![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Squiggles on September 19, 2002, at 18:28:47
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/Library/MentalHealth/chapter2/sec10.html
I just aw this and i am quite shocked; does
this mean we can get off our drugs?Squiggles
Posted by utopizen on September 19, 2002, at 18:45:45
In reply to Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry, posted by Squiggles on September 19, 2002, at 18:28:47
His writing style is obnoxious...
It's un-clear and all-encompassing...
I'm glad this type of writing is
going away.
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/Library/MentalHealth/chapter2/sec10.html
>
> I just aw this and i am quite shocked; does
> this mean we can get off our drugs?
>
> Squiggles
Posted by Geezer on September 19, 2002, at 21:33:00
In reply to Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry, posted by Squiggles on September 19, 2002, at 18:28:47
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/Library/MentalHealth/chapter2/sec10.html
>
> I just aw this and i am quite shocked; does
> this mean we can get off our drugs?
>
> SquigglesGood one Squiggles, it sounds like a managed care holistic program. Can't say more or I will draw another redirect.
Posted by FredPotter on September 19, 2002, at 22:48:45
In reply to Re: Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry » Squiggles, posted by Geezer on September 19, 2002, at 21:33:00
I've read some of this and can't see anything wrong with it. Is this because I'm not American?
Posted by dr. dave on September 20, 2002, at 6:54:58
In reply to Re: Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry, posted by FredPotter on September 19, 2002, at 22:48:45
I'm a bit puzzled about what the problem is with this as well. Could anyone expand on what's wrong with it? I'm a psychiatrist and don't find it anti-psychiatry; just anti-bad-psychiatry.
Posted by Squiggles on September 20, 2002, at 10:30:55
In reply to Re: Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry, posted by dr. dave on September 20, 2002, at 6:54:58
Sorry,
I'm not sure I pressed the "submit" button
on my explanation. Basically the idea is that
"recovery" is not in the books in the pro-med
camp; on the contrary, drugs are given indefinitely
and for life because like Kraeplin the theory
is that mental illness gets worse with time.The anti-psychiatry movement has been fighting
this and it's a major bone of contention.Therefore, when the Surgeon General speak of
"recovery" ( and i am not sure what he means )
it is something that perks up one's ears.Squiggles
Posted by Geezer on September 20, 2002, at 18:43:58
In reply to Re: Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry, posted by Squiggles on September 20, 2002, at 10:30:55
> Sorry,
>
> I'm not sure I pressed the "submit" button
> on my explanation. Basically the idea is that
> "recovery" is not in the books in the pro-med
> camp; on the contrary, drugs are given indefinitely
> and for life because like Kraeplin the theory
> is that mental illness gets worse with time.
>
> The anti-psychiatry movement has been fighting
> this and it's a major bone of contention.
>
> Therefore, when the Surgeon General speak of
> "recovery" ( and i am not sure what he means )
> it is something that perks up one's ears.
>
> SquigglesWell, recovery certainly does not mean "cure" (in sever mood dosorder there is no cure). I am confused on another issue, for years I have considered myself a patient (although rarely treated that way) now I discover I am a "consumer". No wonder a trip to the pdoc feels like the drive-through at McDonalds. If the report has validity we can all get well with the use of willpower. Remember the old taunt from the normal people...."just pull yourself up by your bootstraps". With all due respect, my humble opinion only, this one not only belongs in "psycho-social babble" it is psycho-social babble.
Bottom line (sever mood disorders).....if you can't treat with drugs or ECT you can't treat at all.
Oh by the way.....as a "consumer" I would like to have the legal right to write my own RXs.
Good cheer
Posted by Squiggles on September 20, 2002, at 20:14:54
In reply to Re: Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry » Squiggles, posted by Geezer on September 20, 2002, at 18:43:58
Heh.... this isn't called Psychobabble
for nothing (with all due respect to Dr. Bobble):-)Squiggles
Posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 12:01:12
In reply to Re: Has the Surgeon General joined Anti-Psychiatry, posted by Squiggles on September 20, 2002, at 10:30:55
> Sorry,
>
> I'm not sure I pressed the "submit" button
> on my explanation. Basically the idea is that
> "recovery" is not in the books in the pro-med
> camp; on the contrary, drugs are given indefinitely
> and for life because like Kraeplin the theory
> is that mental illness gets worse with time.Squiggles, recovery is in the books in the pro-med camp. The pro-med people believe that severe forms of mental illness are generally chronic and lifetime illnesses, which is basically true. The pro-meds believe that full recovery is achievable with the right medication(s). Lets examine what happened to people with severe forms of mental illness before medications were developed. Basically they were chronically disabled for life, institutionalized for life. Medications, while far from perfect, have allowed many of those with mental illness to recover.
The fact is Squiggles, many mental illnesses DO get worse with time.
Where you got this idea that the pro-med camp does not believe in recovery is beyond me.
>
> The anti-psychiatry movement has been fighting
> this and it's a major bone of contention.The anti-psychiatry movement is composed mostly of people who dont believe anything is wrong with them in the first place. And who do not want anything to do with medications. The views of many in the anti-psychiatry camp do not reflect real reality. Serious mental illness is serious business. Lives are ruined from it left untreated.
