In 1973, Rosenhan had conducted a study having individuals function as pseudo-patients. He concluded:
“Powerlessness was evident everywhere…He is shorn of credibility by virtue of his psychiatric label. His freedom of movement is restricted. He cannot initiate contact with staff, but may only respond to overtures as they make. Personal privacy is minimal…”
Bioethicist Carl Elliott of the University of Minnesota (2001) stated that 'the best way to sell drugs is to sell psychiatric illness."
The late neurologist Sydney Walker III stated, "... a child who sees a DSM-oriented doctor is almost assured of a psychiatric label and a prescription, even if the child is perfectly fine. ... This willy-nilly labeling of virtually everyone as mentally ill is a serious danger to healthy children, because virtually all children have enough symptoms to get a DSM label and a drug."
Psychiatrist David Kaiser states, "...years of medication ... have done nothing except reify in them an identity as a chronic patient with a bad brain. This identification as a biologically-impaired patient is one of the most destructive effects of biologic psychiatry. At the level of the individual patients this means a growing number of over-diagnosed, overmedicated and disarticulated people less able to define and control their own identities and lives."
The introduction to DSM III stated- ""For most of the DSM-III disorders ... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced, buttressed by evidence not always convincing to explain how these disorders come about."
Former Chief of the National Institutes of Mental Health Center for Schizophrenia Research Dr. Loren Mosher, M.D. stated, "Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV [the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Edition 4] is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. ... It is the way to get paid."
In 1994, Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D. stated, "The young and the old are defenseless against relatives who want to get rid of them by casting them into the role of mental patient, and against psychiatrists whose livelihood depends on defining them as mentally ill." In 1997, Szasz concluded, "The child psychiatrist's authority is altogether beyond the reach of his denominated patients. This elementary fact makes the child psychiatrist one of the most dangerous enemies not only of children, but also of adults who care for the two precious and most vulnerable things in life - children and liberty. Child psychology and child psychiatry cannot be reformed. They must be abolished."
Things have not changed immensely, it is possible to say they have become worse.
I have had the honor to meet many psychiatric survivors presently. Among them are victims of improper restraint, individuals with tardive dyksinesia brought on by psychiatric drugs, individuals who sought help but were harmed by those claiming to in the helping profession. I treat these individuals with dignity as persons, respect their experience, and call many of them friends. This has earned me insulting labels and epithets by so-called colleagues whose interest is not ultimately the well being and freedom of individuals but how much money they can milk from the individual. I now wear these labels with a sense of pride, for in it is draws me more into the experience and understanding of individuals undergoing distress who themselves are labeled and who are so often shunned and misunderstood.
It strengthens my resolve to fight as a person of principle and ethics for a mental health system that no longer looks upon people's experiences as the result of faulty wiring and damaged brains but as people with a story to tell, people who need to be and must be heard. Some colleagues may seek to deprive me of opportunity because of my stand, but many of the psychiatric survivors have endured far worse- being robbed of their dignity completely. I can certainly withstand certain losses and even the occassional insult.
I was trained as a pastoral counselor, here may be one problem- Bio-Psychiatry sees man as solely a a conglommerate of chemical processes. "Mental illness" is when things go haywire chemically. It does not see life beyond this, as something more precious, more meaningful. Emotional distress is a struggle of the human spirit. We are all interconnected, we need love, relationships, community. To see it this way runs completely opposed to the bio-psychiatric position. There is and can be no 'soul' if we ascribe to bio-psychiatry. How ironic that the term 'psychotherapy' literally means "healing of the soul", but nowhere is that to be found in the current mental health system.
The problem is enormous, but though being one person, if I take a stand for ethics and justice, I know I have made a difference.
Christ stated, "Be not afraid for I have overcome the world." So, I continue forward in a struggle, unafraid.
- Rev. Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
KINGSTON, PA AUTISM CONSULTATION Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.,B.C.S.A.,DAPA- is a highly sought after psychotherapist, Existential Psychoanalyst, autism specialist, social activist, speaker,and author. Dr. Edmunds's work is devoted to drug free, relational approaches for children, adults, and families undergoing extreme states of mind, autism and trauma. Dr. Edmunds can be reached for consultation at batushkad@yahoo.com. Dr. Edmunds' private practice is in Kingston and Tunkhannock, PA.
Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D,B.C.S.A.,DAPA.
e-mail: batushkad@yahoo.com
Monday, May 07, 2007
LILLY'S WORST NIGHTMARE COMES TRUE
Lilly's Worst Zyprexa Nightmare Comes True
May 7, 2007.
By Evelyn Pringle
Washington, DC: Eli Lilly is not all that worried about personal injury lawsuits related to Zyprexa because the company has enough money to pay the relatively small pay-outs that arise from such actions, according to Attorney Barry Turner, a professor of law and ethics in the UK and a leading authority on consumer fraud litigation involving the pharmaceutical industry.
But he says the Medicaid fraud lawsuits filed by 9 states thus far, under the Federal and State False Claims Act are another matter. "The biggest penalties so far in Federal and State False Claims Act
Evelyn Pringle violations," Mr Turner reports, "were awarded against drug companies
and there are very many more cases under seal."
But an even larger nightmare for top Lilly officials, he says, arises when a product like Zyprexa causes deaths and injuries to consumers and shareholders face huge losses including the millions of people who have their pensions invested in the company.
When a blockbuster drug is announced, Mr Turner says, it attracts huge investment and if that investment has been attracted to a product that Lilly knew was faulty, the company has risked shareholder funds beyond the pale.
This kind of behavior, he notes, is a Sarbox violation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to restore investor confidence in publicly traded companies in the wake of Enron and similar debacles by improving corporate accountability. Its official title is the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002," named after its sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G Oxley (R-OH), and is commonly referred to as SOX.
One of the features of SOX is the ability to bring an action against those who recklessly and fraudulently deal with stockholder's money and, "promoting the off label use of a drug with undeclared dangerous side effects, or being negligent as to such promotion, is the kind of behavior justifying an action under Sarbanes Oxley," according to Mr Turner.
"Those at the top of Eli Lilly," he states, "gambled with the lives of patients and the money of stockholders in equal bad faith when they engaged in fraudulent and dishonest behavior that allowed a dangerous drug to be marketed."
"The lifeblood of a business," he says, "is the investment that goes into it and in the case of Eli Lilly it means the investment of millions of shareholders."
"Anyone who defrauds them," he explains, "is defrauding people not business."
Mr Turner says it is easy to think of shareholders as "rich lazy fat cats" living off the efforts of others but it is fundamentally wrong by ethical standards to think that if they are defrauded that perhaps they deserve it. "What needs to be understood," he says, "is that many millions of people who own no stock at all get defrauded in scams all the time."
"Those who pay into pension funds," he explains, "are vulnerable to the financial shenanigans not only of fund managers but of boards of companies and CEO's that fail to police the companies activities or in some cases actively encourage fraud and reckless business practices."
The worst of all legal nightmares resulting from the Zyprexa "shenanigans," occurred over a period of 9 days between April 2, 2007 and April 11, 2007, when not one, but 4 shareholder class action lawsuits were announced against Lilly and "certain of its officers and directors" filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act alleging that the defendants hid the side effects of Zyprexa and engaged in illegal off-label marketing campaigns.
On April 2, 2007, the Law Firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, issued a press release to announce that a class action was filed on behalf of all securities purchasers of Lilly from March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006, charging the defendants with disseminating false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa.
More specifically, it alleges that they were aware of a "clear link" between Zyprexa and diabetes; and yet failed to warn the public and engaged in an illicit scheme to offset a drop in sales that was certain to occur, and did occur, when reports of Zyprexa's side effects emerged, by creating a marketing plan which included the evaluation and pursuit of sales for the drug based on "off-label" uses and that the off-label marketing program was a direct violation of Lilly's own code of conduct.
The complaint further alleges that concealing the side effects and engaging in a massive illegal marketing campaign potentially subjected Lilly to substantial regulatory fines, penalties and other legal action, compromising the company's overall financial condition and prospects.
The complaint reports that between 2002 and 2004, sales of Zyprexa grew from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion, and that between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004, Lilly's stock value increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95.
Throughout the class period, the lawsuit says, Lilly had information about the link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and in the face of mounting research linking the drug to diabetes and weight gain, and the lawsuits filed by persons who developed these conditions, "Lilly emphatically denied any such link."
The complaint alleges that when public warnings were issued about the safety of Zyprexa, sales slowed and between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, stock prices dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, representing a loss of market capitalization of over $30 billion.
The press release cites reports in the New York Times between December 17 and 21, 2006, as disclosing for the "first time" that Lilly had engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the risks of Zyprexa; and actively marketed the drug for illegal off-label uses such as treating elderly patients with symptoms of dementia.
Therefore, the lawsuits alleges, the over $30 billion decline in stock value between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004 was the direct result of defendants' fraudulent conduct.
In addition it says, the publication of the Times articles caused another $3.49, or 6.4%, decline in stock value and represented a further market loss of approximately $3.5 billion.
Two days after the first class action was announced, on April 5th, the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Law Firm announced that another had been filed.
The second complaint also charges Lilly and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that at the beginning of the class period, defendants contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects and that once the clinical data rendered that position untenable, defendants argued instead that Zyprexa did not cause any more side effects than its competitors.
Eventually, the press release notes, more and more clinical data showed that, in fact, Zyprexa does cause such side effects and to a greater extent than its competitors and the "revelations sharply curtailed the sales growth of Zyprexa and resulted in thousands of product liability lawsuits against Lilly and hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements."
It also alleges that defendants intentionally suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes, citing the series of articles in the Times, with excerpted "documents detailing defendants' deception."
The release says the documents revealed that defendants intentionally misled patients, doctors, and investors and as a result, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6% in the five trading days during which the series of articles was published."
The members of the class, it notes, invested in Lilly securities unaware that defendants' fraud had artificially inflated the prices of those securities and when "the truth was finally revealed those investors lost many millions of dollars as a result of defendants' fraud."
Four days after the second lawsuit was announced, on April 9th, the Schatz Nobel Izard Law Firm announced the third case seeking class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Lilly between March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006.
This lawsuit also alleges that the same defendants violated securities laws by making misleading statements and specifically that they "contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects," and later that, "Zyprexa did not cause more side effects than its competitors."
This press release also quotes the Times articles as showing "that defendants intentionally misrepresented the side effects of Zyprexa," and "suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes "
"In the five trading days during which the series of articles was published," the press release advises, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6%."
Two days later, on April 11th, the Harwood Feffer Law Firm announced a fourth class action accusing the same defendants of making misleading statements and specifically that they failed to disclose: (i) dangerous side-effects resulting from the use of Zyprexa; (ii) the decade-long illegal campaign to increase sales by marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, in violation of FDA regulations that proscribe such marketing.
As a result of these fraudulent business practices, the press release states, sales of Zyprexa rose from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion between 2002 and 2004, and the value of stock increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95, between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004.
The release says defendants had knowledge of a link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and when sued by private individuals who developed these adverse effects, "the Company adamantly refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing."
The Law Firm goes on to note that as public agencies raised warnings about Zyprexa, sales plummeted and stock price dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, amounting to a loss of market value of over $30 billion.
Subsequently, the press release alleges, after the Times published a series of articles the price of Lilly stock "collapsed" an additional $3.49 per share, or 6.4%, and amounted to a further loss of market value of approximately $3.5 billion.
Zyprexa was FDA approved for the limited use of treating adults with the most severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder, but it quickly became Lilly's best selling product.
In order to find that Lilly did not make the drug its top seller by illegally promoting it for off-label uses, a jury would have to believe the highly unlikely scenario that doctors in every field of medicine came up with the idea of prescribing a schizophrenia drug to patients as young as 2 and as old as 100, for every kind of condition imaginable from anxiety and attention deficit disorder to autism and dementia.
On April 25, 2007, the New York Times reported that the FDA was examining whether Lilly provided the agency with accurate data about the side effects of Zyprexa. However, that may be a dead issue in light of the fact that on May 4, 2007, Lilly issued a press release of its own to announce that Alex Azar II will be joining the company as a senior vice president, who until February 3, 2007, just happened to be the Deputy Secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department.
According to Lilly, "Azar supervised all operations of the HHS, including the regulation of food and drugs," and among others, agencies under his direction included the FDA.
May 7, 2007.
By Evelyn Pringle
Washington, DC: Eli Lilly is not all that worried about personal injury lawsuits related to Zyprexa because the company has enough money to pay the relatively small pay-outs that arise from such actions, according to Attorney Barry Turner, a professor of law and ethics in the UK and a leading authority on consumer fraud litigation involving the pharmaceutical industry.
But he says the Medicaid fraud lawsuits filed by 9 states thus far, under the Federal and State False Claims Act are another matter. "The biggest penalties so far in Federal and State False Claims Act
Evelyn Pringle violations," Mr Turner reports, "were awarded against drug companies
and there are very many more cases under seal."
But an even larger nightmare for top Lilly officials, he says, arises when a product like Zyprexa causes deaths and injuries to consumers and shareholders face huge losses including the millions of people who have their pensions invested in the company.
When a blockbuster drug is announced, Mr Turner says, it attracts huge investment and if that investment has been attracted to a product that Lilly knew was faulty, the company has risked shareholder funds beyond the pale.
This kind of behavior, he notes, is a Sarbox violation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to restore investor confidence in publicly traded companies in the wake of Enron and similar debacles by improving corporate accountability. Its official title is the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002," named after its sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G Oxley (R-OH), and is commonly referred to as SOX.
One of the features of SOX is the ability to bring an action against those who recklessly and fraudulently deal with stockholder's money and, "promoting the off label use of a drug with undeclared dangerous side effects, or being negligent as to such promotion, is the kind of behavior justifying an action under Sarbanes Oxley," according to Mr Turner.
"Those at the top of Eli Lilly," he states, "gambled with the lives of patients and the money of stockholders in equal bad faith when they engaged in fraudulent and dishonest behavior that allowed a dangerous drug to be marketed."
"The lifeblood of a business," he says, "is the investment that goes into it and in the case of Eli Lilly it means the investment of millions of shareholders."
"Anyone who defrauds them," he explains, "is defrauding people not business."
Mr Turner says it is easy to think of shareholders as "rich lazy fat cats" living off the efforts of others but it is fundamentally wrong by ethical standards to think that if they are defrauded that perhaps they deserve it. "What needs to be understood," he says, "is that many millions of people who own no stock at all get defrauded in scams all the time."
"Those who pay into pension funds," he explains, "are vulnerable to the financial shenanigans not only of fund managers but of boards of companies and CEO's that fail to police the companies activities or in some cases actively encourage fraud and reckless business practices."
