As Discussed here
An American Psychiatric Association official magazine, _Psychiatric Services_, has published an odd article (see below) in their June 2006 issue attempting to analyze the origins and history of the movement to challenge psychiatric human rights violations, especially the part of that movement led by psychiatric survivors.
The authors of the essay, entitled "Evolution of the Antipsychiatry Movement Into Mental Health Consumerism," fail in many strange and curious ways. Their perspective and facts just do not match reality.
Here is a partial list of the errors
Examples of Bizarre Bias in _Psychiatric Services_ Article
2. ORIGINS: The authors try to place the origin of our social change movement solely in the books of a few campus intellectuals and theoreticians, while many of us actually credit the civil rights movement and other grassroots movements as inspiration for grassroots psychiatric survivor and mental health consumer organizing. Believe it or not, we can and do start our own organizations.
3. BIOPSYCHIATRY PROVEN? The authors claim that studies now prove that "schizophrenia [is] at least biologically based." That is editorializing. Of course the authors' footnotes omit any citation to sources or scientific studies on this point for a simple reason: There are none.
4. LESS NEUROLEPTICS? The authors outrageously claim that psychiatry has "defused grievances" such as, "psychiatrists markedly reduced dosages of neuroleptics prescribed." As just one example that refutes this from this week's headlines, 6/6/06, the _NY Times_ revealed that neuroleptic prescriptions have gone up more than five-fold on youth. That's not a "reduction" for those youth. More neuroleptics are being given to more people than ever, along with polypharmacy where five or even ten psychiatric drugs are prescribed at the same time.
5. SHOCK AND PSYCHOSURGERY INCREASING! The authors also claim psychiatry has "defused grievances" because "electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery became marginalized." Marginalized? He means "gone undergrouund," because shock and psychosurgery have both experienced a huge resurgence in popularity within the profession, without adequate media scrutiny.
6. COMMITMENT STANDARDS ARE LOOSENING! The authors claim "compulsory commitments came under close judicial scrutiny," whatever that means. The reality is that countless US states have loosened and expanded commitment to such an extent, that disagreeing with one's psychiatrist is practically grounds for commitment today (such as "likelihood to deteriorate in the future without treatment," i.e., drugging).
12. MYTH OF "OUTSIDE AGITATORS": The authors try to portray a tiny group of antipsychiatrists as somehow subverting mental health consumers. It's the old divide-and-conquer trick of claiming there are "outside agitators." The reality is that the vast majority of the mental health systems' own clients, and all the organizations that truly represent them, speak out against human rights viololations on their own, and oppose practices like expanded outpatient commitment.
The authors claim that the National Council on Disability report somehow came out of the mouths of "antipsychiatrists," when actually dozens upon dozens of grassroots people who had experienced the mental health system testified to the NCD at a meeting of the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy. Note how the authors change "advocacy" to "antipsychiatry" as a way to marginalize us.
13. APA CLOSED TO DIALOGUE: The authors claim that the American Psychiatric Association has found it difficult to dialogue with psychiatric survivor and mental health consumer critics. The reality is that the APA and similar groups have refused countless efforts to dialogue. A number of us even did a several-week hunger strike mainly asking for real dialogue. It's not as if the American Psychiatric Association can't find our office phone numbers. Difficult to dialogue with us? How about being _closed_ to dialogue?
15. LET US TELL OUR OWN STORY: And finally, in the big picture, the authors essentially try to impose a story, narrative, world view and paradigm upon us... without asking us what we think about our own lives. This explains the petty factual errors.
In the authors' view a few antipsychiatry intellectuals gave birth to antipsychiatry psychiatric survivor groups, and then faded away. Now these subversive antipsychiatry psychiatric survivors are supposedly manipulating mental health consumers to fight psychiatric power. It is almost as if the authors got their bizarre perspective on this point from extremist American Enterprise Institute psychiatrist Sally Satel... and there indeed Sally sits in the authors' footnotes.
Psychiatry falsely labeled many of us as clients... and now tries to falsely label us when we organize to speak out about inherent, rampant, severe and deadly human rights violations within their profession. How about honest dialogue, discussion, listening and communication... isn't that supposed to be mentally healthy, for everyone?
Full text of the original article, along with the full compiled list available at the above link
No comments:
Post a Comment