>
> Therefore, when the Surgeon General speak of
> "recovery" ( and i am not sure what he means )
> it is something that perks up one's ears.Where you got this idea from is interesting. The Surgeon General is not against drugs Squiggles.
If you are so confident of your ability to recover without meds, I invite you to go off your medications and see how you feel.URCONFUSED
Posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 12:30:10
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles, posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 12:01:12
I think the problem is semantics (again);
by "recovery", I understood the meaning
to be *recovery* from mental illness.
The meaning of the word recovery here,
would be analogous to recovery from measles,
or recovery the flu.Clearly, the word is not being used in this
way here. If you mean something else, then
say so.URILLITERATE
Squiggles
Posted by Geezer on September 21, 2002, at 15:57:49
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles » URCONFUSED, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 12:30:10
Squiggles,
THANKS......the first chuckle I have had in 6 months. How about the word "remission" - as in - sometimes the mood brightens but the depression always returns.
Cheers
Posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 16:28:46
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles » URCONFUSED, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 12:30:10
> I think the problem is semantics (again);
> by "recovery", I understood the meaning
> to be *recovery* from mental illness.
> The meaning of the word recovery here,
> would be analogous to recovery from measles,
> or recovery the flu.
>
> Clearly, the word is not being used in this
> way here. If you mean something else, then
> say so.
>
> URILLITERATE
>
> SquigglesI dont think so Squiggles. When you say that the pro-meds claim recovery is not possible or not the goal as you said in your first post, you sound ignorant. Its more the opposite with the pro-meds. In fact, the goal of the pro-meds is something called "full remission" from symptoms which basically means you are out of your illness 100%. Obviously this is not always possible, even with the correct meds. But that is the goal of most psychiatrists, if they can achieve it, which is actually kind of rare.
The goal of the pro-meds is full restoration of whatever you were like before you developed mental illness. Obviously this can only be done with medications or possibly ECT.The anti-psychiatry people you mentioned first of all refuse to even acknowledge the existence of biologically based mental illness, such as schizophrenia. This is their fundamental tenet, that biologically based mental illness is a farce, a lie. That its something that was made up. Therefore psychiatry should be abolished. This is, to put it bluntly, completely stupid. Anyone who reads "anti-psychiatry" literature is a sucker, particularly if they believe the stuff.
"Recovery" can mean many things to many people. To the typical pro-med, recovery means achieving full remission, thru meds or ECT. It means being fully restored to the person they were prior to developing mental illness, thru meds. To the typical anti-psychiatry type, recovery might mean being able to get off of meds, getting away from the psychiatric establishment completely or near completely, to psychologically come to terms with the fact that they are the way they are and might never be what they were at one time before mental illness.
As I said, most anti-psychiatry persons are people in denial of their own illness, which all too often tends to either be schizophrenia or manic depression. You dont tend to see this denial as often with depression. Denial is most often seen in those with psychosis and mania, unfortunately. This is largely why we have the anti-psychiatry movement. Denial.
Just trying to clarify a few things for ya.
URCONFUSED
Posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 17:10:49
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles, posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 16:28:46
Your first point is a good one. In a sense
the drugs can bring depression or another
mental illness, to a state that may as well
be recovery from depression.The question is, can this happen without drugs?
For example, we used to have something (before
the onset of pharmacological psychiatry at this
present scale) called a *nervous breakdown*. When
a man went through a crisis and had a nervous
breakdown he would be sent to a sanitorium and
after a few months of rest and some drugs, he would
then be released. This is no longer done, and
hardly ever heard of.Another point about recovery; the concept of
prophylactic medicine does not permit the possibility
of testing recovery. That is, if it presumed from
the start that a depression or some psychological
trauma is chronic, and on the basis of that the
drugs are given for life, it is not possible to
test for recovery.A third point, even if it is presumed that the
person may have *recovered* from a mental illness,
giving drugs on a chronic basis presents another
logistical problem: the withdrawal from drugs
presents with such devastating effects, some them
chronic themselves, that is impossible to distinguish
lack of recovery from brain changes due to drugs.About the anti-psychiatry people: there are many
camps. There are the extremists like Lawrence Stevens J.D.
who argues that there is no such thing as mental
illness. The most i can say for him is that he has
J.D. besides his name and therefore no medical expertise
to argue with. Then there are the kind who wish
to protect the rights of the mentally ill such as David
Oak's group; and there are others such as Scientology
or religious groups who really have the wrong motives
at heart. There are also groups who have taken drugs,
have come off and are better and wish to educate
and inform the medical community of the effects of
certain drugs, e.g. the addictive nature of some
and i say some, benzos.As for denial, I think you are being presumptuous
in this and perhaps a bit Freudian. Some people are
quite aware of what drugs do to them and are able
to monitor their feedback according to dose and type
of drug -- that is why they are able to go the dr.
and say "i would like to try another drug" and the dr.
very often agrees.Finally, i suspect by your smart-ass tone that
you are a first year punk in medicine or pharmacology,
and lack both experience and compassion.Squiggles
Posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 18:06:46
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles » URCONFUSED, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 17:10:49
> Your first point is a good one. In a sense
> the drugs can bring depression or another
> mental illness, to a state that may as well
> be recovery from depression.Um...thats the whole point of drugs Squiggles. Duh. Recovery. What do you think people take drugs for? Just cause someone told them to take them? For fun? Cause its something to do? You take drugs cause there is something wrong with you.
>
> The question is, can this happen without drugs?
> For example, we used to have something (before
> the onset of pharmacological psychiatry at this
> present scale) called a *nervous breakdown*. When
> a man went through a crisis and had a nervous
> breakdown he would be sent to a sanitorium and
> after a few months of rest and some drugs, he would
> then be released. This is no longer done, and
> hardly ever heard of.
You are flat out wrong. Before drugs, people with serious forms of mental illness were sent to these places you call a sanitorium, where they oftentimes were exposed to nasty conditions. Abuse was rampant, diseases such as TB thrived in such places and many patients died of diseases, abuse, etc. Many were literally "locked up" and chained to walls like in medieval prisons. Most didnt recover and many times they were never sent home. Many spent long periods of time in these sanitoriums, never recovering only becoming worse.Drugs changed all this and allowed those who were "institutionalised" to be able to be released and go home and way from abusive, cruel state mental institutions or "sanitariums" as you call them.
>
> Another point about recovery; the concept of
> prophylactic medicine does not permit the possibility
> of testing recovery. That is, if it presumed from
> the start that a depression or some psychological
> trauma is chronic, and on the basis of that the
> drugs are given for life, it is not possible to
> test for recovery.
Most patients are tested for recovery. Ever heard of the HAMD depression questionairre? It assesses where you currently are. If you relapse, which usually happens in severe depression, you go back on meds.
>
> A third point, even if it is presumed that the
> person may have *recovered* from a mental illness,
> giving drugs on a chronic basis presents another
> logistical problem: the withdrawal from drugs
> presents with such devastating effects, some them
> chronic themselves, that is impossible to distinguish
> lack of recovery from brain changes due to drugs.I dont agree with you here. If you are talking about benzos and your experience with klonopin that you keep telling people about, sure. But you probably have severe panic disorder and are in denial of it to some extent. You probably need lifetime klonopin Squiggles. Ive come off many an antidepressant before and other than some dizziness and bad feelings which went away after a week, didnt have any problems.
>
> About the anti-psychiatry people: there are many
> camps. There are the extremists like Lawrence Stevens J.D.
> who argues that there is no such thing as mental
> illness. The most i can say for him is that he has
> J.D. besides his name and therefore no medical expertise
> to argue with. Then there are the kind who wish
> to protect the rights of the mentally ill such as David
> Oak's group; and there are others such as Scientology
> or religious groups who really have the wrong motives
> at heart. There are also groups who have taken drugs,
> have come off and are better and wish to educate
> and inform the medical community of the effects of
> certain drugs, e.g. the addictive nature of some
> and i say some, benzos.Benzos cant be compared to the nonaddictive drugs used to treat major depression, bipolar and schizophrenia Squiggles. Physical addiction is a separate issue than major mental illness and I believe you confuse the two, due to your inability to think clearly.
>
> As for denial, I think you are being presumptuous
> in this and perhaps a bit Freudian. Some people are
> quite aware of what drugs do to them and are able
> to monitor their feedback according to dose and type
> of drug -- that is why they are able to go the dr.
> and say "i would like to try another drug" and the dr.
> very often agrees.
>
> Finally, i suspect by your smart-ass tone that
> you are a first year punk in medicine or pharmacology,
> and lack both experience and compassion.
>Nope...not a "punk" who is in medicine or pharmacology. Just another clinical depressive patient who read your brain fogged post and decided to post a reply to straighten you out.
URCONFUSED
Posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 19:35:56
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles, posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 18:06:46
Eric,
Is that you again?
Lost again?
Squiggles
Posted by Dinah on September 21, 2002, at 19:45:33
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles » URCONFUSED, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 12:30:10
>
> URILLITERATE
>
> SquigglesSorry Squiggles, but as Dr. Bob's deputy I am going to have to ask you to be civil and not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
Here's a link to the FAQ on civility
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html
Thanks,
Dinah
Posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 19:50:35
In reply to Re: Please Be Civil » Squiggles, posted by Dinah on September 21, 2002, at 19:45:33
Sorry Dinah,
I won't mention Eric's name again.
Squiggles
Posted by Dinah on September 21, 2002, at 19:54:07
In reply to Re: confused thinkingsquiggles, posted by URCONFUSED on September 21, 2002, at 16:28:46
>
> I dont think so Squiggles. When you say that the pro-meds claim recovery is not possible or not the goal as you said in your first post, you sound ignorant.Sorry, URCONFUSED, but as Dr. Bob's deputy, I'm going to have to ask you to be civil and not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Here is a link to the civility guidelines of the site.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Dinah
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.