POST-PSYCHIATRY

Bracken and Thomas (2001) discuss in the British Medical Journal the conception of 'post-psychiatry." In this, they conclude that the field of mental health should become more democratic and that there should be no coercion. Individuals who are consumers should have more voice in the care they receive. In addition, ethics should take precedent over technology. They discuss how that individuals have seen that science and technology have failed in reducing human distress. Post-psychiatry also examines social and cultural contexts. Post-psychiatry also seeks to look at the experiences of individuals (even if looked upon as psychotic or 'madness' by others) as meaningful. The experiences have an inherent meaning and there should be exploration of how these relate to the core person. Bracker and Thomas state that post-psychiatry does not seek to develop any new concepts of what causes 'madness' but rather open the door to the client's expression and to provide them a voice. They state that anti-psychiatry looked upon psychiatry as repressive and based on an erroneous medical model and that psychiatry contended that those in the anti-psychiatry movement were merely fueled by their own ideology. Bracker and Thomas state that both groups thought there was a definitive way of looking at why mental distress occurs. However, post-psychiatry does not concern itself with this question.

NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO DRUGS

We need to move to post-psychiatry. As long as the medical conception of our work is employed, there will be fraud and oppression. I was once challenged to define my work without use of terms such as 'clinical', 'therapy', "patient", etc.
What my role is is to empower people to become effective in their lives, to be able to make decisions and cope in ways that provide them the greatest benefit. We cannot eradicate pain and suffering, and at times it is this natural feeling that we need to let us know that 'we exist' and through pain and suffering we are often taught great lessons.
It is time as well that we stop functioning at the level of prostitutes, offering some sort of relationship and sense of one who 'listens and understands' while our sole intention is to make money. Financial gain cannot be the main factor in the helping professions but it appears in psychiatry it is often the only thing thought of. Managed care companies do not want counseling which might be longer term but actually teach a person new skills, but want drugs which are cheaper and control and subdue the person.
What is disturbing that the the true desire to help others build stronger relationships and have happier lives is seen as merely an 'alternative' to psychiatric drugs which are thought to do the same. Such work is not an alternative, it is what should be done period, and it often does not take a professional to build a relationship with a person that leads them out of distress. One should ask what the difference is between the drug dealer on the street and the psychiatrist. Both push drugs. Both make money. Both seek to give the person something that will 'mellow them out." The only differences are who profits, and that the dealer is not sanctioned by the law.
Szasz mentioned that child psychiatry cannot be reformed, it must be abolished. I wholeheartedly agree. We must embark on a completely new path in the helping professions, discarding all the trappings of the medical model and the fraud it entails.

FDA AND ADHD and VIOLENCE

The FDA safety officials had reported, "The most important finding of this review is that signs and symptoms of psychosis or mania, particularly hallucinations occur in some patients with no identifiable risk factors, at usual does of any of the current drugs for ADHD."
Gwen Olsen who had been a former pharmeceutical representative reported, "(anti-psychotics) clamp down on the central nervous system. In fact they reduce your mobility...sort of like a chemical straight-jacket."


The reason why we are seeing higher rates of violence in children in the US is solely because we are inducing it! We are placing more on more children on brain disabling drugs that can cause psychosis and mania.

EDUCATING EDUCATORS

It appears unfortunate that educators have been duped into the fraud of ADHD. It is intereating to note the dramatic increase in the diagnosis of ADHD once the IDEA act was changed and the door was opened for schools to obtain additional funding based on an ADHD diagnosed child. Schools have signs implying a 'drug free zone', gbut psychiatric drugs are being constantly pupmed into schools often at the coercion of school officials. There is no evidence whatsoever of a 'chemical imbalance' in regards to ADHD and this was confirmed by the NIMH Consensus Conference. Examining my article, "Understanding the True Needs of Children Diagnosed as ADHD" on my website at danedmunds.com explores this further and in more detail. The entire diagnosis of ADHD is subjective and it exonerates educators from providing the tranquil and conducive envrionment for learning that treats each child as an individual. Rcently, a teacher stated that she felt the child has a 'chemical imbalance' and equated his supposed disorder with 'heart disease." First, heart disease can be confirmed with objective tests and is a real physical abnormality. The person experiences physical signs of distress. But with ADHD, who is distressed? The child is not suffering, it is the teacher who is annoyed by the behavior. ADHD is mainly a listing of behaviors which adults find most distressing. The teacher was asked to show how she knew he had a 'chemical imbalance' and just what does a correct balance look like? There was no response other than to say that in her many years of teaching, this was one of the most hyperactive kids she had seen. Again, subjective. Where are the tests, and again there was no answer as to why the child was overly active or exactly why this is necessarily a problem. Nor was there really any attempt to discuss the child's particular learning style and assess what could be done to make learning a positive experience. I am impressed with the free school movement. Here we see a setting for kids who would typically be drugged into submission to stale educational environments allowed the individual expression, peer mediation, and the opportunity to share their creativity in a caring, supportive environment. Why is it that behavioral concerns are minimal if almost non-existent in such environments? Where is the disorder? With our children. No. it is with our society and its institutions who fail our children, and who want to froce them into conformity by labeling and drugging.