The worst of all legal nightmares resulting from the Zyprexa "shenanigans," occurred over a period of 9 days between April 2, 2007 and April 11, 2007, when not one, but 4 shareholder class action lawsuits were announced against Lilly and "certain of its officers and directors" filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act alleging that the defendants hid the side effects of Zyprexa and engaged in illegal off-label marketing campaigns.
On April 2, 2007, the Law Firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, issued a press release to announce that a class action was filed on behalf of all securities purchasers of Lilly from March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006, charging the defendants with disseminating false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa.
More specifically, it alleges that they were aware of a "clear link" between Zyprexa and diabetes; and yet failed to warn the public and engaged in an illicit scheme to offset a drop in sales that was certain to occur, and did occur, when reports of Zyprexa's side effects emerged, by creating a marketing plan which included the evaluation and pursuit of sales for the drug based on "off-label" uses and that the off-label marketing program was a direct violation of Lilly's own code of conduct.
The complaint further alleges that concealing the side effects and engaging in a massive illegal marketing campaign potentially subjected Lilly to substantial regulatory fines, penalties and other legal action, compromising the company's overall financial condition and prospects.
The complaint reports that between 2002 and 2004, sales of Zyprexa grew from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion, and that between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004, Lilly's stock value increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95.
Throughout the class period, the lawsuit says, Lilly had information about the link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and in the face of mounting research linking the drug to diabetes and weight gain, and the lawsuits filed by persons who developed these conditions, "Lilly emphatically denied any such link."
The complaint alleges that when public warnings were issued about the safety of Zyprexa, sales slowed and between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, stock prices dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, representing a loss of market capitalization of over $30 billion.
The press release cites reports in the New York Times between December 17 and 21, 2006, as disclosing for the "first time" that Lilly had engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the risks of Zyprexa; and actively marketed the drug for illegal off-label uses such as treating elderly patients with symptoms of dementia.
Therefore, the lawsuits alleges, the over $30 billion decline in stock value between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004 was the direct result of defendants' fraudulent conduct.
In addition it says, the publication of the Times articles caused another $3.49, or 6.4%, decline in stock value and represented a further market loss of approximately $3.5 billion.
Two days after the first class action was announced, on April 5th, the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Law Firm announced that another had been filed.
The second complaint also charges Lilly and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that at the beginning of the class period, defendants contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects and that once the clinical data rendered that position untenable, defendants argued instead that Zyprexa did not cause any more side effects than its competitors.
Eventually, the press release notes, more and more clinical data showed that, in fact, Zyprexa does cause such side effects and to a greater extent than its competitors and the "revelations sharply curtailed the sales growth of Zyprexa and resulted in thousands of product liability lawsuits against Lilly and hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements."
It also alleges that defendants intentionally suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes, citing the series of articles in the Times, with excerpted "documents detailing defendants' deception."
The release says the documents revealed that defendants intentionally misled patients, doctors, and investors and as a result, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6% in the five trading days during which the series of articles was published."
The members of the class, it notes, invested in Lilly securities unaware that defendants' fraud had artificially inflated the prices of those securities and when "the truth was finally revealed those investors lost many millions of dollars as a result of defendants' fraud."
Four days after the second lawsuit was announced, on April 9th, the Schatz Nobel Izard Law Firm announced the third case seeking class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Lilly between March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006.
This lawsuit also alleges that the same defendants violated securities laws by making misleading statements and specifically that they "contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects," and later that, "Zyprexa did not cause more side effects than its competitors."
This press release also quotes the Times articles as showing "that defendants intentionally misrepresented the side effects of Zyprexa," and "suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes "
"In the five trading days during which the series of articles was published," the press release advises, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6%."
Two days later, on April 11th, the Harwood Feffer Law Firm announced a fourth class action accusing the same defendants of making misleading statements and specifically that they failed to disclose: (i) dangerous side-effects resulting from the use of Zyprexa; (ii) the decade-long illegal campaign to increase sales by marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, in violation of FDA regulations that proscribe such marketing.
As a result of these fraudulent business practices, the press release states, sales of Zyprexa rose from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion between 2002 and 2004, and the value of stock increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95, between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004.
The release says defendants had knowledge of a link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and when sued by private individuals who developed these adverse effects, "the Company adamantly refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing."
The Law Firm goes on to note that as public agencies raised warnings about Zyprexa, sales plummeted and stock price dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, amounting to a loss of market value of over $30 billion.
Subsequently, the press release alleges, after the Times published a series of articles the price of Lilly stock "collapsed" an additional $3.49 per share, or 6.4%, and amounted to a further loss of market value of approximately $3.5 billion.
Zyprexa was FDA approved for the limited use of treating adults with the most severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder, but it quickly became Lilly's best selling product.
In order to find that Lilly did not make the drug its top seller by illegally promoting it for off-label uses, a jury would have to believe the highly unlikely scenario that doctors in every field of medicine came up with the idea of prescribing a schizophrenia drug to patients as young as 2 and as old as 100, for every kind of condition imaginable from anxiety and attention deficit disorder to autism and dementia.
On April 25, 2007, the New York Times reported that the FDA was examining whether Lilly provided the agency with accurate data about the side effects of Zyprexa. However, that may be a dead issue in light of the fact that on May 4, 2007, Lilly issued a press release of its own to announce that Alex Azar II will be joining the company as a senior vice president, who until February 3, 2007, just happened to be the Deputy Secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department.
According to Lilly, "Azar supervised all operations of the HHS, including the regulation of food and drugs," and among others, agencies under his direction included the FDA.
Friday, May 04, 2007
AUSTRALIA- NEW SOUTH WALES LAUNCHES 'RITALIN KIDS' PROBE
NSW launches 'Ritalin kids' probe
a..
b.. May 02, 2007
THE NSW Government will launch a statewide investigation into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) amid warnings doctors were creating a "Ritalin generation".
Health Minister Reba Meagher has also called for a national inquiry into the issue, citing concern among experts about the use of the drug to treat ADHD, News Limited newspapers reported.
It follows claims by a leading judge that doctors prescribing Ritalin had created a generation who were now committing violent crimes and coming before the courts.
Since 1992 the number of Ritalin prescriptions has risen from 11,114 to 264,000 last year.
Australia's ADHD diagnosis rate is among the highest in the world and 32,000 NSW school students are medicated for it.
"Community concern is escalating around prescriptions and use of these types of drugs to treat conduct disorders of children," Ms Meagher said.
She said there was "significant debate" in the clinical community about ADHD treatment.
"I have therefore established a review committee to carefully consider current practice in NSW public health services."
The committee will be comprised of some of the state's top clinicians, including Clinical Excellence Commission chief Professor Clifford Hughes.
It has been instructed to report back to the minister within three months.
Ms Meagher backed federal Labor health spokeswoman Nicola Roxon's call for a national investigation.
"The availability and prescription of these drugs is largely a matter for the commonwealth, so we believe this is best looked at at a national level," she said.
a..
b.. May 02, 2007
THE NSW Government will launch a statewide investigation into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) amid warnings doctors were creating a "Ritalin generation".
Health Minister Reba Meagher has also called for a national inquiry into the issue, citing concern among experts about the use of the drug to treat ADHD, News Limited newspapers reported.
It follows claims by a leading judge that doctors prescribing Ritalin had created a generation who were now committing violent crimes and coming before the courts.
Since 1992 the number of Ritalin prescriptions has risen from 11,114 to 264,000 last year.
Australia's ADHD diagnosis rate is among the highest in the world and 32,000 NSW school students are medicated for it.
"Community concern is escalating around prescriptions and use of these types of drugs to treat conduct disorders of children," Ms Meagher said.
She said there was "significant debate" in the clinical community about ADHD treatment.
"I have therefore established a review committee to carefully consider current practice in NSW public health services."
The committee will be comprised of some of the state's top clinicians, including Clinical Excellence Commission chief Professor Clifford Hughes.
It has been instructed to report back to the minister within three months.
Ms Meagher backed federal Labor health spokeswoman Nicola Roxon's call for a national investigation.
"The availability and prescription of these drugs is largely a matter for the commonwealth, so we believe this is best looked at at a national level," she said.
AUSTRALIA- ADHD GURU QUITS OVER RITALIN LINK
ADHD guru quits over Ritalin link
By Janet Fife-Yeomans
May 05, 2007 12:00
THE head of the Federal Government's ADHD review has stood down after The Saturday Daily Telegraph queried his links to two major ADHD drug companies.
Health Minister Tony Abbott yesterday said paediatrician Dr Daryl Efron had "done the honourable thing".
Mr Abbott said it was "not a good look" that Dr Efron was on the advisory boards of Novartis, which makes the controversial drug Ritalin, and Eli Lilly, maker of Strattera, which goes on to the PBS in July.
The move came as Mr Abbott joined Prime Minister John Howard in voicing concerns about the use of drugs to treat ADHD.
Mr Abbott said he "instinctively questioned" the long-term use of drugs for non-life threatening conditions.
He said while he had faith in Dr Efron's impartiality, it was important the public had confidence in the outcome of the first review in 10 years of the escalating diagnosis of ADHD and other treatment options.
The Royal College of Physicians committee will recommend new clinical guidelines for GPs and specialists, who have more than doubled prescription rates for Ritalin and the related drug, dexamphetamine - from 116,320 to 264,296 - in the past decade.
Mr Howard last week said he was worried about reports of over-prescription of Ritalin.
Dr Efron publicly supports the use of Ritalin in some circumstances to treat ADHD in children younger than the current cut-off age of six.
"I want to see new clinical guidelines but I stress it is up to the experts to carefully weigh all the issues," Mr Abbott said.
Dr Efron's decision to step down was welcomed by the Australian Childhood Foundation.
"It makes us more hopeful that there will be an examination of the whole range of issues around ADHD treatment rather than being focused on medication," foundation CEO Joe Tucci said.
"We are hoping the guidelines will provide practitioners with research about all the potential problems that can be called ADHD, like diet, trauma and family relationships at home."
The new chairman, Associate Professor David Forbes from the University of Western Australia school of paediatrics, could not be contacted yesterday. Dr Efron could also not be contacted.
By Janet Fife-Yeomans
May 05, 2007 12:00
THE head of the Federal Government's ADHD review has stood down after The Saturday Daily Telegraph queried his links to two major ADHD drug companies.
Health Minister Tony Abbott yesterday said paediatrician Dr Daryl Efron had "done the honourable thing".
Mr Abbott said it was "not a good look" that Dr Efron was on the advisory boards of Novartis, which makes the controversial drug Ritalin, and Eli Lilly, maker of Strattera, which goes on to the PBS in July.
The move came as Mr Abbott joined Prime Minister John Howard in voicing concerns about the use of drugs to treat ADHD.
Mr Abbott said he "instinctively questioned" the long-term use of drugs for non-life threatening conditions.
He said while he had faith in Dr Efron's impartiality, it was important the public had confidence in the outcome of the first review in 10 years of the escalating diagnosis of ADHD and other treatment options.
The Royal College of Physicians committee will recommend new clinical guidelines for GPs and specialists, who have more than doubled prescription rates for Ritalin and the related drug, dexamphetamine - from 116,320 to 264,296 - in the past decade.
Mr Howard last week said he was worried about reports of over-prescription of Ritalin.
Dr Efron publicly supports the use of Ritalin in some circumstances to treat ADHD in children younger than the current cut-off age of six.
"I want to see new clinical guidelines but I stress it is up to the experts to carefully weigh all the issues," Mr Abbott said.
Dr Efron's decision to step down was welcomed by the Australian Childhood Foundation.
"It makes us more hopeful that there will be an examination of the whole range of issues around ADHD treatment rather than being focused on medication," foundation CEO Joe Tucci said.
"We are hoping the guidelines will provide practitioners with research about all the potential problems that can be called ADHD, like diet, trauma and family relationships at home."
The new chairman, Associate Professor David Forbes from the University of Western Australia school of paediatrics, could not be contacted yesterday. Dr Efron could also not be contacted.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
BRAVE NEW WORLD
In these days, greed is rampant and it infects many institutions. We see situations where chemicals are dumped in people's backyards, illness arises, but the dumping does not cease in spite of the knowledge of the harm because money has bene placed above human interest.
So it has become in the mental health system- psychiatrists and other mental health professionals know there is a problem. But one dare not mention it or confront it or they will be smashed by the huge egos of those in power. It is the Emperor's New Clothes. Greed infects this system as well, and many of those in powerful positions reap enormous profit at the expense of individual lives all the while claiming to be 'helping'.
Emotional distress is largely an issue of power and politics. Individuals who are distressed are often those who have been oppressed.
We are entering an era with such things as Teen Screen and rampant psychiatric drugging of entering into a society envisioned by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World'.
People need to wake up and take a stand.
So it has become in the mental health system- psychiatrists and other mental health professionals know there is a problem. But one dare not mention it or confront it or they will be smashed by the huge egos of those in power. It is the Emperor's New Clothes. Greed infects this system as well, and many of those in powerful positions reap enormous profit at the expense of individual lives all the while claiming to be 'helping'.
Emotional distress is largely an issue of power and politics. Individuals who are distressed are often those who have been oppressed.
We are entering an era with such things as Teen Screen and rampant psychiatric drugging of entering into a society envisioned by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World'.
People need to wake up and take a stand.
THE DRUGS DON'T WORK, WARN TOP PSYCHIATRISTS
The Sunday Independent (Ireland)
The drugs don't work, warn top psychiatrists
TOM PRENDEVILLE
A DAMNING indictment by the country's most eminent psychiatrists paints a picture of patients' lives being needlessly put at risk by a cocktail of dangerous drugs, and a profession which is in the back pocket of vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry.
"The psychiatric world has to be cleaned up - it's appalling. There are over 200,000 people on over-the-counter tranquilliser drugs," says Dr Michael Corry, a consultant psychiatrist. "In Ireland, there are 25,000 people on Zyprexa and 20,000 people on Seroxat. With Seroxat, there is a one-in-500 suicide risk. They get totally overwhelmed by a sense of disinhibition, and they literally feel they can't go on, and they kill themselves." Coincidentally, a damning Oireachtas report on the adverse side effects of pharmaceuticals, which was released last week, has come to more or less the same conclusions.
The report stated that "the influence of the pharmaceutical industry is unhealthy". It also called into question the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and psychiatric doctors, who are financially rewarded in the form of payments for ghostwriting medical-research reports, get free travel, research grants and numerous other perks.
The all-party committee report also took a swipe at the widespread prescribing of psychiatric drugs. "Their [drugs] use in therapy represents unwarranted medical intervention in what are often normal emotional difficulties," said. "The side effects include behavioural disorders, physical illness, dependence and even suicide."
The report went on to say that some of the drugs "were of doubtful benefit" and that "where side effects are well known, they seem not to be appreciated or are ignored by prescribers".
