Are we missing a human right?

Ok, and who are you to decide what to do to them?

I don't think he wrote that he wanted that authority.

My ex-girlfriend is a job counselor for people with mental illness. There's no question whether or not they're truly ill. They are. When they're on their medications they can live relatively productive lives... able to hold jobs, live on their own, take care of themselves, and so on. When they go off their meds they become paranoid, irrational, self-destructive, and unable to lead anything like a normal life. They may not necessarily be dangerous, but they become useless to themselves or anyone else.

Ananda, if one of your loved ones suffered from any of these maladies you'd want them to get help even if they themselves didn't want to. While I agree that mental health professionals at the behest of pharmaceutical companies overprescribe medications to people who don't really need them, that doesn't negate the fact that there are a whole lot of people who really DO need them.

I work in a women's correctional institution. Many of our inmates are mentally ill. They belong in mental health treatment, not prison. There aren't enough mental health facilities to treat these women or they fall through the cracks in the system. Thus, they end up in prison, where they're subjected to WAY worse treatment and conditions than they would in a mental institution.

All I'm saying is, they end up institutionalized one way or another. I think it would be more humane to treat their mental illness then to punish them for behavior they can't control.

I don't agree with mass screening of school children or anything else that involves violating a person's right to privacy. I'm just pointing out that mental illness isn't going to go away just because we think people have a "right" to be mentally ill as long as they aren't a threat to others. It's a very complex issue. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that prison isn't it.

Are you a doctor, Ananda? No.

Who are doctors to prescribe penicillin? The same type of testing is done for standard illnesses like the flu or cancer is done on psychiatric drugs. For you to suggest that even the most mentally ill of people receive no medication other than "keeping them in a safe environment" is reckless, at best. More likely, it's the mouthpiece of Scientology psychiatrist-hate speaking. L Ron Hubbard was not a doctor, his dogma against psychiatry has no scientific background, and unless you're a doctor, you should not be making such bold assertions about the mental health medical field.

While reducing stress, eating healthy, and living a healthy life might help many of the minor "diseases" that drug companies promote pills for, there are dangerous psychotic disorders that many people live better lives because of drugs. People living fairly normal lives - not in hospitals - who choose to continue to take the drugs of their own desire to keep being able to have a normal life.

Schitzophrenia is a prime example - no amount of "health" and "good eating" is going to cure someone.

Now, certainly doctors shouldn't have the ability to arbitrarily take people off the street and medicate / hospitalize them unless they are commiting crimes of some sort. But you take the argument to the extreme - and that's simply not scientifically backed.

Something that bugs me in the thread..

the people with the attitude that NO meds are ever needed..

Have you ever been depressed to where you could not get out of bed?
Have you ever had a panic attack out of the blue that was so bad you went to the ER thinking it was a heart attack and finding out it was panic? The symptoms are very similar.

The people that think it's all in your head piss me off. Just because you personally have not experienced it does not mean it isn't real.

Ok, back to topic. That just bugs me.

Agreed.

Let's not mix too many things in at once here, then. I'm asserting that no one, including myself, including doctors, ministers or whatever else, should be able to subject someone else to involuntary mental treatment. By which I mean an action specifically designed to alter that person's mental state against their will.

Nothing in that would take away someone's right to voluntarily medicate themselves, or whatever other action they can dream up. The touchier issue for me is whether parents should be allowed to do this to their children.

As far as my own opinion goes, if I see a method that relieves depression or other mental troubles rather suddenly and without drugs, wouldn't I be a hypocrite to go on accepting that these drugs are needed?

Why? You can't hold two opinions at once?

Even if there were another technique that was equally effective, that doesn't make drugs an invalid choice.

But this only makes sense if we allow it under the same limitations as your physical freedom; so long as you are not apt to harm another with your actions. Thusly, is it not right that a violently mentally ill person should be treated against their will, just as if you attempt to assault another you will often find your freedom confined through prison.

Restricting the physical freedom of someone is well regulated by due process of law. Unfortunately, the far more invasive restriction of someone's mental freedom is not subject to the same level of judicial oversight. Instead, society often just washes its hands of such things and hands the whole decision over to "experts". Given how much more thoroughly even the most well-intentioned mental treatments can wreck someone's life, the standard of proof needed before doing such a thing should be at least as high.

Who are you to decide what not to do for them?

Soooo , if Grandma has Alzsheimers so bad, or Uncle Joe has dementia so bad, or if just some guy on the street has pschitzophrenia so bad .. that none of them can relate in any resonable way to reality, that they're literally lost in an hallucinotory state to such a degree that they cannot take care of themselves, or could become violent enough to kill someone because the dog told them to (yes that happens), or pull off their skin, ( yes that happens) or pull out their hair and eat it till it causes deadly intestinal blockage (yes it happens) or cuts themselves every chance they get (yes it happens) or chew their fingers until they're nothing but bloody amputated stumps (yes that happens) or just plain ol stand there staring at nothing till they die of dehydration (yes it happens) then you're ok with just letting them be?

Oh it's ok, they didn't SAY they wanted treatment. Maybe if we feed them veggies and put them in a steam room to sweat out the 'poisons' they'll get sane enough to ask for help, right?




Does righteousness taste good? I've always wondered...

Pretty much, yes. I am ok with people doing what they do if they absolutely insist on it.

