Hentor the Barbarian
Absolutely!
Hentor, if your a psychologist, why was I placed in the Bi-Polar category instead of the Major Depression category? I have only had a handful of manic episodes and ALL of them were caused psychiatric medication. I only ask because of the cloudy, opinion based nature of the diagnostic process. I’ve also only met one psychologist in 4 years, and he just wanted me to take a test (written test called the MMPI), so I could be pinned with a bunch of “personality” disorders too.
I’ve seen several comparisons between small pox and psychiatric medication. If someone offers a shot that will CURE bi-polar, I would be the first in line. The other problem I have with this, psychiatric illness is NOT contagious. It also can NOT be cured, so the ones that are flagged in Illinois will be flagged for the rest of there lives.
Oh, and about the dreaded permanent record, it’s indicated on my drivers license that I have been suicidal in the past. So yea, once your tagged, it’s there forever. (NO, I’m not scanning my DL as a cite!)
I’ve always hated the “bottom 1% of the class” argument, as it’s an artificial way to try to make people scared about the quality of a group.
First up, every group, no matter how good they are, has a bottom 1% (unless they have a low sample size so the 1% is too small of a criteria). For example, if you take graduates from, say, Harvey Mudd until you get a group where you have a bottom 1% to point at, that 1% is going to be heads and shoulders above the top 10% of many universities.
Secondly, we’re talking full-fledged psychiatrists here. That means they have more qualifications than just graduating. I’d expect that the vast majority of those that graduate in the bottom 1% of their class never end up being working psychiatrists.
Thirdly, you are equating pure grades with pure competency, which isn’t necessarily a wise thing to do. A lot of grades, especially as you go further on into graduate studies, have more to do with how well you suck up then actual competency. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of people in the bottom percentages of their class would be better suited for the actual job than many of the people in the top percentages.
So you ask me how I feel about psychiatrists who may have graduated in the bottom 1% of their class. Do I trust them? Not really, but I think I trust them more than I trust a random Internet poster of uncertain background asking me if I trust them.
And, frankly, the fact that it sounds like something a Scientologist would say doesn’t help either. Scientologists have demonstrated poor critical thinking skills by the very nature of their membership in the organization, so if they agree with you, ouch.
This doesn’t seem like such a big deal, at least not yet. Generally speaking, the differences between psychologists and psychiatrists should be looked at here, because I think they are relevant. Here is my understanding of them.
A psychiatrist is a fully qualified medical doctor who specializes in biological chemistry and brain disorders. Psychiatrists deal with serious mental health problems like depression and psychoses, and can hospitalize and prescribe psychotropic medication. A psychiatrist, like other medical specialists, usually requires a doctor’s referral.
A psychologist does not have medical training, does not typically prescribe drugs or recommend hospitalization, but instead uses communication as therapy to identify and address eventual underlying problems, and to change patterns of thought and behaviour that may be causing or aggravating these problems.
Both psychiatrists and psychologists may be trained in forms of psychotherapy (such as psychoanalysis) to facilitate interaction with and understanding of patients.
There are many issues with psychology as a hard science, which properly speaking it is not – though it does incorporate several aspects of hard science along with more, er, permissive and arbitrary (or subjective) components.
I do however think it’s perfectly fine for any and all minors to be sent to medical doctors such as psychiatrists, and, indeed, to my knowledge medical visits are compulsory in many schools. I don’t see how that can possibly be a bad thing.
I would disagree with compulsorily sending children to psychologists unless the children exhibited clear behaviour problems such as severe temper tantrums, and even then I’d rather have an M.D. look at the problem first to identify possible bio-chemical causes – however failing that I would resort to a good psychologist for behaviour adjustment. For many people the psychological system does work and does produce results, even though some segments of psychology are pseudoscientific (and, in fairness, some are rigorously scientific).
There’s a curiously strong movement (including the damn Scientologists, but also a backlash from such consummate bullshit as the recovered memory syndrome scandals) to strip psychology of any scientific legitimacy owing to the very “soft” approach to the scientific method, which is a valid criticism in many areas of psychology, but not all. For example, experimental psychology tends to discount the case study and interview methods used in clinical and developmental psychology, and treats the discipline as one of the natural sciences wholly subject to the scientific method.