The Oireachtas Committee is now calling for the setting up of a Patient Safety Agency.
Other senior doctors raise the issue of the use of drugs such as Clozaril, a widely used schizophrenia drug which can produce a litany of life-threatening reactions.
"It's a very dangerous drug - and it's not the only one," said Dr Corry, who runs the Dun Laoghaire-based Institute of Psychosocial Medicine. "It's an absolute scandal that the Medicines Board has licensed these drugs - surely they can unlicense them, seeing as we have clear irrefutable evidence they are dangerous?"
Professor Pat Bracken, consultant psychiatrist and clinical director of the West Cork Mental Health Service, says that many of the woes befalling psychiatry can be directly traced to the vast influence which the pharmaceutical industry now wields over the academic faculties that teach psychiatry - an influence gained through the doling out of vast research grants.
"There are growing concerns about the way in which the pharmaceutical industry has come to dominate psychiatry," he warns. "The profession should be independent and be seen to be independent. And if it is not, it is a concern for everyone."
The drugs don't work, warn top psychiatrists
TOM PRENDEVILLE
A DAMNING indictment by the country's most eminent psychiatrists paints a picture of patients' lives being needlessly put at risk by a cocktail of dangerous drugs, and a profession which is in the back pocket of vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry.
"The psychiatric world has to be cleaned up - it's appalling. There are over 200,000 people on over-the-counter tranquilliser drugs," says Dr Michael Corry, a consultant psychiatrist. "In Ireland, there are 25,000 people on Zyprexa and 20,000 people on Seroxat. With Seroxat, there is a one-in-500 suicide risk. They get totally overwhelmed by a sense of disinhibition, and they literally feel they can't go on, and they kill themselves." Coincidentally, a damning Oireachtas report on the adverse side effects of pharmaceuticals, which was released last week, has come to more or less the same conclusions.
The report stated that "the influence of the pharmaceutical industry is unhealthy". It also called into question the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and psychiatric doctors, who are financially rewarded in the form of payments for ghostwriting medical-research reports, get free travel, research grants and numerous other perks.
The all-party committee report also took a swipe at the widespread prescribing of psychiatric drugs. "Their [drugs] use in therapy represents unwarranted medical intervention in what are often normal emotional difficulties," said. "The side effects include behavioural disorders, physical illness, dependence and even suicide."
The report went on to say that some of the drugs "were of doubtful benefit" and that "where side effects are well known, they seem not to be appreciated or are ignored by prescribers".
The Oireachtas Committee is now calling for the setting up of a Patient Safety Agency.
Other senior doctors raise the issue of the use of drugs such as Clozaril, a widely used schizophrenia drug which can produce a litany of life-threatening reactions.
"It's a very dangerous drug - and it's not the only one," said Dr Corry, who runs the Dun Laoghaire-based Institute of Psychosocial Medicine. "It's an absolute scandal that the Medicines Board has licensed these drugs - surely they can unlicense them, seeing as we have clear irrefutable evidence they are dangerous?"
Professor Pat Bracken, consultant psychiatrist and clinical director of the West Cork Mental Health Service, says that many of the woes befalling psychiatry can be directly traced to the vast influence which the pharmaceutical industry now wields over the academic faculties that teach psychiatry - an influence gained through the doling out of vast research grants.
"There are growing concerns about the way in which the pharmaceutical industry has come to dominate psychiatry," he warns. "The profession should be independent and be seen to be independent. And if it is not, it is a concern for everyone."
CREATING A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM
1. The practice of psychiatry (from the Greek: soul healing) has been usurped by the medical establishment. Political control of its public aspects has been seized by medicine and the language of soul healing has been infiltrated with irrelevant medical concepts and terms.
Psychiatry must return to its non-medical origins since most psychiatric conditions are in no way the province of medicine. All persons competent in soul healing should be known as psychiatrists. Psychiatrists should repudiate the use of medically derived words such as "patient," "illness," "treatment." Medical psychiatrists' unique contribution to psychiatry is as experts on neurology, and, with much needed additional work, on drugs.
2. Extended individual psychotherapy is an elitist, outmoded, as well as nonproductive form of psychiatric help. It concentrates the talents of a few on a few. It silently colludes with the notion that people's difficulties have their sources within them while implying that everything is well with the world. It promotes oppression by shrouding its consequences with shame and secrecy. It further mystifies by attempting to pass as an ideal human relationship when it is, in fact, artificial in the extreme.
People’s troubles have their cause not within them but in their alienated relationships, in their exploitation, in polluted environments, in war, and in the profit motive. Psychiatry must be practiced in groups. One-to-one contacts, of great value in crises, should become the exception rather than the rule. The high ideal of I-Thou loving relations should be pursued in the context of groups rather than in the stilted consulting room situation. Psychiatrists not proficient in group work are deficient in their training and should upgrade it. Psychiatrists should encourage bilateral, open discussion and discourage secrecy and shame in relation to deviant behavior and thoughts.
3. By remaining "neutral" in an oppressive situation, psychiatry, especially in the public sector, has become an enforcer of establishment values and laws.
Adjustment to prevailing conditions is the avowed goal of most psychiatric treatment. Persons who deviate from the world's madness are given fraudulent diagnostic tests, which generate diagnostic labels that lead to "treatment" that is, in fact, a series of graded repressive procedures such as "drug management," hospitalization, shock therapy, perhaps lobotomy. All these forms of "treatment" are perversions of legitimate medical methods, which have been put at the service of the establishment by the medical profession. Treatment is forced on persons who would, if let alone, not seek it.
Psychological tests and the diagnostic labels they generate, especially schizophrenia, must be disavowed as meaningless mystification& the real function of which is to distance psychiatrists from people and to insult people into conformity. Medicine must cease making available drugs, hospitals, and other legitimate medical procedures for the purpose of overt or subtle law enforcement and must examine how drug companies are dictating treatment procedures through their advertising. Psychiatry must cease playing a part in the oppression of women by refusing to promote adjustment to their oppression.
All psychiatric help should be by contract; that is, people should choose when, what, and with whom they want to change. Psychiatrists should become advocates of the people, should refuse to participate in the pacification of the oppressed, and should encourage people’s struggles for liberation.
Paranoia is a state of heightened awareness. Most people are persecuted beyond their wildest delusions. Those who are at ease are insensitive.
Psychiatric mystification is a powerful influence in the maintenance of people's oppression.
Personal liberation is only possible along with radical social reforms.
Psychiatry must stop its mystification of the people and get down to work!
This piece is taken from a chapter from the book Innovative Psychotherapies by R. Corsini.
Psychiatry must return to its non-medical origins since most psychiatric conditions are in no way the province of medicine. All persons competent in soul healing should be known as psychiatrists. Psychiatrists should repudiate the use of medically derived words such as "patient," "illness," "treatment." Medical psychiatrists' unique contribution to psychiatry is as experts on neurology, and, with much needed additional work, on drugs.
2. Extended individual psychotherapy is an elitist, outmoded, as well as nonproductive form of psychiatric help. It concentrates the talents of a few on a few. It silently colludes with the notion that people's difficulties have their sources within them while implying that everything is well with the world. It promotes oppression by shrouding its consequences with shame and secrecy. It further mystifies by attempting to pass as an ideal human relationship when it is, in fact, artificial in the extreme.
People’s troubles have their cause not within them but in their alienated relationships, in their exploitation, in polluted environments, in war, and in the profit motive. Psychiatry must be practiced in groups. One-to-one contacts, of great value in crises, should become the exception rather than the rule. The high ideal of I-Thou loving relations should be pursued in the context of groups rather than in the stilted consulting room situation. Psychiatrists not proficient in group work are deficient in their training and should upgrade it. Psychiatrists should encourage bilateral, open discussion and discourage secrecy and shame in relation to deviant behavior and thoughts.
3. By remaining "neutral" in an oppressive situation, psychiatry, especially in the public sector, has become an enforcer of establishment values and laws.
Adjustment to prevailing conditions is the avowed goal of most psychiatric treatment. Persons who deviate from the world's madness are given fraudulent diagnostic tests, which generate diagnostic labels that lead to "treatment" that is, in fact, a series of graded repressive procedures such as "drug management," hospitalization, shock therapy, perhaps lobotomy. All these forms of "treatment" are perversions of legitimate medical methods, which have been put at the service of the establishment by the medical profession. Treatment is forced on persons who would, if let alone, not seek it.
Psychological tests and the diagnostic labels they generate, especially schizophrenia, must be disavowed as meaningless mystification& the real function of which is to distance psychiatrists from people and to insult people into conformity. Medicine must cease making available drugs, hospitals, and other legitimate medical procedures for the purpose of overt or subtle law enforcement and must examine how drug companies are dictating treatment procedures through their advertising. Psychiatry must cease playing a part in the oppression of women by refusing to promote adjustment to their oppression.
All psychiatric help should be by contract; that is, people should choose when, what, and with whom they want to change. Psychiatrists should become advocates of the people, should refuse to participate in the pacification of the oppressed, and should encourage people’s struggles for liberation.
Paranoia is a state of heightened awareness. Most people are persecuted beyond their wildest delusions. Those who are at ease are insensitive.
Psychiatric mystification is a powerful influence in the maintenance of people's oppression.
Personal liberation is only possible along with radical social reforms.
Psychiatry must stop its mystification of the people and get down to work!
This piece is taken from a chapter from the book Innovative Psychotherapies by R. Corsini.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTINGS
When the news reports first came of this very tragic event, one of my first thoughts was the possibility that this shooter was taking an 'anti-depressant' drug. My thought was later confirmed. The FDA has issued warnings and it is being learned that in some individuals the potential for these drugs to induce mania, violence, psychosis, and suicidal ideation is possible. These drugs can sadly send already troubled individuals 'over the edge' and this appears to be the situation in regards to Mr. Cho.
Cho is now the 9th school shooter who was under the influence of an 'anti-depressant' drug.
The mental health system failed in this situation and because of its subjectiveness, it cannot truly ascertain who is a threat and who is not. Cho had committed criminal acts in the past, yet nothing was done of this because he was looked upon as being 'treated' in the mental health system. This would have been the deterrent.
First, the mental health system did nothing to seek to understand the origins of his experience and dangerous thought processes. As usual, it merely prescribed a drug which has been found to evoke mania, violence, and suicide in some individuals and has severe withdrawal effects. Because Cho was put into this system against his will and already had violent reactions to various aspects of society, this certainly could not have helped alleviate his resentment and anger. It made it worse.
My thoughts and prayers goes to all those who have been impacted by this tragedy.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Cho is now the 9th school shooter who was under the influence of an 'anti-depressant' drug.
The mental health system failed in this situation and because of its subjectiveness, it cannot truly ascertain who is a threat and who is not. Cho had committed criminal acts in the past, yet nothing was done of this because he was looked upon as being 'treated' in the mental health system. This would have been the deterrent.
First, the mental health system did nothing to seek to understand the origins of his experience and dangerous thought processes. As usual, it merely prescribed a drug which has been found to evoke mania, violence, and suicide in some individuals and has severe withdrawal effects. Because Cho was put into this system against his will and already had violent reactions to various aspects of society, this certainly could not have helped alleviate his resentment and anger. It made it worse.
My thoughts and prayers goes to all those who have been impacted by this tragedy.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Monday, April 09, 2007
TAKING A STAND
In examining the issues related to the current state of the mental health system- we must ask ourselves can one truly be 'neutral'. The notion of 'neutrality' is a convenient stance as it allows us to remain ignorant and continue on a path even if it is an erring path. In reality, there are two sides to the coin in the mental health system- either one subscribes to the bio-psychiatric paradigm or one does not. The common abuses within the psychiatric system occurred when there was no individuals willing to speak out and take a stand. Actually, throughout history we will see some of the most grave attrocities arising from periods where individuals simply accepted the status quo and chose not to ask critical questions. It is necessary to be critical at times.
Individuals have personal freedom. One can choose to follow various conceptions. It is never my intent to take away personal choice and freedom.
The issue lies in informed consent. Many are unaware that alternatives do exist to the bio-psychiatric paradigm and are often unaware of such information as to the subjective nature of diagnosis, that black box warnings exist on anti-depressants discussing increased suicidal ideation, that the FDA has stated that stimulants can cause psychosis in some children, among other concerns. Should individuals be completely aware of these concerns and choose this avenue, this is their perogative.
It appears an ethical responsibility faced with these dangers, that parents should be informed of alternatives and also that these dangers exist.
In addition, I have seen a number of disturbing situations, for example parents seeking to obtain financial gain from having their child diagnosed and medication presctibed. The story of 4 year old Rebecca Riley comes to mind. This child's parents are now being charged with murder as they fabricated various symptoms which the psychiatrist did not question, was prescribed psychotropic drugs from which she later overdosed. Also, there have been situations where parents have disagreed over the means to address their child's needs. In these situations, it would appear the least restrictive option would take precedence, and this would be to utilize alternatives to psychotropic drugs and implement psycho-social approaches. Most would agree that a physical restraint is a restrictive option and should be avoided, so one must then ask why is it not equally valid to state that psychotropic drugs which are a chemical restraint should be avoided as well?
It is not to say that in certain situations that psychotropic medications could not have a place. If we can demonstrate through objective means that an actual physical abnormality exists, and that the individual is dangerous to self or others, it could be seen as valid for psychotropic medication to be incorporated, but even in this circumstance, this does not need to be permanent and certainly is not the solution to the challenges. Psychotropic drugs are never a cure for anything but mrely subdue certain behaviors. The long term use of such drugs as anti-psychotics actually increases the potential for the development of tardive dyskinesia, a permanent debilitating neurological condition.
Is what is 'mainstream' always correct? We must remember the days when cold, dark psychiatric institutions where electroshock and insulin coma were accepted practices. People were treated without dignity. This was the mainstream. Or we may look at various social injustices and inequalities throughout history which were part of the 'mainstream'- if there was no one to take a stand, there would have been no change to such inhumanity.
My stand has been simply this- that science must be equated with ethics, and that the experience of the individual must be heard not simply diagnosed.
Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Individuals have personal freedom. One can choose to follow various conceptions. It is never my intent to take away personal choice and freedom.
The issue lies in informed consent. Many are unaware that alternatives do exist to the bio-psychiatric paradigm and are often unaware of such information as to the subjective nature of diagnosis, that black box warnings exist on anti-depressants discussing increased suicidal ideation, that the FDA has stated that stimulants can cause psychosis in some children, among other concerns. Should individuals be completely aware of these concerns and choose this avenue, this is their perogative.
It appears an ethical responsibility faced with these dangers, that parents should be informed of alternatives and also that these dangers exist.