This doesn't rule out talking to them. The thing is, the number of people walking around who are completely, utterly incapable of communicating is vanishingly small. Communicate with anyone long enough, in a gentle enough manner, and eventually you'll get through to them. Much of what you're describing is situations where some form of medical (i.e. non-mental) treatment can help them.

It's expedient to just skip the step of communicating and getting consent. Just jumping right in and drugging them or cutting them open to fix what you think is wrong. That doesn't make it right to do so.

Oh, I'd pay money to see you try that at your nearest mental ward.



So... confused. Are you for or against psychotropic drugs?

Calling me chicken, huh? That's fair. I am.

Regarding your confusion...

By medical treatment I was referring to doing such things as rehydrating, bandaging torn fingers, cuts and the like. Maybe someday a successful treatment for removing the plaques in the brain of an Alzheimer's sufferer.

The differentiation here is between physical conditions with a known physical cause, and mental conditions which don't have a known physical cause. Medical treatment of physical disorders is well established and effective. Medical attempts to treat mental disorders are mostly guesswork, and actual relief from the conditions can come from any number of directions. Improve someone's diet. Talk to them, get them to explore their mind. Get them to resolve a bad relationship, or work situation. Get them to exercise, or get some sunlight. Lots of things that have nothing to do with a "chemical imbalance" can get someone out of their troubles. You never really know until you ask them. Most theories of mental illness causes are still just whistling in the dark, despite marketing claims to the contrary.

To sum up, I am not in favor of psychotropic drugs and do not consider them to belong in the same category as medical treatments.

I know someone is likely to jump on me for making declarative statements like that. Thing is, if you follow the often vociferous debates in medical journals about effectiveness of drugs like antidepressants, it's clear that researchers may never be able to agree whether or not they provide any signifigant improvement over placebos. For every trial that shows a benefit, you can dig up another that doesn't show any. The list of side effects is extensive, however.

By reading many of the posts here I see people expressing their views based on their own personal experiences which is fine. What else do you have to go on?

But I need to add that mental illness is not cured by a "whack on the butt" nor by well meaning friends. There are effective medicines along with well trained people to help the mentally ill.

I am sorry to disappoint anyone but nobody is born a social worker or psychiatrist. Both take many years of training.

Having a mental illness doesn't qualify one as a mental health expert any more than having a heart attack qualifies one to be a cardiologist. Every person should have the right to dictate their own treatment but, unless they are trained in the field, they really have no right to dictate other people's treatment.

So, do you follow these medical journals, or are you just repeating what you have been told?

I was a doubter too until my recent bout with depression. Previous times, I opted not to use meds, but this time was so severe, and I was so unwilling at that point to argue, that I gave it a try. I am so glad I did. The change has been notable.

Side effects? Yeah, I consider still being a live to be the best side effect of it.

If you changed the above statement to "I am not in favor of psychotropic drugs for myself..." then I would understand your argument better.

You posted originally that you believe no one should be forced to undergo any medical, etc. treatment.. but your later posts seem to make many judgements on what others should or should not do.

Shouldn't everyone have the freedom to decide for themselves what they feel is best for them in their particular situation, without having to worry about being disparaged for making one choice or another?

Susie, Surreal, I think we are in more agreement than you realize. I just make a distinction between medical practice and mental practice.

I started off on the sentiment that people should be able to decide for themselves about their own mental treatment and that is still my position.

To explain a bit further why I make the distinction, and feel that society needs protection for choice and protection from authority in the field of mental health:

Thought and emotion are, and always will be, subjective experiences. Because of that, theories of improvement in mental health will always be subjective studies themselves. In other words, philosophy and anecdote rather than hard science.

Any attempt for one of these philosophies to take over and impose its viewpoint on people, especially to be backed by governmental financing and authority, should be met with great skepticism. And yes, Hiro, that applies to all of them.

Ananda, I get the distinct impression that you've never known or been exposed to anyone with a severe mental illness. Ever been around someone with severe bipolar disorder when they crash? Ever been with a scizophrenic or someone with a severe disassociative disorder when they've suffered a break? I think if you had you'd be singing a very different tune.

Some kinds of mental illness show up as changes to brain chemistry, brain scans, etc. That sounds like science to me.

On a side note, chronic stress permanantly changes the electrical patterns in the brain. (I wonder if 10 years in a Zen Buddist monastery would change them back).

Check your science before you assert it. Brain scans reveal correlative information, but don't (or I should say haven't) revealed much in the way of cause or effect for mental disorders. Indeed, you can ask a normal person to "feel depressed" and they will show up on a brain scan similarly to a chronicly depressed person.

The placebo effect also shows up on brain scans. This is the well-known phenomenon that some people will show improvement simply because they are taking a pill that they believe will help, regardless of what that pill is.

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/placebo.htm

Chip, are you now singing a different tune yourself? Earlier you seemed to support the right to make up your own mind about mental treatment.

Edit: broken link. I'll see if I can grab it again.

ok, different link, same story. This one works.

You're trying to make a black and white issue out of something that's anything but, Ananda. I think ritalin and anti-depressants are overprescribed and taken by a lot of people as a way to hide from their problems instead of deal with them. There's no question about that. But to believe that because some people use psychotropic drugs who don't need them that no one needs them (many who are incapable of making the choice for themselves) strikes me as the kind of ignorance that can only come from not having experienced these kinds of people first hand. These are genuine illnesses, not just moods that people can get over.