IIf the proposal to expand children’s health coverage to mandatory psychiatrist visits is implemented competently I suspect it would do more good than harm – maybe it will even cut down on the enormous number of assholes out and about, in the long run (one can hope). Of course there is a lot of room for error (e.g., low-paid staff, reliance on trainees, a shortage of doctors resulting in patients being rushed through as quickly as possible, etc.). And, obviously, what is done with the results of these visits is equally as important, but there doesn’t seem to be any implication of citizenship class concepts (a la Gattaca) implied here and I don’t really see evidence of privacy threats – merely the slippery slope thereof.
AHunter3, not that you can exchange my applause for anything useful, but I’d like to say that your fourth and fifth posts in this thread show a lot of class, as you have throughout.
-
I do not have a problem with a doctor providing pain-relieving medication for patients who are in pain, even if the underlying condition can’t be cured.
-
What keeps getting lost here is that there’s more to mental health care than psychopharmacology. There’s a whole professional class devoted to dealing with mental/emotional/behavioral disorders without drugs. And there are more psychologists in the world than psychiatrists. There’s a whole lot of mental health care being done by people without prescription pads.
-
I’m not an expert but I think there are a few drugs designed to address the causes of some kinds of mental illness, SRIs, for example. There should be and I hope will be more. I’ll concede that many drugs are designed to alleviate symptoms rather than cure, but I believe this is true in other branches of medicine as well. I’ll concede that drugs sometimes have adverse side effects. I think other branches of medicine experience this also, even surgery. The amputation of a limb is traumatic, debilitating and permanent, but the alternative is worse. And that’s the crux of the issue. Doctors and patients have to decide on a case-by-case basis if a treatment’s costs are worth the benefits. As in so much medicine, the results are often imperfect. Do you call that good? No, you call it better than it was. If a patient doesn’t like the trade-off, he can have his illness back.
-
Yes, many of the drugs f**k with your head, that is what they do. * So do mental illnesses. * They also affect personality, behavior, feelings and thoughts. Having to count all the grains of sugar in the jar before you can leave the house, unfounded perceptions that the guy next to you is trying to kill you, and suicide are not a freer expression of personality; they’re just the cheaper, easier method of giving them up. But yes, as a rule, no one should be forced to take drugs.
I really think we’re closer on this issue than you think. I’ve explained why the Illinois proposal seems to me to fight most of the abuses that you’re afraid of. I’d be willing to insert the strongest possible language into the law to enforce confidentiality and preclude involuntary drug therapy.
KillerKatt, I don’t know how to fit your personal experience into the discussion about the Illinois plan, so I won’t try. I wouldn’t dream of asking you to scan your DL. But this shouldn’t be too intrusive: in what state was you DL issued, and what’s the restriction code they use for “suicidal in the past?”
North Dakota
Right under where it says I have to wear glasses is the code S3 (which I was told at DMV lets officers know I have attempted suicide by cop, and obviously failed)
I was also told under my Idaho record, when the police check my license or plates or whatever, it will show on their computer. I’m not sure if ND police computer show it also.
For the record, I am NOT a scientologist, I don’t think all psychiatry should be banned or destroyed, I just think we need to learn more before we start forcing people into treatments.
Oh, and it’s SSRI (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor). There are also MOI’s and Tri-cyclics. All three are classes of drugs aimed at “fixing” depression. Of course, if alleviating symptoms is all we’re after, we could just shoot them up with Thorazine and make a race of zombies (I hate that drug, made me sleep 20 hours a day).
Far to many if not the majority of psych’s are in it for the easy work/money benefits of rendering a half baked diagnosis/opinion and prescribing some physc drugs.
Case 1a. Young man with some personal problems hospitalized and treated by a well know psych. in a large southern city. This guy was a case in himself as well as his wife and children. “Show me a psych. and I’ll show you a man who needs one” was applicable to him and his tribe. Caused more alleged ‘symptoms’ than he cured.
Case 1b. Same patient, new shrink, blabbermouth, seduced patient and created more new problems than even he could handle.
Patient today: IQ 165 or so, unable to work, life ruined.