In addition, I have seen a number of disturbing situations, for example parents seeking to obtain financial gain from having their child diagnosed and medication presctibed. The story of 4 year old Rebecca Riley comes to mind. This child's parents are now being charged with murder as they fabricated various symptoms which the psychiatrist did not question, was prescribed psychotropic drugs from which she later overdosed. Also, there have been situations where parents have disagreed over the means to address their child's needs. In these situations, it would appear the least restrictive option would take precedence, and this would be to utilize alternatives to psychotropic drugs and implement psycho-social approaches. Most would agree that a physical restraint is a restrictive option and should be avoided, so one must then ask why is it not equally valid to state that psychotropic drugs which are a chemical restraint should be avoided as well?
It is not to say that in certain situations that psychotropic medications could not have a place. If we can demonstrate through objective means that an actual physical abnormality exists, and that the individual is dangerous to self or others, it could be seen as valid for psychotropic medication to be incorporated, but even in this circumstance, this does not need to be permanent and certainly is not the solution to the challenges. Psychotropic drugs are never a cure for anything but mrely subdue certain behaviors. The long term use of such drugs as anti-psychotics actually increases the potential for the development of tardive dyskinesia, a permanent debilitating neurological condition.
Is what is 'mainstream' always correct? We must remember the days when cold, dark psychiatric institutions where electroshock and insulin coma were accepted practices. People were treated without dignity. This was the mainstream. Or we may look at various social injustices and inequalities throughout history which were part of the 'mainstream'- if there was no one to take a stand, there would have been no change to such inhumanity.
My stand has been simply this- that science must be equated with ethics, and that the experience of the individual must be heard not simply diagnosed.
Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Saturday, April 07, 2007
WHAT HAS SHAPED MY VIEWS
I was asked by some colleagues as to how I have come to some of my viewpoints in regards to mental distress and the means to address it. In my first experiences, I encountered victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. From this, I was able to see the impact of trauma on the lives of individuals. When I first began work with a pediatric population, I had been 'indoctrinated' into the mainstream psychiatric viewpoint and I had no challenge to it, I assumed that this was the appropriate course and had faith in those who instructed me. It was through experiences that my viewpoint began to shift and I began to question a lot of what was taught to me that I had merely accepted at face value. The experiences were my encounters with individuals who had been diagnosed with serious emotional distress (such as schizophrenia). I always noticed how these individuals appeared often lonely and shunned by the world. Most dismissed them as people whose behavior was random and without any meaning. As I began to encounter these individuals, and I actually began to sit with them and listen to them, I found that actually they each had powerful stories to tell, however often these stories were shrouded in symbols and metaphors. But with compassion and understanding, and a non-judgmental attitude, I began to realize that these individuals' experiences could be understood. My next experiences were to see the devastating effects of tardive dyskinesia, I saw this initially with adults, and then later I saw a child. I saw children whose only desire was to be heard, who had undergone extensive abuse, and were reacting to their painful world. It always seemed that it was the child who received the label, and their behaviors were simply subdued by various drugs. It was said to be an 'improvement' if the child was subdued, quiet, and gave no problem to the adults around them. But in this, I saw that the child's pain remained. This caused me to question if there was really something disordered within the child or maybe it is society that is disordered. From this, I began to research the effects of psychiatric drugs as well as the theory of 'chemical imbalances'. I began to see that these drugs often evoked more harm than good and that the idea of chemical imbalances have not been validated. I began to realize that a medical model of mental distress does not address experience and that there is a more humane and dignified method.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
REBECCA RILEY
This tragic story of a 4 year old child should be a wake up call to us all.
This now deceased child was drugged solely for profit- by the family and by the psychiatrist.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17818455
This is only confirmation towards my recent post listed below, "Abuse by the System".
Hopefully, individuals will take action.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
This now deceased child was drugged solely for profit- by the family and by the psychiatrist.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17818455
This is only confirmation towards my recent post listed below, "Abuse by the System".
Hopefully, individuals will take action.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Friday, March 30, 2007
ABUSE BY THE SYSTEM
Similar to psychiatric diagnoses, individuals who do not understand my conceptions of the need for a paradigm shift in the field of mental health are prone to ascribe labels. The common label I have received is to be part of 'anti-psychiatry'. First, similar to Laing, I do not deny the value of aiding individuals undergoing mental distress, rather I disagree with the means to carry this out and am opposed to means that would be oppressive, forced, coercive, or do not respect the autonomy and dignity of the individual. It is my view that merely seeing the emotional world of individuals as chemical accidents rather than examining experience is a misguided and mistaken approach. Thus, I can view current psychiatric practice as akin to a materialistic religion, and it often has become the replacement for spirituality today. My other objection comes in that whereas we may find things to have an evidence base, we also need to be reality based- science must always be tied with ethics and the premise of to first do no harm. Because we can scientifically validate something does not always mean it is ethical and good.
What has becoming particularly distressing is to see within psychiatric practice, that a 10 minute or less interview with information solely obtained from sources who in some instances may have their own agendas can produce live long labels and scripts for often dangerous drugs. One example that a colleague related is that a mother who has many abusive relationships had a child who began acting out after he himself was a victim of abuse. The communication between the mother and child was poor and the home environment was frequently chaotic. The history of trauma was never explored in a less than 10 minute interview, and the child was placed on multiple psychiatric drugs which teachers and others who know the child have left him to be in a subdued, 'zombie-like' state. This is one of only countless similar stories related to me. Are we expecting that this type of 'treatment' is supposed to evoke some sort of 'cure'? To whose benefit is this sort of 'treatment', and what do we expect the exact outcome to be? Where is the child's experience heard in the midst of this 'treatment'. It appears that the child who was abused has only been abused further by the system udner the guise of 'help'. The bottomline is money. The complaint has always been that psychotherapy and human services are costly and time consumming. But what we fail to realize is that these drugs are not only expensive in themselves but expensive in their cost on human lives. To actually address the core root of the child's distress may take some time, but would produce an outcome far better than making the child a life long mental patient required to take toxic drugs for an indefinite period of time. It is also unfortunate that disadvantaged families are often lured into the psychiatric system because for many it is seen as one of few ways out. The government provides money for a psychiatric diagnosis, its cheaper to pay out these checks than to really invest in programs that would address the needs of children and tackle issues of poverty and social justice. And yes, there sadly do exist some parents who in selfishness would prefer to have their child considered to be incapicitated (though they are not) than to actually address the reasons for their distress.
If labels must be used, I would prefer to use 'post-psychiatry' and in this what I mean is that the entire system must be deconstructed. The medical model must vanish and be replaced with a model which takes into account the experiences of individuals and which ties science with ethics. It may be then that we have a system that is humane and abuses for once might become a thing of the past.
What has becoming particularly distressing is to see within psychiatric practice, that a 10 minute or less interview with information solely obtained from sources who in some instances may have their own agendas can produce live long labels and scripts for often dangerous drugs. One example that a colleague related is that a mother who has many abusive relationships had a child who began acting out after he himself was a victim of abuse. The communication between the mother and child was poor and the home environment was frequently chaotic. The history of trauma was never explored in a less than 10 minute interview, and the child was placed on multiple psychiatric drugs which teachers and others who know the child have left him to be in a subdued, 'zombie-like' state. This is one of only countless similar stories related to me. Are we expecting that this type of 'treatment' is supposed to evoke some sort of 'cure'? To whose benefit is this sort of 'treatment', and what do we expect the exact outcome to be? Where is the child's experience heard in the midst of this 'treatment'. It appears that the child who was abused has only been abused further by the system udner the guise of 'help'. The bottomline is money. The complaint has always been that psychotherapy and human services are costly and time consumming. But what we fail to realize is that these drugs are not only expensive in themselves but expensive in their cost on human lives. To actually address the core root of the child's distress may take some time, but would produce an outcome far better than making the child a life long mental patient required to take toxic drugs for an indefinite period of time. It is also unfortunate that disadvantaged families are often lured into the psychiatric system because for many it is seen as one of few ways out. The government provides money for a psychiatric diagnosis, its cheaper to pay out these checks than to really invest in programs that would address the needs of children and tackle issues of poverty and social justice. And yes, there sadly do exist some parents who in selfishness would prefer to have their child considered to be incapicitated (though they are not) than to actually address the reasons for their distress.
If labels must be used, I would prefer to use 'post-psychiatry' and in this what I mean is that the entire system must be deconstructed. The medical model must vanish and be replaced with a model which takes into account the experiences of individuals and which ties science with ethics. It may be then that we have a system that is humane and abuses for once might become a thing of the past.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES
It was discussed with me the idea of childhood 'behavioral disorders', particularly ADHD in terms of the Emperor's New Clothes. Though, ADHD as the NIMH has stated itself cannot be validated and the diagnosis remains subjective, it continues to be perpetuated. The same can be said of the idea of mental health concerns being the result of a 'chemical imbalance'. In the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, the Emperor is conned to believe that he is adorned with the finest clothes. Those around him afraid to challenge the fraud, instead go along with this fraud, saying to the Emperor what beautiful clothes he has though he in reality is naked. It takes an innocent child to point out the fraud. The pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries have sold the public and professionals on this fraud of 'chemical imbalances' and many who know it is suspect, continue to go along with it for various reasons, one being fear to speak out. Once the lie is told so many times or becomes so big, no one dare challenge it. Hopefully, there will be individuals with virtue as the child in the Emperor's New Clothes who will come forward to expose the fraud for what it is.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
THE MEDICALIZATION OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE
The president of the American Psychiatric Association, Sharfstein had made the admission that there are no clear cut tests for any mental illness. This being the case, we must truly examine what the definition of 'mental illness' actually is. We cannot deny that individuals undergo emotional distress and that many cope in unproductive ways. However- what we cannot conclusively state is that this experience is the result of some chemical or biological problem. Even if we were to see some change in how the brain functions does not imply a chemical imbalance or something biologically wrong. If I go to the physician and he measures my heart rate, the nurse then startles me, measures my heart rate again, it is elevated, and the physician says, "heart disease", we would find this absurd. However, a person undergoing trauma, distressing situations, or other problems of life who reacts to these circumstances are then labeled as having a 'chemical imbalance.'. This is a profitable concept for pharmaceutical companies, a convenience for an education system unwilling to understand children's learning styles and meet their true needs, and for some parents who want to cash in on their child's so called 'disability.'
It is necessary for us to return to understanding experiences, to understand suffering as part of the human condition, and for our solutions to be based on the values of dignity and compassion. The medicalization of all human experience has led to devastating consequences. We are labeling the vulnerable as disordered rather than seeing our society as disordered and seeking to address the core problem.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
It is necessary for us to return to understanding experiences, to understand suffering as part of the human condition, and for our solutions to be based on the values of dignity and compassion. The medicalization of all human experience has led to devastating consequences. We are labeling the vulnerable as disordered rather than seeing our society as disordered and seeking to address the core problem.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
THE CHILDHOOD FRIEND
As I look back, my first encounter with the damaging effects of bio-psychiatry occurred when I was seven years old. Next door to my home in St. Petersburg, FL was a boy of the same age, Gary. Gary and I became immediate friends. We would play for hours in the tree fort in his yard or down by the creek behind our homes. There were many joyful times, yet I knew even at this age, that these probably were the few of Gary's joyful times. He had witnessed domestic violence from his father. His grandmother despised him and gave him beatings causing Child Protective Services to become involved many times. Gary would often appear very sedated and uncoordinated. I never understood why, I do now. He was being drugged into submission. Submission to a disordered world. Bio-psychiatry had its grip on this seven year old boy and never was his pain heard or understood. I moved away from St. Petersburg and lost contact with Gary. I can only pray that he has survived through the ordeal forced upon him.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
SOME RESPONSES TO PERSONAL CAMPAIGN OR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY
You are empowering them. Your colleague is misguided. Youmight dig around, ask him questions and find out where his negativity iscoming from. You may be surprised.
----------------
First of all you are not merely on a 'personal campaign'. This is a tactic to isolate the critic and argue it's just his/her has their own axe to grind. There are a whole wealth of critics, both professional Szasz, Breggin et al, and various survivors . It would be a persona campaign if you were the Lone Ranger. You are not, you have plenty of Tontos with you.
Second, you are not placing yourself in a position of 'authority'. On the contrary you are offering an alternative perception regarding drugs etc and letting others side for themselves. It is mainstream psychiatry and the drug industries that claim to be the authorities and have infected the thinking of Western society from child rearing through to addictive behaviour.
-----------------
While this is easy to say and not as easy to feel, please do not take yourcolleagues' concern's personally.We are the accused and will be until our stand is done.We are for children living a full life.One where they are free to think and feel, a place where a child's emotionscome from their heart and nota pill. Where children learn to use their mind and will and and unlike thosewho question us have a clarity of what is right and wrong.Each of us ended up in this war for different reasons, there is not too muchof a power trip only our collective desire to save childrens' lives, whichyou are doing.Do I take other peoples' children dying personally? You bet I do.I could have been mine.I never planned on being here. When a classmate of my daughters' who washeavily medicated attempted to kill their teacher in front of the wholeclass, my daughter stopped him. This began my investgation into these drugsand their effects on children.Every word I type is my way of thanking God for the lives that were sparedthat day because I knowit could have been mine.You are not wrong and you are not alone.
----------------------------
You wrote that a colleague suggested that you are on a 'personal campaign' to end all psychiatric drugging and you are using a particular agency's clients as 'guinea pigs.' Feedback on how you might respond to this would, it seems to me, depend on whether or not it is true that you personally are seeking to do what you can to end all psychiatric drugging. I know that I am seeking this. In my opinion, if all of the psychiatric drugs were dumped to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for the human race and all the worse for the fishes. I realize you might be concerned that if you do have similar beliefs as I do on this matter, and were to be so straight forward with your colleague, it may produce more of a negative reaction than you care to put up with at this time. Thus, you may want to be somewhat more circumspect.With regards to you being accused of treating clients as 'guinea pigs', my reaction would be that I am a supporter of the humane treatment of guinea pigs and my standard of concern for my clients, who are all human beings is even higher than guinea pigs. It is for this reason that I am seeking to inform people of the risks of these drugs, and what safer alternatives are available.Later in your email, you write: >>Second, it was suggested that my pointing out dangers of certain psychiatric drugs was placing myself in a 'role of power' and that disadvantaged individuals would automatically look at my credentials, role, and words, and automatically 'follow wherever I lead them."I pointed out that surveys given to the families I have been involved with all had positive feedback, and this was acknowledged by this colleague.I would point out that my power is partly obtained legitimately by the years of training that I have obtained and the years of experience I have working with clients. All professionals have a certain amount of such power, and it is offset by other professionals with alternative opinions and the pharmaceutical financial interests that have been able to buy off professional opinions and, with huge financial backing, put forth their agenda in the media. There are also other sources of information available to clients, such as discussions that occur among friends and relatives, books, etc. This is the current power structure in our society, it is not my making, and I am doing my best to make it work as best as I can.
