The Myth of Mental Illness and the Anti-Psychiatry Movement

[Guest guest]

I often feel that we live in a horrible time among many obscene people on a

very primitive planet because most all of our institutions are corrupted by

their power or assumed stature. We've come a long way but we've got a long

way to go. I suspect we're nowhere near the halfway point in our evolution

of consciousness. That's not to say that no one is but only to admit that

there is not sufficient critical mass.

 

 

 

We've addressed the need for health-care reform. Not only is our treatment

of the elderly criminal and immoral but modern medicine is still at a very

primitive stage far too dependent upon surgery and control through drugs.

While it is true that quackery abounds in medical alternatives, quackery is

not limited to the fringes. Psychiatry and the term " mental illness " is no

exception.

 

 

 

Thus, we've seen the emergence of a strong anti-psychiatry movement. Many of

their criticisms derived from the inhumane treatment of mental patients,

either through the damaging effects of long-term institutionalization or the

use of specific interventions, including medication, given without informed

consent. I've seen both sides as both a care provider and as an allied

health services administrator. There is a great deal of error on all sides

of the issue, in my opinion, based on a lot of observation and experience in

the field. By saying I saw both sides, I was a formal part of the

anti-psychiatry movement as a radical therapist. I was not a patient in the

system but I was close enough and saw and experienced a lot as a very

concerned provider.

 

 

 

Many people diagnosed with a mental illness or illnesses, and many of those

who have family members or close friends who have been diagnosed with mental

illness find the views of the anti-psychiatry movement contrary to their own

experience with mental illness. They believe that mental illness produces

real and terrible suffering which psychiatry and social treatment programs

have been effective in relieving.

 

 

 

The only reliable solution for the consumer is a mindful approach to all the

options available. You must take charge of your own life and oversee your

own care and that of your loved-ones.

 

 

 

Today I'm no more anti-psychiatry than I am anti-medicine or

anti-institution or anti-civilization.

 

 

 

Today, psychosocial genomics offers a great deal of hope. I'm sure there

will also be misuses. ~ek

 

 

 

http://www.byregion.net/profiles/erniekarhu.html

 

 

 

For more information regarding anti-psychiatry see:

 

 

 

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anti-psychiatry

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

 

 

 

 

 

One of my own teachers, a psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz's main arguments can be

summarised as follows:

 

Illness is defined as an objectively demonstrable biological pathology that

affects living creatures. Since mental illness describes undesirable

behaviors, thoughts or feelings, there is no objective pathology to observe.

The classification of certain behaviors as illnesses is a way of controlling

undesirable people in society. By medicalising their behavior we give

medicine and the state the remit to involuntarily detain and medicate such

people to prevent them from behaving in ways society finds intolerable.

 

Separation of psychiatry and the state: If we accept that 'mental illness'

is a euphemism for behaviours that are disapproved of, then the state has no

right to forcibly compel 'treatment' on these individuals by the use of

psychiatry. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental

health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally

controlling the supply of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_drug>

psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication).

 

 

 

Presumption of competence: Just as legal systems work on the presumption

that a person is innocent until proven guilty, individuals accused of crimes

should not be presumed incompetent simply because a doctor or psychiatrist

labels them as such. Mental incompetence should be assessed like any other

form of incompetence i.e. by purely legal and judicial means with the right

of representation and appeal by the 'accused'.

 

 

 

Abolition of the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense> insanity

defense: Furthermore, the views of experts on the mental competence of an

individual should not be admissible in court in deciding guilt for a

criminal offence.

 

 

 

Abolition of involuntary mental hospitalisation: No one should be deprived

of liberty unless they are found guilty of a criminal offence after being

tried by a jury of their peers under a fair legal system. Locking someone up

purely for their own good is immoral. A person suffering from terminal

cancer may refuse treatment and the same rights should be granted to those

under mental stress.