Case 2. Man hired into a management role felt that he had to ‘get it done himself or it wouldn’t get done’ had the feeling of being in a pressure cooker due what he perceived as the demands of the job. Saw an M.D. who prescribe psych. drug. Supervisor saw that there was no improvement. Arranged for a complete change of job assignment without any management responsibilities. Patient improved rapidly and was his old self within a month.
A pox on the self-appointed(anointed) keepers of the public good.
The indications for medical treatment are in general far clearer than the indications for psychiatric therapy. And it seems to me that the way to remove the stigma of a psych diagnosis is not to expand the number of diagnoses (including false positives) but to refine and clarify them, something unlikely to happen under the stress of screening mass numbers of schoolchildren (when in doubt, screeners will make a diagnosis, or confirm what’s already been diagnosed by someone else rather than risk being sued later for having missed a school shooter).
A few other points raised when I discussed this with an intelligent and perceptive person (Mrs. J, actually): The Illinois proposal is additionally disturbing because it will provide an excuse for public school bashers to attack the public education system and promote “school choice”. Even more parents will withdraw their kids from public schools rather than have to deal with these “interventions”, and the ones stuck with having to troop over to the psychologist will increasingly be the offspring of poorer families who can’t afford private schools.
The eccentrics and slightly off-center types who make society more interesting will draw psych labels and be treated as abnormal. As it was put to me, “Hieronymus Bosch would never have made it in today’s public schools”.
This legislation might also be renamed “The Psychologist, Psychiatrist and Special Ed Full Employment Act”.
KillerKatt, thank you responding so quickly and for declining to notice that my post may have sounded rude, which it seemed to me to be later and which I did not intend at all. I was typing fast under the deadline and haste overcame courtesy. My respect for you has only been expanded by your recent revelations. I apologize anyway. At any rate, I will take everything you have said at face value, because I accept that you are telling the complete and accurate truth.
Well, can I assume that “suicide by cop” indicates that you have been established to have threatened or taken the life of a law enforcement officer with the purpose of being killed yourself? If so, I must confess, I’m all in favor of that information being available (and at least the states involved have the grace to code it) to any law enforcement personnel who may pull you over, on your license and your plate. Frankly, of the class of people who are denied driving licenses outright, “suicidal people” seems to me to belong near the top of the list, and I give points for the tolerance for individual freedom that allows you to drive at all.
I still think that drug therapies, except in very rare circumstances (such as the patient being already institutionalized or when maintenance is a prerequisite of probation), should always be voluntary. Otherwise, anybody should be able to decide if the sickness is better than the cure, unless is is incontrovertable that public health and safety is involved.
Yes, it’s SSRI. I forgot “selective.” As I said, I was typing in too much of a hurry. My original point was that these (I don’t know about the others) were aimed at addressing causes of mental illness, and that I hoped more and better therapies, drug-based or not, would continue to become available. It doesn’t appear as though the Illinois plan calls for widespead application of Thorazine to schoolchildren, and I’ve already stated my position on drug therapy, anyhow.
In short, it appears the notation on your driver’s license (and perhaps your license plate) was prompted not by a diagnosed mental disorder but by your potential threat to law enforcement officers, which, no libertarian I, I endorse. And there’s nothing here which even attempts to address my point that confidential ongoing evaluations is more likely to reduce inappropriate labelling than to promote it. But I do congratulate you again for being willing to share personal information to advance the discussion.
spingears, thank you for your two carefully documented case histories demonstrating conclusively that psychiatry, psychology and every other form of health care is a crock. I await the inevitable disbanding of the American Psychological Association and the dropping of psychiatry from medical education. Also, Guy #2 sounds a lot like Jimmy Carter. When I can figure out how any of this relates to the Illinois plan, I’ll respond.
Jackmanii, you have the annoying habit of persistently raising excellent policy points which cannot be dismissed. So what shall I do?
Well, first of all, Hieronymus Bosche may very well have been mentally ill. He persistently painted visions of demons attacking people with angels massing in their defense. He didn’t use models. But nobody today can prove that he was or that he wasn’t afflicted. What effect this would have had had on his paintings is an open question. As is the cost-benefit analysis: I might relieve someone of intolerable psychic pain even if I knew beforehand what his art might mean to posterity. Today, in states that are nowhere near adopting the Illinois plan, students are routinely suspended for their artwork and prose if it is sufficiently disturbing to the principal. Fortunately, to get back briefly to the OP, the great artist is safely beyond the reach of Illinois’s public school and state health system. Anyhow, I agree that misdiagnoses, though neither of us seems to know how often they might occur, are a bad thing. I’m even willing to allow that psychiatric misdiagnoses are universally worse than medical misdiagnoses. That said, I have no idea how much more often such misdiagnoses occur. I cannot tell what harm may have been done, or how much harm may have been averted.
The rest of your arguments are the kind of nuts-and-bolts, real-world arguments that give bullsh***rs like me a pain. Any unpopular public school policy, no matter how worthy, can provoke a private-school backlash. Any initiative by the state, no matter how worthy, may provoke unintended and in some cases worthless lawsuits. This is a matter for careful legislation. Frankly I think that private schools and home-schooling are treated far too leniently, but neither that, nor unintended consequences of the same, alter my view of the Illinois proposal to recognize mental health as a legitimate part of the public health system. To be honest, the potential to withdraw from the educational system strikes me as a threat, not an argument. And the idea that the artists of tomorrow would be unduly stifled is a matter which requires a lot more hard evidence than we have now, and which itself is subject to cost/benefit analysis. How many prevented suicides is a hieronymus bosch painting worth? I don’t know. I still don’t know what any of this has to do with the preliminary Illinois plan, much less the one that won’t exist until next June. I still think most of the reaction to the pan is based on the unfounded notion that it involves forced drug therapy. It does not.
It seems to me, that what is being done can only be called the most ignorant thing on earth. Psychiatrists diagnosing problems they have no right to do, when one sees cause and effect and where it comes from, can make anyone sick.
Hi, Bot Scout11.
Hello King. My apologies. I should have introduced myself first. Thanks for the careful reminder. I have been on line for about 9 years now on different sites, but so far, it seems I don’t play well with other kids. I seem to have a knack for making others angry with me. I do not attack others, unless attacked and one of my favorite sayings is, these pages will lay anyone bare, with time. Another one of my sayings is, EDEE, which means, Everything Depends on Everything Else, just as Everyone Depends on Everyone Else.
Great! feel free to join the discussion about Illinois’ proposed mental health care plan whenever you want.
What’s DCFS?
I have an awful time remembering what all these things stand for.
I think (and I’m willing to be corrected): Department of childrens’ and family services. Which in most states entails anything to do with child abuse, custody, and in some cases things as innocuous as food stamps. I’m not only willing: I’d welcome a correction fron anyone who knows.
I attempted a reply and it was rather long. Somehow, it got shuffled around. I don’t care for that.
Screening in juvenile justice cases is pretty hard to argue against. The kids can opt themselves out by not commiting crimes. The same is true to a lesser extent with screening kids involved with social services. The parents can opt their kids out by not using those services. I guess the screening itself is not so bad as long as the treatment if voluntary.
On the other hand, I’m far from convinced that this program is really needed or that it would be the most efficient use of tax money. But that wasn’t the argument presented here.
I’ll have to agree with AHunter3 that this is probably the groundwork for what he thought it was.
Those of y’all who have Senators (and, for that matter, Representatives in the House): may I humbly suggest that a pre-emptive letter or phone call expressing any concern that you may have that This Not Happen Here, i.e., in your own state, might well be in order?
Do not make assumptions based on party affiliation, btw.
Again, as stated, it’s not just psychiatry that does that-there are many physical disorders that can only be treated, not cured. Diabetes, herpes, epilepsy, etc.
Does that mean that insulin just aims as “alleviating the symptoms?”
Many of those who suffer from depression and/or mental illness (and I count myself as one of them) show chemical imbalances in the brain. These drugs CORRECT the balance. What is wrong with that? Why should someone suffer from depression, when they CAN treat it?
Of course, as long as this is voluntary. I don’t believe in forcing treatment on someone, unless they’re really a major threat to themselves and others (like say, John Hinckley Jr. or Andrea Yates).