----------------
First of all you are not merely on a 'personal campaign'. This is a tactic to isolate the critic and argue it's just his/her has their own axe to grind. There are a whole wealth of critics, both professional Szasz, Breggin et al, and various survivors . It would be a persona campaign if you were the Lone Ranger. You are not, you have plenty of Tontos with you.
Second, you are not placing yourself in a position of 'authority'. On the contrary you are offering an alternative perception regarding drugs etc and letting others side for themselves. It is mainstream psychiatry and the drug industries that claim to be the authorities and have infected the thinking of Western society from child rearing through to addictive behaviour.
-----------------
While this is easy to say and not as easy to feel, please do not take yourcolleagues' concern's personally.We are the accused and will be until our stand is done.We are for children living a full life.One where they are free to think and feel, a place where a child's emotionscome from their heart and nota pill. Where children learn to use their mind and will and and unlike thosewho question us have a clarity of what is right and wrong.Each of us ended up in this war for different reasons, there is not too muchof a power trip only our collective desire to save childrens' lives, whichyou are doing.Do I take other peoples' children dying personally? You bet I do.I could have been mine.I never planned on being here. When a classmate of my daughters' who washeavily medicated attempted to kill their teacher in front of the wholeclass, my daughter stopped him. This began my investgation into these drugsand their effects on children.Every word I type is my way of thanking God for the lives that were sparedthat day because I knowit could have been mine.You are not wrong and you are not alone.
----------------------------
You wrote that a colleague suggested that you are on a 'personal campaign' to end all psychiatric drugging and you are using a particular agency's clients as 'guinea pigs.' Feedback on how you might respond to this would, it seems to me, depend on whether or not it is true that you personally are seeking to do what you can to end all psychiatric drugging. I know that I am seeking this. In my opinion, if all of the psychiatric drugs were dumped to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for the human race and all the worse for the fishes. I realize you might be concerned that if you do have similar beliefs as I do on this matter, and were to be so straight forward with your colleague, it may produce more of a negative reaction than you care to put up with at this time. Thus, you may want to be somewhat more circumspect.With regards to you being accused of treating clients as 'guinea pigs', my reaction would be that I am a supporter of the humane treatment of guinea pigs and my standard of concern for my clients, who are all human beings is even higher than guinea pigs. It is for this reason that I am seeking to inform people of the risks of these drugs, and what safer alternatives are available.Later in your email, you write: >>Second, it was suggested that my pointing out dangers of certain psychiatric drugs was placing myself in a 'role of power' and that disadvantaged individuals would automatically look at my credentials, role, and words, and automatically 'follow wherever I lead them."I pointed out that surveys given to the families I have been involved with all had positive feedback, and this was acknowledged by this colleague.I would point out that my power is partly obtained legitimately by the years of training that I have obtained and the years of experience I have working with clients. All professionals have a certain amount of such power, and it is offset by other professionals with alternative opinions and the pharmaceutical financial interests that have been able to buy off professional opinions and, with huge financial backing, put forth their agenda in the media. There are also other sources of information available to clients, such as discussions that occur among friends and relatives, books, etc. This is the current power structure in our society, it is not my making, and I am doing my best to make it work as best as I can.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
A PERSONAL CAMPAIGN OR AN ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY?
I was recently challenged by a colleague:
First, it was suggested that I am on a 'personal campaign' to end all psychiatric drugging and am using a particular agencies clients as 'guinea pigs.'
Second, it was suggested that my pointing out dangers of certain psychiatric drugs was placing myself in a a 'role of power' and that disadvantaged individuals would automatically look at my credentials, role, and words, and automatically 'follow wherever I lead them."
I look at that it is not a 'personal campaign' but rather examining the role of health professionals to do no harm. I see the importance of informing parents as an ethical responsibility, to allow them to know that there do exist psycho-social alternatives.
I pointed out to this colleague that surveys provided to each family I am involved with all had very positive remarks and feedback from each and everyone. This was acknowledged by the colleague.
The fact that it is known that many of these psychiatric drugs are leading to psychosis, mania, violence, and suicidality should make this ethical responsibility even more paramount.
Also, NEVER have I suggested to a family to stop a psychiatric drug without them first consulting a medical professional and the majority of the time I have been present to also consult with the medical professional myself.
What I find interesting is that a mental health professional (or educator) who would suggest the psychiatric drugging of children as the first or only resort would almost never be called into question. This would not be construed as a 'personal campaign'. However, this is often far more a personal campaign, as the psychiatrist and even the educator often have something to gain by recommending the drugs. What exactly do I have to gain? Nothing. I do not feel I am exercising undue power of individuals but giving them options, and by this am actually empowering them.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
First, it was suggested that I am on a 'personal campaign' to end all psychiatric drugging and am using a particular agencies clients as 'guinea pigs.'
Second, it was suggested that my pointing out dangers of certain psychiatric drugs was placing myself in a a 'role of power' and that disadvantaged individuals would automatically look at my credentials, role, and words, and automatically 'follow wherever I lead them."
I look at that it is not a 'personal campaign' but rather examining the role of health professionals to do no harm. I see the importance of informing parents as an ethical responsibility, to allow them to know that there do exist psycho-social alternatives.
I pointed out to this colleague that surveys provided to each family I am involved with all had very positive remarks and feedback from each and everyone. This was acknowledged by the colleague.
The fact that it is known that many of these psychiatric drugs are leading to psychosis, mania, violence, and suicidality should make this ethical responsibility even more paramount.
Also, NEVER have I suggested to a family to stop a psychiatric drug without them first consulting a medical professional and the majority of the time I have been present to also consult with the medical professional myself.
What I find interesting is that a mental health professional (or educator) who would suggest the psychiatric drugging of children as the first or only resort would almost never be called into question. This would not be construed as a 'personal campaign'. However, this is often far more a personal campaign, as the psychiatrist and even the educator often have something to gain by recommending the drugs. What exactly do I have to gain? Nothing. I do not feel I am exercising undue power of individuals but giving them options, and by this am actually empowering them.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
25 REASONS TO ABOLISH BIO-PSYCHIATRY
25 GOOD REASONS TO ABOLISH PSYCHIATRY
(slightly revised - August 1998)
by Don Weitz
1. Psychiatrists are more harmful than helpful.
2. Psychiatrists are more unethical than ethical .
3. Psychiatrists do not empower - they disempower people.
4. Psychiatry is not a medical science.
5. Psychiatry is quackery, a pseudo-science which lacks independent diagnostic tests, testable hypotheses, and cures for "mental illness".
6. Psychiatrists can not accurately and reliably predict dangerousness, violence or any other type of human behaviour, yet make such claims as "expert witnesses".
7. Psychiatrists have already caused a worldwide epidemic of brain damage by prescribing brain-disabling treatments such as the neuroleptics, antidepressants, electroconvulsive brainwashing (ECB or electroshock), and psychosurgery ("lobotomy").
8. Psychiatrists manufacture hundreds of "mental disorders" classified in its bible titled Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM). The DSM is not a scientific work but a catalog of negative moral judgments which psychiatrists use to medicalize, target and stigmatize dissidents and alternative ways of perceiving, interpreting or being in the world.
9. Psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose people's life crises as symptoms of "schizophrenia" or "mental illness".
10. Psychiatrists falsely claim, without scientific proof, that "schizophrenia" is not only a real disease but caused by a "biochemical imbalance in the brain", genetic factors or a "genetic predisposition"--in fact, there are no scientifically-established biochemical and genetic factors in "schizophrenia" or any other "mental illness".
11. Psychiatrists routinely misinform psychiatric prisoners ("involuntary patients"), their families and the public by claiming that brain-disabling procedures as the neurotoxins (e.g.,"anti-psychotic medication", "antidepressants"), electroconvulsive brainwashing (ECB), psychosurgery and other behaviour modification or mind-control procedures
are "safe, effective and lifesaving"--the exact opposite is the case.
12. Psychiatrists routinely deceive or lie to psychiatric prisoners, other prisoners, their families and the public.
13. "Psychiatrists routinely misinform or not inform psychiatric prisoners and other prisoners about their treatments' many toxic and permanently disabling effects such as memory loss, tardive dyskinesia, parkinsonism, dementia (all signs of brain damage), and death.
14. Psychiatrists routinely threaten, intimidate and coerce psychiatric prisoners and other prisoners into consenting to health-threatening treatments such as the antidepressants, neuroleptics, ECB, and hi-risk experiments.
15. Psychiatrists routinely violate the ethical and legal principle of "informed consent" by failing to inform psychiatric prisoners and others about non-medical alternatives such as safe survivor-controlled crisis centres, drop-ins, self-help/advocacy groups, holistic/naturopathic medicine, and affordable supportive housing.
16. Psychiatrists are sexist in frequently stereotyping women in crisis as "hysterical" or "overemotional", overdrugging, electroshocking and blaming women whenever they voice real complaints or openly express their feelings and emotions such as sadness pathologized as "depression".
17. Psychiatrists are homophobic; the American Psychiatric Association once officially labeled homosexuality as "mental illness", later voted not to classify it as an illness.
18. Psychiatrists are ageist in targeting elderly people, especially women, for antidepressants and electroshock - a form of elder abuse.
19. Psychiatrists are racist and classist in disproportionately drugging African-Americans, African-Canadians and poor people, labeling them "schizophrenic" or "psychotic", and subjecting children of colour to experimental drugs or hi-risk experiments.
20. Psychiatrists routinely violate people's human rights and constitutional rights such as incarcerating innocent people without trial or public hearing ("involuntary commitment" or preventive detention), and subjecting them to cruel, degrading and inhumane punishments or tortures such as forced drugging, forced electroshock, psychosurgery, solitary confinement and other "restraints".
21.Psychiatrists masterminded the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of psychiatric prisoners, disabled children and elderly people in hospitals during The Holocaust in Nazi Germany and "selected" hundreds of thousands of concentration camp prisoners for death. There is still no mention of this psychiatrically-administered, mass murder program code-named "T4/euthanasia" in psychiatric textbooks and histories. In Canada, very few medical schools provide lectures on "T4".
22. Psychiatrists have participated in mind-control experiments in the United States, Canada and other countries since the early 1950s.
23. Psychiatry, particularly involuntary-biological psychiatry, is inherently coercive and based on three Fs: Fear, Force and Fraud.
24. Psychiatry is essentially fascist.
25. Psychiatry is a direct threat to democracy, human rights and life.
(slightly revised - August 1998)
by Don Weitz
1. Psychiatrists are more harmful than helpful.
2. Psychiatrists are more unethical than ethical .
3. Psychiatrists do not empower - they disempower people.
4. Psychiatry is not a medical science.
5. Psychiatry is quackery, a pseudo-science which lacks independent diagnostic tests, testable hypotheses, and cures for "mental illness".
6. Psychiatrists can not accurately and reliably predict dangerousness, violence or any other type of human behaviour, yet make such claims as "expert witnesses".
7. Psychiatrists have already caused a worldwide epidemic of brain damage by prescribing brain-disabling treatments such as the neuroleptics, antidepressants, electroconvulsive brainwashing (ECB or electroshock), and psychosurgery ("lobotomy").
8. Psychiatrists manufacture hundreds of "mental disorders" classified in its bible titled Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM). The DSM is not a scientific work but a catalog of negative moral judgments which psychiatrists use to medicalize, target and stigmatize dissidents and alternative ways of perceiving, interpreting or being in the world.
9. Psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose people's life crises as symptoms of "schizophrenia" or "mental illness".
10. Psychiatrists falsely claim, without scientific proof, that "schizophrenia" is not only a real disease but caused by a "biochemical imbalance in the brain", genetic factors or a "genetic predisposition"--in fact, there are no scientifically-established biochemical and genetic factors in "schizophrenia" or any other "mental illness".
11. Psychiatrists routinely misinform psychiatric prisoners ("involuntary patients"), their families and the public by claiming that brain-disabling procedures as the neurotoxins (e.g.,"anti-psychotic medication", "antidepressants"), electroconvulsive brainwashing (ECB), psychosurgery and other behaviour modification or mind-control procedures
are "safe, effective and lifesaving"--the exact opposite is the case.
12. Psychiatrists routinely deceive or lie to psychiatric prisoners, other prisoners, their families and the public.
13. "Psychiatrists routinely misinform or not inform psychiatric prisoners and other prisoners about their treatments' many toxic and permanently disabling effects such as memory loss, tardive dyskinesia, parkinsonism, dementia (all signs of brain damage), and death.
14. Psychiatrists routinely threaten, intimidate and coerce psychiatric prisoners and other prisoners into consenting to health-threatening treatments such as the antidepressants, neuroleptics, ECB, and hi-risk experiments.
15. Psychiatrists routinely violate the ethical and legal principle of "informed consent" by failing to inform psychiatric prisoners and others about non-medical alternatives such as safe survivor-controlled crisis centres, drop-ins, self-help/advocacy groups, holistic/naturopathic medicine, and affordable supportive housing.
16. Psychiatrists are sexist in frequently stereotyping women in crisis as "hysterical" or "overemotional", overdrugging, electroshocking and blaming women whenever they voice real complaints or openly express their feelings and emotions such as sadness pathologized as "depression".
17. Psychiatrists are homophobic; the American Psychiatric Association once officially labeled homosexuality as "mental illness", later voted not to classify it as an illness.
18. Psychiatrists are ageist in targeting elderly people, especially women, for antidepressants and electroshock - a form of elder abuse.
19. Psychiatrists are racist and classist in disproportionately drugging African-Americans, African-Canadians and poor people, labeling them "schizophrenic" or "psychotic", and subjecting children of colour to experimental drugs or hi-risk experiments.
20. Psychiatrists routinely violate people's human rights and constitutional rights such as incarcerating innocent people without trial or public hearing ("involuntary commitment" or preventive detention), and subjecting them to cruel, degrading and inhumane punishments or tortures such as forced drugging, forced electroshock, psychosurgery, solitary confinement and other "restraints".
21.Psychiatrists masterminded the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of psychiatric prisoners, disabled children and elderly people in hospitals during The Holocaust in Nazi Germany and "selected" hundreds of thousands of concentration camp prisoners for death. There is still no mention of this psychiatrically-administered, mass murder program code-named "T4/euthanasia" in psychiatric textbooks and histories. In Canada, very few medical schools provide lectures on "T4".
22. Psychiatrists have participated in mind-control experiments in the United States, Canada and other countries since the early 1950s.
23. Psychiatry, particularly involuntary-biological psychiatry, is inherently coercive and based on three Fs: Fear, Force and Fraud.
24. Psychiatry is essentially fascist.
25. Psychiatry is a direct threat to democracy, human rights and life.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
TREATMENT
If we look at the definition of treatment we will find two possible definitions:
1. action or behavior towards a person
2. management in the application of medicines, surgery, etc.
When we use the term 'treatment' in regards to those undergoing emotional distress, it appears that the main viewpoint is to solely look in terms of the second definition. In the past, such view of treatment led to oppression through such things as electroshock, lobotomy, and insulin coma. There was no examination of the first definition which is the key definition. If we are to use the term 'treatment' at all, then it must be connected to human rights and dignity, and thus how a person decides to 'treat' their client is based on how the therapist chooses to conduct themselves towards the person. Once again we see that treatment is the true sense is the building of relationship.
1. action or behavior towards a person
2. management in the application of medicines, surgery, etc.
When we use the term 'treatment' in regards to those undergoing emotional distress, it appears that the main viewpoint is to solely look in terms of the second definition. In the past, such view of treatment led to oppression through such things as electroshock, lobotomy, and insulin coma. There was no examination of the first definition which is the key definition. If we are to use the term 'treatment' at all, then it must be connected to human rights and dignity, and thus how a person decides to 'treat' their client is based on how the therapist chooses to conduct themselves towards the person. Once again we see that treatment is the true sense is the building of relationship.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
RESPONSE TO SCRANTON TIMES
am responding to the letters of James Scott, Debby Rabold, and Kelly Bentler of January 1, 2007. First, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, in which Mr. Scott is a Board Member, like psychiatry receives much of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, thus it is not suprising that there would be the promotion of the 'chemical imbalance' theory in regards to emotional distress. Each era of psychiatry has given us a new conception, each often as oppressive as the first. Biological determinism and the theory of distress arising from so-called chemical imbalances is a popular and majority idea in the mental health field today. However, there is no evidence to support such a concept. Such an idea helps to further the profits of the pharmaceutical industry who are able to make lifelong mental patients in need of their products through the promulgation of such chemical imbalance concepts. The President of the American Psychiatric Association recently stated that there is no 'clear cut test" to demonstrate chemical imbalances. Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D. says, “[T]here are no tests available for assessing the chemical status of a living person’s brain.” The late Dr. Loren Mosher who had headed Schizophrenia research for the National Institutes of Mental Health stated, “…there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses.”
As there is no demonstrable physical abnormality, there is no disease. What is termend mental illness are not diseases but experiences in reaction to many challenging factors. Thus, psychiatric 'medications' are not addressing any core emotional issue but merely subduing behaviors and it comes with a price in terms of adverse effects. Drugs do not teach people new skills, people do. I was a friend of the late Dr. Loren Mosher, head of Schizophrenia research for NIMH in the 70's. Mosher found with his Soteria project that simply having a support network of caring, compassionate individuals was deemed more effiective than the traditional 'methods'. This is what the mental health system must return to- to truly seeking to understand the experiences of individuals, to listen, and not to force unwanted 'treatments' on the vulnerable. I received my Doctorate of Education in Community Counseling and am proud to be a professional who is a vocal critic of bio-psychiatry and to also to be a supporter of the many psychiatric survivors.
If Mrs. Bentler chooses to take psychiatric drugs, that is her choice, but individuals need informed consent and to be fully aware of the risks involved and that there do exist more humane and dignified psychosocial approaches
As there is no demonstrable physical abnormality, there is no disease. What is termend mental illness are not diseases but experiences in reaction to many challenging factors. Thus, psychiatric 'medications' are not addressing any core emotional issue but merely subduing behaviors and it comes with a price in terms of adverse effects. Drugs do not teach people new skills, people do. I was a friend of the late Dr. Loren Mosher, head of Schizophrenia research for NIMH in the 70's. Mosher found with his Soteria project that simply having a support network of caring, compassionate individuals was deemed more effiective than the traditional 'methods'. This is what the mental health system must return to- to truly seeking to understand the experiences of individuals, to listen, and not to force unwanted 'treatments' on the vulnerable. I received my Doctorate of Education in Community Counseling and am proud to be a professional who is a vocal critic of bio-psychiatry and to also to be a supporter of the many psychiatric survivors.
If Mrs. Bentler chooses to take psychiatric drugs, that is her choice, but individuals need informed consent and to be fully aware of the risks involved and that there do exist more humane and dignified psychosocial approaches
Saturday, December 23, 2006
RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
A colleague recently asked me if I felt religion was a positive or destructive force, arguing how that many conflicts in the world appear to have a religious base.
Religion is an established set of beliefs often accompanied with rituals and an ethical plan that codifies how we should look at the world around us and our interactions with others. In some sense, every person, even those without a belief in a deity, could be said to hold to a 'religion'. The issue is how organized and dogmatic this particular religion may be. Whether religion is a positive or destructive force is dependent on the means by which we choose to use it. If this defining of beliefs seeks to provide meaning and guides us in fulfilling relationships, it can be said to be positive. If it is used to merely control the conduct of others or force them to alter their nature, it can become oppressive. Religion then can be a means when there is equanimity and shared values and meaning, a positive force which does help to guide human interactions. If the religion is based merely on fear and intimidation to guide human interactions, it becomes destructive. I have often argued that in today's society, psychiatry has become a religion and is now the 'standard' by which to codify human nature and behavior and to intimidate those who would be deviants. Those who are considered 'mentally ill' are the heretics of this religion. Then there is also those who seek to differentiate between religion and spirituality. "I am not religious, but spiritual." Good heavens, what does this mean? It often appears that individuals try to seek something outside of nature to find meaning. But what exactly is wrong with nature? Why it is that man seeks to somehow 'improve' upon nature? Why can we not accept the majesty and also the mystery of the natural world around us? It often appears that those that cannot find delight in the nature of children want to label them, drug them, or somehow alter their nature to fit into a defined way of how they feel children should behave. But this does not only apply to children. Therefore, when we define 'spiritual', we must carefully understand this term? Are we referring to our own nature and its potential or are we directing this search to something outside of us, something that must be altered? Spiritual should refer to the mind. The mind is not the brain, it is our conscience, our experiences, our nature, and utlimately who we are. To use the term 'spiritual' as recognizing our own potential for benevolence, then this is a positive use of this term.
Religion is an established set of beliefs often accompanied with rituals and an ethical plan that codifies how we should look at the world around us and our interactions with others. In some sense, every person, even those without a belief in a deity, could be said to hold to a 'religion'. The issue is how organized and dogmatic this particular religion may be. Whether religion is a positive or destructive force is dependent on the means by which we choose to use it. If this defining of beliefs seeks to provide meaning and guides us in fulfilling relationships, it can be said to be positive. If it is used to merely control the conduct of others or force them to alter their nature, it can become oppressive. Religion then can be a means when there is equanimity and shared values and meaning, a positive force which does help to guide human interactions. If the religion is based merely on fear and intimidation to guide human interactions, it becomes destructive. I have often argued that in today's society, psychiatry has become a religion and is now the 'standard' by which to codify human nature and behavior and to intimidate those who would be deviants. Those who are considered 'mentally ill' are the heretics of this religion. Then there is also those who seek to differentiate between religion and spirituality. "I am not religious, but spiritual." Good heavens, what does this mean? It often appears that individuals try to seek something outside of nature to find meaning. But what exactly is wrong with nature? Why it is that man seeks to somehow 'improve' upon nature? Why can we not accept the majesty and also the mystery of the natural world around us? It often appears that those that cannot find delight in the nature of children want to label them, drug them, or somehow alter their nature to fit into a defined way of how they feel children should behave. But this does not only apply to children. Therefore, when we define 'spiritual', we must carefully understand this term? Are we referring to our own nature and its potential or are we directing this search to something outside of us, something that must be altered? Spiritual should refer to the mind. The mind is not the brain, it is our conscience, our experiences, our nature, and utlimately who we are. To use the term 'spiritual' as recognizing our own potential for benevolence, then this is a positive use of this term.
WHY 'THERAPY' FOR SOME CHILDREN DOES NOT 'WORK'
Some individuals I am aware of from the juvenile justice system often commented that with some children within this system it appears that 'therapy' does not work. They also commented that programs for addressing truancy often appear ineffective.
I began to examine this in light of my experience with some children who have been involved in the juvenile justice system or had truancy concerns. First, most of the programs these children are referred to are often bio-psychiatric. The children are most aware that the therapists they are working with have the intent to recommend for them psychiatric drugs and are also well aware that these therapists are there to control, not hear them. Indeed, the programs are an arm of the law, they are not there to truly help the child or to give them a voice. Psychiatry itself is not medicine, it is social control, an method of dealing with those we consider deviant.
In regards to truancy, should we be more alarmed by children who rebel against the education system or those who blindly follow it? The truant child usually has felt that the education system has failed them, and struggle to have a voice and find relevancy. They are often shuffled to alternative schools that do not meet their needs but only warehouse them. Children, even those undergoing emotional distress, are bright beings, they can sense where there is a problem. However, children cannot be expected to always behave rationally. It is us as adults who must make the rational decisions to truly meet our children's needs and to address the real issues that effect their emotional well being.
I began to examine this in light of my experience with some children who have been involved in the juvenile justice system or had truancy concerns. First, most of the programs these children are referred to are often bio-psychiatric. The children are most aware that the therapists they are working with have the intent to recommend for them psychiatric drugs and are also well aware that these therapists are there to control, not hear them. Indeed, the programs are an arm of the law, they are not there to truly help the child or to give them a voice. Psychiatry itself is not medicine, it is social control, an method of dealing with those we consider deviant.
In regards to truancy, should we be more alarmed by children who rebel against the education system or those who blindly follow it? The truant child usually has felt that the education system has failed them, and struggle to have a voice and find relevancy. They are often shuffled to alternative schools that do not meet their needs but only warehouse them. Children, even those undergoing emotional distress, are bright beings, they can sense where there is a problem. However, children cannot be expected to always behave rationally. It is us as adults who must make the rational decisions to truly meet our children's needs and to address the real issues that effect their emotional well being.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
SOME THOUGHTS RELATED TO POST-PSYCHIATRY
The following is some comments from my colleague, Robert Schmidt, a doctoral student in Sociology at Binghamton University. I find this material of great interest.
Medicine in general, and bio-psych in particular, purport a linear notion
of "progress". "Adolescence" is a very recent [and very Eurocentric]
construction. In the 19th century, children were typically
regulated/disciplined through work. And if the golden age of capitalism
(say 1945-1973) operated on a logic of discipline ( in schools, the
factory and the use of paddles in schools) and purported to REFORM deviant
people ( through hard work, discipline and perhaps prisons), then
certainly neoliberalism (1973-present) uses a much more pervasive
technology of social control, but it operates on a logic that people can't
be reformed (although blacks, and other groups considered sub-human,
couldn't be reformed prior to 1945 -- but that's another discussion [that
is not unrelated]).
In attempt to link hard-wired genetics with ever-changing time/space
contingent socially acceptable behavior, people are considered
PSYIOLOGICALLY "sick" before they express SOCIAL symptoms. Blacks are
considered criminals before they commit a crime. A poor child from an
alcoholic family is considered [and expected to be] an alcoholic before
they even experiment with alcohol. "Alcoholics" are always alcoholics;
addicts are always addicts-- it's part of their body. Gays, too, are
treated as psychically different.
Sure, schools don't use paddles. Parents (assuming the child lives in a
nuclear family) don't spank their kids anymore. But if spanking is
"barbaric" and primitive, what is medicine with dangerous known and
unknown side effects? If labeling a child medically "sick" alleviates the
shame of “sinful” and “bad” behavior, what does labeling an otherwise
normal child with ADD/ODD or some other “chemical imbalance” do?
The conclusion from this is that there is no linear progress.
The failure of psychiatry makes the case for Post-psychiatry. Perhaps the
failure of the psychiatry is its sucess: psychiatry serves a specific
funation, and was thus meant to fail. Institutions of power and control
don’t "cure the soul" -- and even if they could, perhaps it is not
desirable to do so. The way in which society defines, produces, labels,
and responds to [deviant] behavior needs to be changed.
Medicine in general, and bio-psych in particular, purport a linear notion
of "progress". "Adolescence" is a very recent [and very Eurocentric]
construction. In the 19th century, children were typically
regulated/disciplined through work. And if the golden age of capitalism
(say 1945-1973) operated on a logic of discipline ( in schools, the
factory and the use of paddles in schools) and purported to REFORM deviant
people ( through hard work, discipline and perhaps prisons), then
certainly neoliberalism (1973-present) uses a much more pervasive
technology of social control, but it operates on a logic that people can't
be reformed (although blacks, and other groups considered sub-human,
couldn't be reformed prior to 1945 -- but that's another discussion [that
is not unrelated]).
In attempt to link hard-wired genetics with ever-changing time/space
contingent socially acceptable behavior, people are considered
PSYIOLOGICALLY "sick" before they express SOCIAL symptoms. Blacks are
considered criminals before they commit a crime. A poor child from an
alcoholic family is considered [and expected to be] an alcoholic before
they even experiment with alcohol. "Alcoholics" are always alcoholics;
addicts are always addicts-- it's part of their body. Gays, too, are
treated as psychically different.
Sure, schools don't use paddles. Parents (assuming the child lives in a
nuclear family) don't spank their kids anymore. But if spanking is
"barbaric" and primitive, what is medicine with dangerous known and
unknown side effects? If labeling a child medically "sick" alleviates the
shame of “sinful” and “bad” behavior, what does labeling an otherwise
normal child with ADD/ODD or some other “chemical imbalance” do?
The conclusion from this is that there is no linear progress.
The failure of psychiatry makes the case for Post-psychiatry. Perhaps the
failure of the psychiatry is its sucess: psychiatry serves a specific
funation, and was thus meant to fail. Institutions of power and control
don’t "cure the soul" -- and even if they could, perhaps it is not
desirable to do so. The way in which society defines, produces, labels,
and responds to [deviant] behavior needs to be changed.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
JOURNEY THROUGH 'MADNESS'
What is termed ‘madness’ or ‘mental illness’ is often the person’s only means for expression of their being lost and confused in a world which has caused them deep hurt and pain. Such is not disease but behavior with metaphorical meaning. These individuals have received through life mixed messages and been placed into situations where regardless of the option they choose they feel damned. They seek to break out from the reality which has only caused them distress. The development of hallucinations and delusions are all metaphors for the very real demons they have encountered in disordered society. The inner mind, the voice within us, becomes amplified, and becomes ‘possessed’ with the demons coming forward from the trauma and distress which has been encountered. Rebellion against the system of things becomes self-destructive as the person seeks to send a message to the world of their distress, but it remains unheard. Each coping mechanism that has been employed has often led to failure and not brought them out of the unlivable situation that is their life. However, the catharsis of this pain and grief can go in two directions- it can be misery and existential death, or it can be transformative. Through the pain and struggle, through the breaking out of the ‘typical reality’ one can journey through various modes of altered consciousness. Many deemed ‘mad’ speak of the supernatural. They have sought every attempt to reach out and create meaning. If they can be helped by a loving, supportive network to navigate through this state of confusion and the various realms of altered consciousness towards rebuilding and reconstructing a life of meaning, then they can come forward to a recovery that gives them valuable insight about human nature and who they really are and the reality of the impermanence of this life and the world around us. They will find that suffering is an inevitable, and it that suffering is the state of the world which is mired in greed and attachment. The one deemed ‘mad’ for once has accomplished a rare task- they have completely detached. But this detachment is only from the typical standards of the world. They remain haunted by the visions of their previous life. They cannot escape it, and thus they become anxious and paranoid that something or someone will pull them back to that painful existence. At times, rage comes forward as the reaction to challenges, but who would not be outraged if their voice was suppressed and they became the scapegoat for the problems of their families or those around them? Those deemed ‘mad’, feeling always alone, depart to a world where they remain alone from people, yet may create for themselves beings who give them comfort and solace. This is really the end of their search, to simply be accepted and loved. But here too lies a problem, for when their lives have been devoid of love and they receive unconditional love, it becomes like an overwhelming fire that consumes them. They have never been loved, so how can they respond to an outpouring of love? When all they knew was that oppression and coercion was said to be because ‘we love you’, when ‘love’ really was only about control, how can the person then understand genuine love? Once again, the confusion sets in. To reach the person who has been deemed ‘mad’, we cannot overwhelm. Our sincerity will not be enough, for there trust has been shattered time and time again. It is only through entering their world for what it is, by joining in, and learning to speak the language, can we ourselves begin to understand the experience of these individuals. It is only by this joining in that the person may have the chance for their journey known as ‘madness’ to reach a transformative ending towards recovery.
CHILDREN AS EQUALS
It appears that many children who are high energy are targeted to be subdued and drugged. It seems that adults cannot possibly tolerate such a child. It annoys them. They want the child to conform and to not disturb their cozy little worlds. We would like to make our children disordered rather than looking at the disorder of our society.
Now lets imagine an idea- that children are equals. God forbid! How could be suggest such an awful idea? Why these children are born with an inherent nature to cause trouble, we need to control them for their own good!
It is always been the desire to control, and particularly claiming we are doing this for 'someone's own good' that has led to oppression and numerous evils.
But children are fellow human beings, they are capable of reflective thought, they indeed are capable of responsibility. Children need adutls to love and guide them, but they can be rational beings if we do not stifle them or cause them trauma. It is often adult interference that creates the harm to children more often than their own independent actions.
Now lets imagine an idea- that children are equals. God forbid! How could be suggest such an awful idea? Why these children are born with an inherent nature to cause trouble, we need to control them for their own good!
It is always been the desire to control, and particularly claiming we are doing this for 'someone's own good' that has led to oppression and numerous evils.
But children are fellow human beings, they are capable of reflective thought, they indeed are capable of responsibility. Children need adutls to love and guide them, but they can be rational beings if we do not stifle them or cause them trauma. It is often adult interference that creates the harm to children more often than their own independent actions.
Monday, December 04, 2006
CHILDREN OUR TREASURE
My recent book, "Children Our Treasure" is now available to be ordered at my website
www.danedmunds.com
This book is a critical analysis of bio-psychiatry and gives a detailed plan for creating a relationship based, humane, and dignified mental health system.
www.danedmunds.com
This book is a critical analysis of bio-psychiatry and gives a detailed plan for creating a relationship based, humane, and dignified mental health system.
RETURNING ZEAL TO LEARNING
Recently I read a text describing the Summerhill school in Britain, an amazing program geared towards the freedom of children and encouraging their individuality, expression, and creativity.
A comment that struck me is that today we are very concerned about truancy, but have little concern at looking at students who conform to the day to day system with all its flaws. It has always been when we 'just went with the flow' and failed to question that the greatest of evils in history occurred. Our methods of dealing with truancy should not be based on punishment. Instead, we must really take a close look at just how our education system is impacting our children. Just why is it that some children are so avoidant of the experience called school? Why is the process of learning, something that should be a joy and delight, become such a boring, miserable experience for many children? How can we re-create schools to be sanctuaries where children thrive and are excited about the possibilities of sharing new ideas and learning new concepts. What has gone wrong in our education system, and why do we blame the child rather than looking at the real problem?
A comment that struck me is that today we are very concerned about truancy, but have little concern at looking at students who conform to the day to day system with all its flaws. It has always been when we 'just went with the flow' and failed to question that the greatest of evils in history occurred. Our methods of dealing with truancy should not be based on punishment. Instead, we must really take a close look at just how our education system is impacting our children. Just why is it that some children are so avoidant of the experience called school? Why is the process of learning, something that should be a joy and delight, become such a boring, miserable experience for many children? How can we re-create schools to be sanctuaries where children thrive and are excited about the possibilities of sharing new ideas and learning new concepts. What has gone wrong in our education system, and why do we blame the child rather than looking at the real problem?
WHEN THERAPISTS CHOSE NOT TO TRULY CARE: THERAPISTS AS PROSTITUTES
It was suggested to me of the compariSon between some mental health professionals and the concept of 'prostitution'. Let me explain. With prostitution, an individual pays the prostitute for a service. Both know this is not a real relationship. Each get what they want, one sexual favors, the prostiute payment.
So it is with some mental health professionals. Some feign to care, listen to, and understand their client, but in reality it is the dollar that really matters.
It would be ideal if we could create a mental health system based on private, voluntary donations that would help sustain those in the helping professions while they provide sincere care that is humane, dignified, and based on being genuine.
So it is with some mental health professionals. Some feign to care, listen to, and understand their client, but in reality it is the dollar that really matters.
It would be ideal if we could create a mental health system based on private, voluntary donations that would help sustain those in the helping professions while they provide sincere care that is humane, dignified, and based on being genuine.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLAN
I received a recent e-mail today that caused me to ponder in regards to the term IEP or "individualized Education Plan". Why is it that the only way to receive such a plan is to be labeled and stigmatized on the school records with a 'mental disorder' or some other impairment? Wouldn't it be wonderful if EVERY child had an INDIVIDUALIZED education plan and that they did not have to bear a label to have their educational needs met and their various strengths, creativity, and learning style respected?
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
POST-PSYCHIATRY
How do we create a mental health system that meets the actual needs of persons? How do we create a more humane and dignified mental health system?
First, we must depart from the conception of a ‘medical model’ and biological determinism which states that all problems of life are to be attributed to be ‘chemical imbalance’ in the brain. There is nothing which substantiates this conception of chemical imbalances and time and time again psychiatrists themselves have been unable to conclusively prove this theory. Instead, it allows for more oppressive and dangerous ‘treatments’ to arise.
We must move towards post-psychiatry. What is to be implied by this is that we must completely deconstruct the current paradigm based on the medical model. The entire paradigm must change to allow us to develop a system where person’s voices are actually heard and their experiences respected.
Second, therapists need to no longer function along the lines of prostitution. What I mean by this is that when a person hires a prostitute, the prostitute receives payment and the person receives sexual satisfaction. Neither thinks that this is a real relationship. So it is with some therapists, a person makes payment to the therapist expecting to have someone who might listen and be concerned. However, the therapist does not offer a genuine relationship but instead is more focused on receiving the payment for their services. It would be a positive conception of mental health services could be offered without payment; however those who dedicate themselves to the human services do need to be able to survive. Therefore, I suggest that we no longer have a system based on insurance billing and fees where a person must be given a diagnosis, but rather privately funded charitable organizations that provide services to those who voluntarily request them. If the system is privatized and voluntary, then those organizations that are not humane and dignified and do not provide actual help for people will gradually fade away by individuals being less willing to fund them.
Third, as in the Soteria project as designed by Dr. Loren Mosher, it was found that it did not take so called ‘experts’ to meet the emotional needs of seriously distressed individuals. Rather, individuals from the community who listen, care, offer compassionate support can be far more helpful to a person than those possessing many credentials.
Fourth, the mental health system needs to be completely in tune with the voices of its consumers. It must respect their autonomy and not force various ‘treatments’ upon them. The person must have complete freedom of choice in their decisions about how they will receive mental health services.
Fifth, there needs to be a complete moratorium on the psychiatric drugging of children. We have no long term studies about many of the psychiatric drugs given to children and we are finding that these drugs are producing psychosis, suicidality, mania, violence, and many other dilemmas. In clinical trials, they are short in duration so therefore it is no wonder that psychiatric drugs would appear to be more effective than psycho-social interventions which are more long term. You cannot possibly measure psycho-social intervention which would have a longer lasting impact in the long term in a 6 week study. The psychiatric drugs however only subdue behavior and never address the core problem. How is it different for individuals to use an illicit substance versus a prescribed substance to alter their moods? There are little differences between these drugs other than one being sanctioned by a medical doctor.
First, we must depart from the conception of a ‘medical model’ and biological determinism which states that all problems of life are to be attributed to be ‘chemical imbalance’ in the brain. There is nothing which substantiates this conception of chemical imbalances and time and time again psychiatrists themselves have been unable to conclusively prove this theory. Instead, it allows for more oppressive and dangerous ‘treatments’ to arise.
We must move towards post-psychiatry. What is to be implied by this is that we must completely deconstruct the current paradigm based on the medical model. The entire paradigm must change to allow us to develop a system where person’s voices are actually heard and their experiences respected.
Second, therapists need to no longer function along the lines of prostitution. What I mean by this is that when a person hires a prostitute, the prostitute receives payment and the person receives sexual satisfaction. Neither thinks that this is a real relationship. So it is with some therapists, a person makes payment to the therapist expecting to have someone who might listen and be concerned. However, the therapist does not offer a genuine relationship but instead is more focused on receiving the payment for their services. It would be a positive conception of mental health services could be offered without payment; however those who dedicate themselves to the human services do need to be able to survive. Therefore, I suggest that we no longer have a system based on insurance billing and fees where a person must be given a diagnosis, but rather privately funded charitable organizations that provide services to those who voluntarily request them. If the system is privatized and voluntary, then those organizations that are not humane and dignified and do not provide actual help for people will gradually fade away by individuals being less willing to fund them.
Third, as in the Soteria project as designed by Dr. Loren Mosher, it was found that it did not take so called ‘experts’ to meet the emotional needs of seriously distressed individuals. Rather, individuals from the community who listen, care, offer compassionate support can be far more helpful to a person than those possessing many credentials.
Fourth, the mental health system needs to be completely in tune with the voices of its consumers. It must respect their autonomy and not force various ‘treatments’ upon them. The person must have complete freedom of choice in their decisions about how they will receive mental health services.
Fifth, there needs to be a complete moratorium on the psychiatric drugging of children. We have no long term studies about many of the psychiatric drugs given to children and we are finding that these drugs are producing psychosis, suicidality, mania, violence, and many other dilemmas. In clinical trials, they are short in duration so therefore it is no wonder that psychiatric drugs would appear to be more effective than psycho-social interventions which are more long term. You cannot possibly measure psycho-social intervention which would have a longer lasting impact in the long term in a 6 week study. The psychiatric drugs however only subdue behavior and never address the core problem. How is it different for individuals to use an illicit substance versus a prescribed substance to alter their moods? There are little differences between these drugs other than one being sanctioned by a medical doctor.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
R.D. LAING QUOTE ON EDUCATION AND 'MADNESS'
“A child born today in the United Kingdom stands a ten times greater chance of being admitted to a mental hospital than to a university ... This can be taken as an indication that we are driving our children mad more effectively than we are genuinely educating them. Perhaps it is our way of educating them that is driving them mad.”
R.D. Laing
R.D. Laing
THE POWER OF 'JOINING'
In my work with autistic children I have found that there is significant power in 'joining in'. When I wrote the article, "Entering Their Imaginative World", this is what I was referring to by this title. We do not coerce the children to do things as our world sees them, but we seek to enter, understand, and respect the autistic child's world. Through this joining in, such simple things as hopping on one foot with a child who is hopping on one foot, I have seen an extraordinary development of communication and relationship. It was this very process of joining in where I personally saw a 3 year old non-verbal child who frequently engaged in self-stimulatory behaviors move towards communication through reciprocal dialogue, taking my hand and leading me to play with him and a peer, and the building of relationship.
I relate this story from John Clay's book R.D. Laing: A Divided Self. In this quote it describes one of Laing's times where he joined in with a person undergoing serious emotional distress and relationship was forged. Though certainly an unorthodox approach, it worked because it involved joining in and realizing that what may appear to others as seemingly meaningless behavior is meaningful for the individual.
"While still in Chicago, Laing was invited by some doctors to examine a young girl diagnosed as schizophrenic. The girl was locked into a padded cell in a special hospital, and sat there naked. She usually spent the whole day rocking to and fro. The doctors asked Laing for his opinion. What would he do about her? Unexpectedly, Laing stripped off naked himself and entered her cell. There he sat with her, rocking in time to her rythm. After about twenty minutes she started speaking, something she had not done for several months. The doctors were amazed. 'Did it never occur to you to do that?' Laing commented to them later, with feigned innocence. (pp. 170-171)"
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
I relate this story from John Clay's book R.D. Laing: A Divided Self. In this quote it describes one of Laing's times where he joined in with a person undergoing serious emotional distress and relationship was forged. Though certainly an unorthodox approach, it worked because it involved joining in and realizing that what may appear to others as seemingly meaningless behavior is meaningful for the individual.
"While still in Chicago, Laing was invited by some doctors to examine a young girl diagnosed as schizophrenic. The girl was locked into a padded cell in a special hospital, and sat there naked. She usually spent the whole day rocking to and fro. The doctors asked Laing for his opinion. What would he do about her? Unexpectedly, Laing stripped off naked himself and entered her cell. There he sat with her, rocking in time to her rythm. After about twenty minutes she started speaking, something she had not done for several months. The doctors were amazed. 'Did it never occur to you to do that?' Laing commented to them later, with feigned innocence. (pp. 170-171)"
-Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
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.
Monday, October 23, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
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.
Friday, September 29, 2006
RESPECT FOR AUTISTICS
Many programs for autistics today are designed to change the person from being an autistic to being 'typical'. Some of these strategies are done by coercive and also aversive means. Such approaches as ABA and its spin-off verbal behavior are paramount to treating individuals in an animalistic fashion and based on stimulus-response. Such strategies may cause a person to become more compliant and even robotic but does not give them any real context for developing new skills. It forces them to enter a world that is foreign to them.
Instead, approaches towards helping autistics should be focused on self-determination, respect, and dignity. Rather than forcing them to conformity to the world of 'typicals', it should have others seek to enter and understand their worlds and to help the autistic to be able to navigate through the challenges presented by the mainstream. Programs should also respect the unique means of perceptions and talents that autistics do present with.
Also, one who is autistic today will be autistic tomorrow. Why do we look at being autistic automatically as a dilemma? Why do we need to 'treat' these individuals, and exactly what is it that we are 'treating' and what is our definition of what 'works'? Is our objective to force an autistic to act as a typical? Is that 'treatment'? Would it be ethical for us to force assimilation on an ethnic minority? Rather, if we are to employ 'treatment' at all, it should be to help the person be able to navigate through the foreign world of the mainstream, not to try to change those things which are an intrinsic part of their being. Various programs should eliminate coercion and force and return to the need to respect the uniqueness, creativity, and individual differences present in those who are autistic.
Instead, approaches towards helping autistics should be focused on self-determination, respect, and dignity. Rather than forcing them to conformity to the world of 'typicals', it should have others seek to enter and understand their worlds and to help the autistic to be able to navigate through the challenges presented by the mainstream. Programs should also respect the unique means of perceptions and talents that autistics do present with.
Also, one who is autistic today will be autistic tomorrow. Why do we look at being autistic automatically as a dilemma? Why do we need to 'treat' these individuals, and exactly what is it that we are 'treating' and what is our definition of what 'works'? Is our objective to force an autistic to act as a typical? Is that 'treatment'? Would it be ethical for us to force assimilation on an ethnic minority? Rather, if we are to employ 'treatment' at all, it should be to help the person be able to navigate through the foreign world of the mainstream, not to try to change those things which are an intrinsic part of their being. Various programs should eliminate coercion and force and return to the need to respect the uniqueness, creativity, and individual differences present in those who are autistic.
TOXICITY FOR TOXICITY
it is interesting to note that the psychiatric profession often resorts to prescribing anti-psychotic drugs (always off label) to children under 18 who have autism. These children often have been exposed to environmental toxins which have contributed to their condition. The psychiatrist's answer is not to address the core issues but rather to introduce an additional toxin. When the child is sedated and becomes more compliant, they can claim success, however they have done nothing other than disable the brain of the child. Psychiatry can offer nothing more than a toxic 'solution'.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
PSYCHIATRISTS TREATING TOXICITY WITH TOXICITY
I came across an article today featuring a study suggesting that 1/3 of children diagnosed with ADHD had been exposed to lead or to the effects of cigarette smoking by the mother during pregnancy. First, ADHD is not a disease in itself, but a cluster of behaviors. Second, if 1/3 of children showing this behaviors have been lead poisoned (even if at a minimal level) or impacted by cigarette smoking, that is to say, if 1/3 of children diagnosed with ADHD have been exposed to toxins, then why is it that psychiatrists choose to 'treat' these children with another toxin- psychotropic drugs?
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
THE ROLE OF THE THERAPIST AND THE PATH TO MEANING
The role of bio-psychiatric intervention is to correct a supposed 'chemical imbalance' of which there is no evidence to substantiate. The mental health profession seeks to typically 'treat' the various clusters of behavior considered deviant often through coercive means. But where in any of this is the experience of individuals examined? Today's mental health professionals function as an arm of the law and of social control. What truly should be the role of a therapist?
The therapist should rather be a coach in the process of the person finding identity and examining their experiences and how their thinking shapes who they are and what they become. The therapist should be present to offer reflective dialogue to the person as to what impedes their success and happiness. The therapist is present to empower the person, not to control. Anxiety is as a result of fear but its catalyst is always a past experience. Depression is a result of despair. But where does despair originate but from past experiences. What is termed psychosis is often as Laing states "balancing between fear and loneliness'. It is a state of chronic terror also once again shaped by experiences. It is necessary then to examine the worldview of the person- What have they thought of their experiences? Where are they going and where do they want to be? We can change our worlds by changing our minds.
Distress fades as we begin to construct a path of meaning, and the therapist's role is to be a fellow soul journeying on this path, listening, reflecting.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
The therapist should rather be a coach in the process of the person finding identity and examining their experiences and how their thinking shapes who they are and what they become. The therapist should be present to offer reflective dialogue to the person as to what impedes their success and happiness. The therapist is present to empower the person, not to control. Anxiety is as a result of fear but its catalyst is always a past experience. Depression is a result of despair. But where does despair originate but from past experiences. What is termed psychosis is often as Laing states "balancing between fear and loneliness'. It is a state of chronic terror also once again shaped by experiences. It is necessary then to examine the worldview of the person- What have they thought of their experiences? Where are they going and where do they want to be? We can change our worlds by changing our minds.
Distress fades as we begin to construct a path of meaning, and the therapist's role is to be a fellow soul journeying on this path, listening, reflecting.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
RESPONSE TO A PSYCHIATRIST
I would like to know what your supposed "scientific screening tools" consist of. Your colleagues vote 'disorders' in and out of the DSM. There are certainly political machinations at work. Take for example, homosexuality, once considered a 'disorder', now no longer. Why?
The premise of bio-psychiatry today is to consider these various contrived disorders as the product of a 'chemical imbalance', however there exists no such thing. Even Sharfstein, the president of the APA acknowledged this by stating that 'there is no clear cut test for chemical imbalances." If you read my presentation, "Thinking Outside the Bio-Psychiatric Paradigm", you will find other references in this regard. In the early 1900's the idea was that 'humoral imbalances', improper blood flow to the brain caused mental illness which led to the development of a number of oppressive treatments.
Each era has contrived a new conception of the causation of mental illness, and the 'treatments' often are oppressive.
I would like to see your evidence that the various disorders listed in the DSM are 'diseases'. When we imply 'disease' we are implying a physical abnormality. What do we find in an autopsy of those who are labeled 'mentally ill"? There is no evidence of a physical abnormality.
You make the claim that you address 'symptoms', thus this is an admission that you are not getting to the root cause of anything but merely masking something by subduing behaviors. People are becoming reliant on mood altering drugs to cope with these 'symptoms', but how would it be any different for an individual to choose to use recreational drugs or have a few shots of whiskey to 'tone down' after a stressful day. What really is the difference between some of the prescribed drugs versus illicit drugs? One is better solely because we have the MD okaying it?
In regards to my statement, " "We are looking for externals, particularly drugs, to resolve our problems. But they do not, and in some instances our children have commited suicide and children on stimulants have developed psychosis. I assume psychiatrists can say they have 'treated' the problem, as these children are no longer hyperactive, depressed, etc., rather they are dead."
I offer no apology as psychiatrists certainly have offered no apology to the children or their families who I have seen who have experienced the damaging effects of psychiatry. Many families have sought my aid and I have worked alongside their pediatricians because they developed such things as tardive dyskinesia, psychosis, or became suicidal because of the 'treatments' offered by psychiatry.
And I am also aware of families of those who lost their children because of psychiatric drugs. Thus, I can again say with no apology, that psychiatry thinks it has a solution to the problems, but the solution offered led to harm. It is a violation of the oath as a physician to do no harm.
Where did people turn prior to the 'wonders' of psychiatry, think about that. Psychiatry has become a replacement for actually seeking meaning, it has become a replacement for spirituality. But- among those in the medical field- psychiatrists have the highest divorce rate, highest addiction rate, highest suicide rate. The majority of training is not in counseling, but rather diagnosing and prescription- thus psychiatrists have no real ability to counsel and not even having their own lives in order, how can they really expect to tell others how to live?
You chide me for stating that 'psychiatrists can say they have treated xyz, but these children are dead." I am not implying that death is a treatment. I am implying that the treatments have caused death in a number of situations or has led to harm. Psychiatry interprets many things as 'progress' which is not. The practice of lobotomy was justified in that though the person after this procedure really had no mind or soul, this did not matter as the person no longer was a disturbance to others. Thus this was seen as 'progress'. Or another example- a child is overly sedated, cannot hardly speak, has impaired functioning from the medications, yet the psychiatrist says, "well, at least he is not aggressive."
Because something can be 'scientifically validated' does not make it good or ethical. Science is important, but so is ethics. There was a study in the late 60's in which using electroshock on children with autism was seen to curb problematic behaviors. This study was scientifically validated but was this an ethical practice? I could probably validate that strapping a child to a chair would reduce hyperactivity, but is this ethical? Is giving often addictive, mind altering substances which we are finding can lead to neurological impairment or psychosis or suicide, is this ethical, even if we can validate that it may subdue 'symptoms'?
It is interesting that you mention the Nazis in your e-mail, as it was psychiatrists who were an integral part of Hitler's network. In the former Soviet Union, political dissidents were labeled mentally ill and tortured by psychiatrists. And more recently, Karadzic in Bosnia was a psychiatrist who was responsible for innumerable war crimes.
The recent school shootings- all of them (except the ones whose medical records are sealed) all received psychiatric care and were either on or withdrawing from a psychiatric drug. Psychiatric drugs induce violence. The FDA is learning that slowly. The British seem to be getting it before us Americans particularly in their ban of Paxil.
You state that you have had individuals who have stated, "you saved my life." First, this implies your arrogance to think that you did anything. When I look at my role as a therapist, I am only a coach, I am there to empower people. If anything changes, it is not my doing but the work of the client themself. Second, you might have provided a temporary ease to their pain and suffering by offering them something to alter their mood, but take this away and they are where? Have you really helped to resolve their inner conflicts or distress? And particularly, if you prescribed them an anti-depressant, they may never be able to get of the drug because the withdrawal effect is so awful. And just how long will they have to take your drugs? Will they become a life long consumer?
Lastly, it is so nice to know that with psychiatry so much 'good' can be done while making so much money.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
The premise of bio-psychiatry today is to consider these various contrived disorders as the product of a 'chemical imbalance', however there exists no such thing. Even Sharfstein, the president of the APA acknowledged this by stating that 'there is no clear cut test for chemical imbalances." If you read my presentation, "Thinking Outside the Bio-Psychiatric Paradigm", you will find other references in this regard. In the early 1900's the idea was that 'humoral imbalances', improper blood flow to the brain caused mental illness which led to the development of a number of oppressive treatments.
Each era has contrived a new conception of the causation of mental illness, and the 'treatments' often are oppressive.
I would like to see your evidence that the various disorders listed in the DSM are 'diseases'. When we imply 'disease' we are implying a physical abnormality. What do we find in an autopsy of those who are labeled 'mentally ill"? There is no evidence of a physical abnormality.
You make the claim that you address 'symptoms', thus this is an admission that you are not getting to the root cause of anything but merely masking something by subduing behaviors. People are becoming reliant on mood altering drugs to cope with these 'symptoms', but how would it be any different for an individual to choose to use recreational drugs or have a few shots of whiskey to 'tone down' after a stressful day. What really is the difference between some of the prescribed drugs versus illicit drugs? One is better solely because we have the MD okaying it?
In regards to my statement, " "We are looking for externals, particularly drugs, to resolve our problems. But they do not, and in some instances our children have commited suicide and children on stimulants have developed psychosis. I assume psychiatrists can say they have 'treated' the problem, as these children are no longer hyperactive, depressed, etc., rather they are dead."
I offer no apology as psychiatrists certainly have offered no apology to the children or their families who I have seen who have experienced the damaging effects of psychiatry. Many families have sought my aid and I have worked alongside their pediatricians because they developed such things as tardive dyskinesia, psychosis, or became suicidal because of the 'treatments' offered by psychiatry.
And I am also aware of families of those who lost their children because of psychiatric drugs. Thus, I can again say with no apology, that psychiatry thinks it has a solution to the problems, but the solution offered led to harm. It is a violation of the oath as a physician to do no harm.
Where did people turn prior to the 'wonders' of psychiatry, think about that. Psychiatry has become a replacement for actually seeking meaning, it has become a replacement for spirituality. But- among those in the medical field- psychiatrists have the highest divorce rate, highest addiction rate, highest suicide rate. The majority of training is not in counseling, but rather diagnosing and prescription- thus psychiatrists have no real ability to counsel and not even having their own lives in order, how can they really expect to tell others how to live?
You chide me for stating that 'psychiatrists can say they have treated xyz, but these children are dead." I am not implying that death is a treatment. I am implying that the treatments have caused death in a number of situations or has led to harm. Psychiatry interprets many things as 'progress' which is not. The practice of lobotomy was justified in that though the person after this procedure really had no mind or soul, this did not matter as the person no longer was a disturbance to others. Thus this was seen as 'progress'. Or another example- a child is overly sedated, cannot hardly speak, has impaired functioning from the medications, yet the psychiatrist says, "well, at least he is not aggressive."
Because something can be 'scientifically validated' does not make it good or ethical. Science is important, but so is ethics. There was a study in the late 60's in which using electroshock on children with autism was seen to curb problematic behaviors. This study was scientifically validated but was this an ethical practice? I could probably validate that strapping a child to a chair would reduce hyperactivity, but is this ethical? Is giving often addictive, mind altering substances which we are finding can lead to neurological impairment or psychosis or suicide, is this ethical, even if we can validate that it may subdue 'symptoms'?
It is interesting that you mention the Nazis in your e-mail, as it was psychiatrists who were an integral part of Hitler's network. In the former Soviet Union, political dissidents were labeled mentally ill and tortured by psychiatrists. And more recently, Karadzic in Bosnia was a psychiatrist who was responsible for innumerable war crimes.
The recent school shootings- all of them (except the ones whose medical records are sealed) all received psychiatric care and were either on or withdrawing from a psychiatric drug. Psychiatric drugs induce violence. The FDA is learning that slowly. The British seem to be getting it before us Americans particularly in their ban of Paxil.
You state that you have had individuals who have stated, "you saved my life." First, this implies your arrogance to think that you did anything. When I look at my role as a therapist, I am only a coach, I am there to empower people. If anything changes, it is not my doing but the work of the client themself. Second, you might have provided a temporary ease to their pain and suffering by offering them something to alter their mood, but take this away and they are where? Have you really helped to resolve their inner conflicts or distress? And particularly, if you prescribed them an anti-depressant, they may never be able to get of the drug because the withdrawal effect is so awful. And just how long will they have to take your drugs? Will they become a life long consumer?
Lastly, it is so nice to know that with psychiatry so much 'good' can be done while making so much money.
-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
Monday, August 21, 2006
TAKE AMERICA BACK RADIO PROGRAM
I had the wonderful opportunity to appear as a guest on the "Take America Back" radio program with Bruce Wiseman, the president of CCHR in the US.
http://www.cchr.org/radio/radio_edmunds.mp3
In this program, I detailed my view that bio-psychiatry has become a replacement for spiritual values and the seeking of meaning and is a religion which has its credo and sacraments. Bio-Psychiatry is based on the premise that behaviors are the result of chemical accidents. See my article on "The Religion of Bio-Psychiatry" listed below.
http://www.cchr.org/radio/radio_edmunds.mp3
In this program, I detailed my view that bio-psychiatry has become a replacement for spiritual values and the seeking of meaning and is a religion which has its credo and sacraments. Bio-Psychiatry is based on the premise that behaviors are the result of chemical accidents. See my article on "The Religion of Bio-Psychiatry" listed below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)