but as soon as people in the community start expressing “concern” they’re significantly more likely to consider using their power to authorize forced incarceraton and treatment.
Well, I’ve hijacked this thread enough…
No, I didn’t really challenge him. It was pretty hard to get a word in edgewise, anyway. At one point, I did ask him not to discuss the Jewish stuff when we were out in public. He agreed, thanked me, and told me he trusted my judgment because I wasn’t co-dependent like his ex-wife and the rest of his family.
I guess I’m not understanding this. If somebody believes things that clearly didn’t happen, then isn’t that a condition in need of treatment? I don’t understand how this is considered proper brain function.
a) You don’t possess an objective awareness of what clearly did and what necessarily did not happen. Let’s see if I can phrase it in such a way that you get what I mean… OK, let’s say both you and your friend are of the opinion that people who believe things that “clearly did not happen” are in need of treatment. Your friend’s assessment of you is that you believe things that clearly did not happen. Your friend is just as convinced that you’re out of touch with reality as you are that your friend is out of touch with reality. You want real-life examples, just read through some of the recent threads w/regards to free will, or God!
b) I don’t know what kind of magic pharmaceuticals you think they’ve got in those bright shiny modern lunatic asylums, but if you think they’ve got something in a hypodermic that, when injected, will cause the brain to cease to entertain beliefs in things that “are not so”, allow me to disillusion you a bit.
c) It is my right as a free, law-abiding, voting paranoid schizophrenic to believe things you believe clearly didn’t happen. I believe I had a vision from God, a revelation, which includes instructions on how we are to live. I know people who believe the government of the US, or a secret wing of it perhaps, blew up the World Trade Center with explosives, and invented the Al Qaeda attack-by-airplane scenario. Guess what? If we don’t think we don’t need treatment, it’s our call, not yours, to make. Even if you could provide overwhelming evidence convincing any judge that we believe things that just ain’t true, it’s not the state’s business and it’s none of yours.
At the risk of putting words into AHunter3’s mouth - the problem is that modern SSRIs and related medications don’t precisely fix whatever went wrong with the affected person’s brain.
The last time I checked there were over 100 different chemicals being used in the brain as neurotransmitters. An over or under production of any of these may lead to what could be considered improper brain function. SSRIs and their related medications work by affecting how quickly the brain’s natural processes ‘clean up’ the neurotransmitter chemicals. At this point, there are so many known mental illness disease states, with so many different, but potentially interrelated, physical causes - most psychiartrists are using SSRIs in a shotgun fashion: They keep trying new ones until they find one that works for the patient.
With that background, it’s easier I think, to understand why some people believe that as long as someone can keep functioning on some level, it’s better to leave them alone, than to force them through the ahem mild side effects that SSRIs and related medications can cause.
I don’t believe that AHunter3 ever tried to say that what you’re describing is normal, nor even particularly healthy. Simply that forcing a persont to take medications that will most likely be uncomfortable at best, and oppressive at worse, often with no visible effect on the condition it is intended to treat may not be effective.
I’m something of a fan of modern psychiatric medicines, they allow me to function as well as I do, now. But I’d be among the first to point out they aren’t magic, and they don’t come without costs.
And even when they do work properly, it’s often difficult for someone who’s had decades of living with something like schizophrenia to adjust to a more normal mind. If you’ve had voices in the back of your head for as long as you can remember, and suddenly they’re gone - even if the voices were disruptive, scary, and often simply bad - it can lead to reasonable questions about identity, and simply finding oneself scared to be in a strange place where one had never been alone before: One’s own head.
In some ways treating mental illness is like treating alcoholism - progress really will only become permanent once the patient admits that there is a problem. Forcing treatment on a person who isn’t incompetent will often push them further away from that admission. (I don’t think it helps the treatment of the incompetent, either, even when it may be necessary - the rights of society to protect itself from people do trump the rights of the individual, though.)
Without going into my own history or anyone else’s, I do want to add that there are a lot of different views of how effective or human psychotherapy can be. Suffice it to say that there are a number of people on the Dope who have personal experience to give them excellent reason to doubt the honesty of mental health professionals.
ETA: AHunter3, I see you’ve spoken up, but since I believe our posts are complimentary, not redundant, I hope you won’t mind the support.
I’m not talking about religious issues. I’m talking about verifiable factual items.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I said treatment–I didn’t say anything about medication.
Thank you for your lecture on rights. :rolleyes: Since I haven’t talked about depriving anybody their rights, you can feel free to take your lecture elsewhere.
You know, you’ve done nothing in this thread but make false accusations against me and behave in a generally rude and hostile manner. I have nothing more to discuss with you, and I’d prefer if you stay out of this thread. You’ve been most unhelpful.
Yes, he did. He said his brain was working normally at that point.
For about the millionth time, nobody is forcing treatment on him. Everyone here is trying to have it both ways. If he’s competent enough to be left alone, then he’s competent enough to decide to come to a doctor with me. This idea that I’m forcing treatment on him is nothing but rank hypocrisy.
Well, if my friend is completely competent, he’ll be able to weigh the risks against the benefits on his own, right? Right?
And therefore competent enough to decide not to. If he’s only competent to make the decision you think he oughta make, he’s not making the decision.
I would apply everything I have said about medication to electroshock treatment and transorbital leukotomy and amygdalotomy and etc as well. Even Freudian couches 
I’ve long since withdrawn any such inference, as soon as you explained that your acquaintance was entirely amenable to seeking and accepting psychiatric treatment.
Right.
If I may butt in, can I suggest that duel involving the opinions of AHunter3 be ended, and that if people have information permatining to the two questions in the OP, they can chime in now…
According to the videos & lectures from my college psych class, thinking you’re Jesus is a surprisingly common outcome during a manic phase of bipolar disorder. I knew someone who believed the same during a manic phase too. However, we never touched on if it was a hallmark of other mental illnesses as well, so there might not be much weight to that.
Well, since nobody declared me Grand Poobah of the universe and gave me evil mind control powers, I’m going to assume for now that he made the decision of his own accord. If I find out later that I do have the ability to control people’s minds, I’ll be over in Hugh Jackman’s bedroom and too busy to deal with my friend. So, either way, he’s safe.
Thanks, Hunter. Those were very informative. (And well-timed–you posted them when I was stuck in an airport with time to read through them!)
I withdraw my criticism.
I’d like some more information, but it is only tangentially related, so I’m going to send you a private message. If you don’t get it, let me know.
I don’t know about thinking you are Jesus, but my grandmother thought she had visions of Jesus when she was manic. This was especially consternating for her family, as they were all (including my grandmother) Jewish! :eek: