The Devious Matrix Called Psychiatry

A new Blog entry by Jon Rappaport entitled The Devious Matrix Called Psychiatry

A very long article well worth the read. Here's the intro

“Psychiatry does more than define mental disorders. It purports to describe actual states of mind, and it coalesces and freezes those descriptions in such a way that people believe these states of mind exist. They don’t. They’re fictions. Fantasies. This is an enormous landscape of consciousness-programming. It’s actually reduction. Like many systems before it, psychiatry tries to reduce the possibilities of wide-ranging free consciousness. Throughout history, people have always been afraid of mind freedom. ‘What will people with free minds do?’ ‘What will society become if people’s minds are free?’ I can tell you: society would change radically, right down to its foundations.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Over the past 30 years, my work has always returned to freedom of the individual.

Not only Constitutional freedom and Bill-of-Rights freedom, but liberation of the power of individual thought and imagination and invention. Because those qualities are unpredictable, open-ended, and limitless. This is where long-term revolution begins.

So naturally, I’ve investigated the premier “science” that claims to have the best understanding of the mind: psychiatry.

I was neither surprised nor shocked to discover that psychiatry is a fraud, a pseudoscience.

Yet, this “science” is accorded special treatment and licensure and favored status by governments around the world. Why? Because untold numbers of patients can be diagnosed and drugged with highly toxic substances, and even held against their will in closed wards. Dissidents can be contained. Whole populations can be convinced they are either “mentally healthy” or “mentally ill,” as if those two fictional categories described some highly significant status.

If psychiatry were merely recognized as an experimental hypothesis, and so-called professionals diagnosed one another and applied labels to one another and drugged one another, in order to assess the outcome, as any scientist would, before subjecting the public to his idiosyncratic notions…well, fine. I could understand that.

But of course, this is not where we find ourselves. Psychiatrists are considered lofty authorities. They are called as expert witnesses in criminal trials. Then can, in many cases, arbitrarily force their will on patients. They are called upon by media to render their analyses. They occupy sanctified chairs at universities.

So…with that introduction, let me present information which has not been broadly communicated to the public.

Psychiatric drugs do more harm than good, says expert

From the Guardian

Psychiatric drugs do more harm than good and the use of most antidepressants and dementia drugs could be virtually stopped without causing harm, an expert on clinical trials argues in a leading medical journal.

The views expressed in a British Medical Journal debate by Peter Gøtzsche, professor and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark, are strongly opposed by many experts in mental health. However, others say the debate around the use of psychiatric drugs is important and acknowledge that there has been overuse of antipsychotics to quieten aggressive patients with dementia.

Gøtzsche says more than half a million people over the age of 65 die as a result of the use of psychiatric drugs every year in the western world. “Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal,” he writes. He claims that trials carried out with funding from drug companies into the efficacy of psychiatric drugs have almost all been biased, because the patients involved have usually been on other medication first. They stop their drugs and often experience a withdrawal phase prior to starting the trial drug, which then appears to have a big benefit. He also claims that deaths from suicide in clinical trials are under-reported.

In trials of the modern antidepressants fluoxetine and venlafaxine, says Gøtzsche, it takes only a few extra days for depression in the placebo group – given dummy pills – to lift as much as in the group given the drugs. He argues that there is spontaneous remission of the disease over time. Results from trials of schizophrenia drugs are also disappointing, he argues, and those for ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) are uncertain. “The short-term relief seems to be replaced by long-term harms. Animal studies strongly suggest that these drugs can produce brain damage, which is probably the case for all psychotropic drugs,” he writes.

“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm – by dropping all antidepressants, ADHD drugs and dementia drugs … and using only a fraction of the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines we currently use. This would lead to healthier and more long-lived populations. Because psychotropic drugs are immensely harmful when used long-term, they should almost exclusively be used in acute situations and always with a firm plan for tapering off, which can be difficult for many patients.”

[...]

The rest of the article was filler from doctors saying "but wait, we need MORE drugs"

"How dare you?"

An important column by activist Nancy Rubenstein del Giudice on the Mad in America Website

Here is a large snippet from the article

I am grateful to Phil Hickey and Robert Whitaker for challenging Jeffrey Lieberman in the manner they did, because, at this point my response to him is more of an emotional one and it can best be summed up this way; "How dare you?"

Dr. Lieberman, how dare you suggest that you should not have to endure critical examination? In case you missed the college experience, anthropology is all about looking at cultures and their institutions, and since your profession has sought to redefine what it means to be human, anthropologists have an absolute duty to examine that endeavor.

I am not sure what country you think you live in, but this is the one that celebrates freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the New York Times is not here to protect your profession or any other.

How dare you ignore the thousands of people who have been harmed by psychiatric drugs and diagnostic lies over the last several decades. If you and your colleagues were the least bit concerned about people and society you would by now have mounted a full-scale investigation into hospital and physician records to find all the people who were told they had a "chemical imbalance" and needed to take psychiatric drugs for the rest of their lives, like a diabetic takes insulin. Dr. Pies' well known assertion that this is only propagated by "uninformed" psychiatrists is belied by the fact that these "uninformed" psychiatrists run hospital psych wards all over the country.

You would find all the people who had an adverse reaction to an SSRI and were told this had "unmasked an underlying illness," and were then put on polypharmacy cocktails leading to disability. That would be the responsible thing to do. But car manufacturers make changes for public safety, and they are not "well-educated professionals" who have sworn to "Do no harm."

How dare you call Robert Whitaker a menace to society? The real menace to society is a profession that has knowingly lied for decades to vulnerable people for profit, and refuses to take responsibility for the harm done.

For the past five years that I have worked for The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, I have known over a thousand individuals who have literally lost everything because they are disabled after withdrawal from SSRIs, benzodiazapines, "mood stabilizers," and neuroleptics prescribed for sleep. They are a burden to their families, unable to qualify for disability because the medical profession refuses to learn and continues to deny the reality of their iatrogenic suffering.

How dare you ignore these young people whose twenties have been ripped away from them? As they suffer for years, unable even to leave the house, they watch their peers build families and careers and enjoy their youth. Any responsible group of people, instead of digging their heels in and denying this is happening would be diving in first to learn, and then to help. Because people matter. Because doctors are suppose to care about patients. Instead, we have a public health epidemic of iatrogenesis.

Depression is NOT caused by low serotonin levels and most drugs used to treat it are based on a myth, leading psychiatrist claims

As Reported in the Daily Mail

• David Healy is head of psychiatry at the Hergest psychiatry unit in Bangor
• Claims the idea low levels of serotonin causes depression is a fallacy
• Marketing of SSRI drugs like Prozac has been 'based on a myth', he claims
• Experts refute his claims saying 'SSRIs work in the real world of the clinic'

The belief that the most popular antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels in the brain is nothing more than a myth, a leading professor of psychiatry has claimed.

David Healy, head of psychiatry at the Hergest psychiatric unit in Bangor, North Wales, said the misconception that low levels of serotonin were responsible for depression had become established fact.

He suggested that the success of so-called SSRI drugs – which include Prozac and Seroxat – was based on the ‘marketing of a myth’.

The emergence of these serotonin reuptake inhibiting (SSRI) drugs in the late 1980s came after concerns about tranquilliser use to treat depression.

Even though they were weaker than old-style tricyclic antidepressants, they took off because of the idea that SSRIs restored serotonin levels to normal, ‘a notion that later transmuted into the idea that they remedied a chemical imbalance’.

In an editorial in the BMJ, Professor Healy said that in the 1990s, no one knew if SSRIs raised or lowered serotonin levels but there was no evidence that treatment corrected anything.

[...]

The full BMJ editorial "Serotonin and Depression" is available in PDF format here

Much of the article was taken up by people trying to refute the attack on their paychecks.

How to Interpret Your Rorschach Ink Blots

I occasionally poke around the news site Reddit, and came across this discussion related to the Rorschach Ink Blots. It seems only fair to post some of the interpretation summaries so that Redditors can see how they did.

From a legal standpoint, the Rorschach test images have been in the public domain for many years in most countries, particularly those with a copyright term of up to 70 years post mortem auctoris. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland since 1992 (70 years after the author's death, or 50 years after the cut-off date of 1942), according to Swiss copyright law. They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law where all works published before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain. This means that the Rorschach images may be used by anyone for any purpose. William Poundstone was, perhaps, first to make them public in his 1983 book Big Secrets, where he also described the method of administering the test

I imagine that these days a lot of people will see imagery from many of the games they have played, movies they have seen, local TV shows, popular songs, etc. The standard imagery seems to be based on psychoanalysis and original conjectures of the 1920s. It would probably be dangerous to try to derive universals, when so many variations exist between cultures and subcultures, etc in each region of planet earth.

For example, a Yankee team uniform has different meaning in New York City vs in Boston. (The two cities are known for a long standing sports rivalry)

Thus we come to this SPECIAL NOTE OF IMPORTANCE: There are different responses seen as normal depending on culture!!! Something interpreted as normal in one culture (Europe, etc) can be seen as a sign of schizophrenia in another culture (North America). Military people have different responses compared to nonmilitary. Different political parties have different responses.

For these and other reasons, I believe that the tests are NOT valid. What is given below is a combination from various sources. I regard inkblots to be no better than fortune-telling.

Origins of the Test

As a child, Hermann Rorschach was a big fan of a popular game called Klecksography, so much so that his nickname was "Kleck" (meaning "inkblot"). The idea of the game was to collect inkblot cards that could be bought from local shops and make associations and stories from the inkblots.

Rorschach went on to study psychiatry and while training, in 1918, he noticed that patients diagnosed with schizophrenia made radically different associations to the Klecksography inkblots than did normal people. He therefore developed the Rorschach test as a diagnostic tool for schizophrenia.

In 1896, a similar game was described in the United States by Ruth McEnery Stuart and Albert Bigelow Paine in a book titled Gobolinks, or Shadow-Pictures for Young and Old. The book explained how to make inkblot monsters ("gobolinks") and use them as prompts for writing imaginative verse.

The term Klecksography originates with the doctor and poet Justinus Kerner (1786-1862). Kerner also dealt with the interpretation of the images. After the color blobs were interpreted, he drew conclusions about the nature of the person. The interpretations were made using poetic rhymes.

As an artistic device and technique, the nature of the resulting images are affected to some degree by selective application and choice of the paint volume. Among the artists who experimented with Klecksography is J. Beuys.

Notes on the scientific value of the test

Rorschach never intended the inkblots to be used as a general personality test, but developed them as a tool for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. It was not until 1939 that the test was used as a projective test of personality, a use of which Rorschach had always been skeptical. Controversy about the reliability and validity of the Rorschach has been present since its conception. Today, many - probably most - psychologists think the Rorschach is nonsense.

A survey conducted on the members of The American Psychological Association Division-12, and The Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists showed concern from respondents about the limitations of the test (Wade et al 1978; Sharma, Ojha and Vagrecha, 1975; Dubey, 1982). Zubin (1965) has charged seven major failures as follows:

1. Failure to provide an objective system, free of arbitrary conventions, and showing high interscorer agreement.
2. Lack of satisfactory internal consistency, or test-retest reliability.
3. Failure to provide cogent evidence for clinical validity.
4. Failure of the individual Rorschach scoring categories to relate to diagnosis.
5. Lack of prognostic, or predictive validity with respect to the outcome of treatment, or later behavior.
6. Individual differences between groups of normal subjects.
7. Failure to find any significant relationships between Rorschach scores and intelligence, or creative ability.

Many professionals now feel that the Rorschach is outdated, inaccurate, and meaningless. For example:

"Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." (Bartol, 1983).

"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982).

What these comments seem to indicate is that the Rorschach is potentially unreliable, easily misinterpreted, and essentially not a valid means of determining what it claims to detect. For more information on the use and potential unreliability of the Rorschach test read "Misuse of Psychological Tests in Forensic Settings: Some Horrible Examples" by Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield.

Notes for if you take the test

Every Rorschach image has at least one obvious representation of sexual anatomy. You're not expected to mention them all. In some interpretation schemes, mentioning more than four sex images in the ten plates is diagnostic of schizophrenia. Most Rorschach workers believe the sex images should play a part in the interpretation of responses even when not mentioned.

The trouble is, subjects who took Psychology 101 often assume they should detail every possible sex response, so allowances must be made. People have since also come up with various methods and systems to try to objectively score the tests, but a lot of it is still the basis of you think it should mean this, and they think it should mean something else. It is like dream interpretation or fortune telling.

Your best bet when taking the test is probably to stick to "seeing" healthy, friendly images. Avoid dark or violent answers ("I see a monster eating a baby's brain!"). Butterflies, people holding hands, leaves, mountains, etc are all generally considered to be "safe" responses (although nothing is guaranteed when taking the Rorschach). If you can show how a particular shape really does resemble something, go ahead and say so. If you come up with a novel or particularly interesting answer you may get "points" for your creativity. The fact is, however, that in the end it's mostly up to the examiner as to how your responses are interpreted.

Further notes and advice on taking the test from this source

Just as secret as the blots themselves are the ground rules for administering the test. There are a few things that you, as a subject, are supposed to know and a lot of things you aren't supposed to know. If you ask about something you're not supposed to know, the psychologist will give you a pat answer as prescribed in Rorschach literature. For example, if you ask if it is okay to turn the card upside down, the psychologist will respond that you may do as you like; it's up to you. The psychologist won't say that many of the cards are easier to interpret when turned; that most people do turn the cards; that he or she will make a notation with a little arrowhead every time you do turn a card; and that you lose points in the initiative department if you don't turn the cards.

You'll be handed the cards one by one in the fixed order devised by Rorschach (there are numbers on the backs of the cards for the psychologist's benefit). The first card, for instance, looks like a fox's head or a jack-o-lantern. The cards are thick, rectangular cardboard, 6 5/8 inches by 9 1/5 inches. Half of the blots are black ink on a white background. Two others are black and red ink on white, and the last three blots are multicolored. The psychologist will always put each card in your hands "right" side up.

You aren't supposed to know it, but the psychologist will write down everything you say. This includes any seemingly irrelevant questions you may have. To keep you from getting wise, the psychologist always arranges to sit to your side and a little behind you, so that you can't look at the card and the psychologist at the same time. Most subjects realize the psychologist is taking notes, of course, but they don't realize that the notes are a special shorthand record of everything said. Some psychologists use hidden tape recorders.

The psychologist will also time how long it takes you to respond, using a "tickless" watch. The psychologist will not ask you to hurry up or slow down and will not make any reference to time, but response times (in seconds) are one of the things he or she is writing in the notes.

Don't hold the card at an unusual angle. Watch how you phrase things. Say "This looks like ..." or "This could be ..." never "This is..." After all, you're supposed to realize that it is just a blot of ink on a card. By the same token, don't be too literal and say things as, "This is a blotch of black ink." Don't groan, get emotional, or make irrelevant comments. Don't put your hands on the cards to block out parts. The psychologist will watch for all of the foregoing as signs of brain damage.

If there are no right answers for the test, there are some general guidelines as to what is a normal response. You can probably see images in the inkblots proper and in the white spaces they enclose. Stick to the former. Don't be afraid of being obvious. There are several responses that almost everyone gives; mentioning these shows the psychologist you're a regular guy.

It is okay to be original if you can justify what you see in the shape, shading, or color of the blot. If you see an abalone and can point out why it looks like one, then say so. Justifiable original responses are usually judged to be indicative of creativity or intelligence.

You don't want non sequiturs, images that don't fit the blot in the judgment of the psychologist. These may be interpreted as signs of psychosis. *(Comment: Again the cultural variation is important. If your are a big fan of Star Wars or Batman or Anime, you might upset some shrinks if all of your interpretations are filled with references to these cultural icons!)*

You're expected to see more than one thing on all or most of the cards. Not being able to see anything on a card suggests neurosis. Usually the more things you can see, the better, as long as they fit the form and color of the blot. Of course, you can see things in the whole blot or in parts of it, and images may overlap. *(Comment: Note more intelligent people tend to score higher on many pathology scales, since many scales do not correct for high response rate! if a subject gives twice as many responses overall, it is more likely that some of these will seem "pathological")*

Since time is a factor, it is important to come up with good answers fast. (It looks particularly bad if you take a long time and give a dumb, inappropriate answer.)

---

Information on Interpretations

The information on Interpretations is compiled from data seen at

1. www.your3dsource.com/are-you-crazy-inkblot-test.html
2. deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php and
3. www.mrcoward.com/slcusd/The Rorschach Test.htm

Pics are from Wikipedia, and are in the public domain in both Switzerland (their country of origin) and the USA.

Note that these pictures are pretty small, you can click on them to embiggen (i.e., see larger).

The Wikipedia article on the test now forwards the line that there is no specific correct answer to the test, and generally fudges any interpretation.

But see the general notes below, followed by the set of pictures.

I Repeat: SPECIAL NOTE OF IMPORTANCE: There are different responses seen as normal depending on culture!!! Something interpreted as normal in one culture (Europe, etc) can be seen as a sign of schizophrenia in another culture (North America)

French subjects often identify a chameleon in card VIII, which is normally classed as an "unusual" response, as opposed to other animals like cats and dogs; in Scandinavia, "Christmas elves" (nisser) is a popular response for card II, and "musical instrument" on card VI is popular for Japanese people, and different languages will exhibit semantic differences in naming the same object (the figure of card IV is often called a troll by Scandinavians and an ogre by French people).

Many "popular" responses (those given by at least one third of the North American sample used) seem to be universally popular, as shown by samples in Europe, Japan and South America, while specifically card IX's "human" response, the crab or spider in card X and one of either the butterfly or the bat in card I appear to be characteristic of North America.

Some critics argue that the testing psychologist must also project onto the patterns. A possible example sometimes attributed to the psychologist's subjective judgement is that responses are coded (among many other things), for "Form Quality": in essence, whether the subject's response fits with how the blot actually looks. Superficially this might be considered a subjective judgment, depending on how the examiner has internalized the categories involved. One example is that the response "bra" was considered a "sex" response by male psychologists, but a "clothing" response by females psychologists. Scoring systems have be developed to get around this, but in my personal opinion they sound like reading astrology charts, elaborately complex constructions on a foundation of sand.

For these and other reasons, I believe that the tests are NOT valid. What is given below is a combination from various sources. I regard it no better than fortune-telling.

---

The Rorschach Ink Blots

The cards are numbered 1 through 10, and that is the order in which they're always given to you by the psychologist. The originals are thick, rectangular cardboard, 6 5/8 inches by 9 1/5 inches. This will make a difference on what you see, vs the smaller images on a computer screen.

Plate I

Possible Sexual Imagery: Breasts, primarily the rounded areas at the top of the image.

Good/Common Answers: "Bat, butterfly, female figure (in the centre), moth"

You may be a little paranoid if you see: "Mask, animal face, jack o lantern"

Bad Answer: "Anything insulting about the female figure (it is an indicator of your own body image)"

The first blot is easy. How fast you answer is taken as an indication of how well you cope with new situations. The best reaction is to give one of the most common responses immediately.

A bad response is any that says something untoward about the central female figure. "She" is often judged to be a projection of your own self-image. Avoid the obvious comment that the figure has two breasts but no head.

If you don't give more than one answer for Plate I, many psychologists will drop a hint -- tell you to look closer.

Plate II

Possible Sexual Imagery: Male sex organ at top center or, in some cases, a vagina (at the center near the bottom).

You should see this image as: "Two human-like forms (females or clowns) If you don't it is an indicator that you have trouble relating to people."

Other Good/Common Answers: "Butterfly, cave entrance"

It is important to see this blot as two human figures usually females or clowns.

If you don't, it's seen as a sign that you have trouble relating to people. You may give other responses as well, such as cave entrance (the triangular white space between the two figures) and butterfly (the red "vagina," bottom center).

Should you mention the penis and vagina? Not necessarily. You may not say that the lower red area looks like a vagina, but psychologists assume that what you do say will show how you feel about women. Nix on "crab"; stick with "butterfly."

Plate III

Possible Sexual Imagery: Male sex organs and female breasts, right about where you would expect to find them.

This is the blot that allegedly can determine sexual preference.

A heterosexual response would be: "Seeing two male figures"

A homosexual response would be: "Seeing two androgynous (remember "Pat" from SNL?) or female figures."

Most people see the two human figures. Both figures have prominent "breasts" and an equally prominent "penis." If you don't volunteer the gender of the figures, you'll be asked to specify it.

This blot has been the subject of much debate, so it's best to take your answer's meaning with a grain of salt. Does it work? Not really

The splotches of red ink are usually perceived separately. Common responses are "bow-tie" or "ribbon" (inner red area) and a stomach and esophagus (outer red areas).

Plate IV

Plate IV is the "father card." At first glance it is a difficult blot to see as a single image. The two lower corners are often described as shoes or boots. This card may also be seen as viewing a person from below or a male figure with an enormous sex organ.

The "boots" are fairly conspicuous; between them is the apparent head of a dog or Chinese dragon. Many subjects see the blot as an animal skin. After a few seconds, though, most can see it as a standing figure seen from below.

The boots become the feet, enlarged because of the unusual perspective. The arms and head, at the top, are smaller. Common descriptions are bear, gorilla, or man in a heavy coat. Rorschach theorists equate your description of the figure with your perception of your father or male authority figures.

Possible Sexual Imagery: A pair of male sex organs, typically seen at the top of the image. Some subjects may instead visualize a vagina in the upper center of the blot.

Good/Common Answers: "A standing figure (man, bear, gorilla)"

A Bad Answer Would Be: "To describe the figure as menacing in any way, i.e. a monster, or attacking gorilla, as this blot indentifies with your perception of your father, or authority figures."

Plate V

Possible Sexual Imagery: A pair of male sex organs at the very top of the inkblot.

Good/Common "Answers: Bat, Butterfly"

Bad Answers: "Seeing the butterfly antennae as scissors or any cutting device is an indicator of a castration complex. Schizophrenics occasionally see moving people in this image. Seeing crocodile heads on the ends of the bat's wings indicates hostility."

Rorschach himself thought this was the easiest blot to interpret. It is a bat or a butterfly, period. You don't want to mention anything else.

Many psychologists take particular note of the number of responses given to this plate. If you mention more images here than in either Plate IV or VI, it is suggestive of schizophrenia.

Plate VI

Possible Sexual Imagery: The head of the male sex organ (the portion at the top of the card) or alternately, a female sex organ (middle and bottom part of the card).

Common Answers: "animal hide, boat, submarine, mushroom cloud, men with long noses and goatees. Apparently this blot reveals subconscious attitudes about sexuality."

Occasionally described as a foreshortened view of a person with their arms outstretched.

Basically, the secret of this plate is to turn it. A good response is to say it looks like an animal hide (about the only reasonable response when held right side up), then turn it on its side and say it looks like a boat or surfaced submarine with reflection, and then turn it upside down and say it looks like a mushroom cloud, a pair of theater masks, or caricatures of men with long noses and goatees.

Plate VII

Possible Sexual Imagery: The female sex organs (seen at the bottom of the card where the figures join.

Good/Common Answers: "Two Girls, or Women"

Bad Answers: "Insulting descriptions of the two figures i.e. gossips, girls fighting, witches.

This card has a rough "V" shape sometimes described as faces pointing towards one another, "bunny ears", or similar visualizations.

This blot is supposed to reveal how you really feel about your mother. Virtually everyone sees two girls or women. Deprecating descriptions of the figures~ "witches," "gossips," "girls fighting," "spinsters" indicate poor maternal relations. Seeing the blot as thunderclouds instead of female figures suggests anxiety to some psychologists; seeing it as a walnut kernel may mean a vulvar fixation.

There is an entirely different side to this blot, but you're not supposed to see it. The white space between the girls or women can be interpreted as an oil lamp or similar object. It is claimed that only schizophrenics usually see the lamp.

Plate VIII

A very colorful card with blue, orange, pink, and gray ink. A roughly diamond-shaped image with lots of places to see things

Possible Sexual Imagery: Female sex organs, usually seen at the bottom of the card.

Good/Common Answers: "Four legged animals such as lions, pigs, bears, etc. on the sides. Other common responses are tree, butterfly, rib cage, christmas tree."

Bad/Answers: "Not seeing the four legged animals can indicate that you are mentally defective"

It is important that you see the four-legged animals- lions, pigs, bears, etc. -on the sides of the blot. They're one of the most common responses on the test, and you're assumed to be a mental defective if you don't see them. Other good responses are tree (gray triangle at top), butterfly (pink and orange area at bottom), and rib cage or anatomy chart (skeletal pattern in center between blue rectangles and gray triangles). The entire configuration can be seen as a heraldic design (good answer) or a Christmas tree with ornaments (reaching).

Children tend to like this blot and say a lot about it-the bright colors and animal shapes make it more interesting than your basic penis/vagina number (II, IV, or VI).

Plate IX

Another colorful card, this time with orange, pink, and green inks. This one is tough to visualize anything specific in; most test subjects struggle to find something to "see" in it.

Possible Sexual Imagery: Female sex organs, usually seen at the bottom of the card.

Good/Common Answers: "Fire, smoke, explosion, map, anatomy, flower."

Bad Answers: "Mushroom cloud on the centre line at top can indicate paranoia. Monsters or men fighting can indicate poor social development."

If you're going to throw up your hands (figuratively!!!) and plead a mental block, this is the place to do it. The colors clash, apparently by Rorschach's design.

If you turn the card ninety degrees, you can make out a man's head in the pink areas at bottom. (The man is identified as Mark Twain, Santa Claus, or Teddy Roosevelt.)

As with Plate V, the psychologist may be counting the number of responses you give to this blot for comparison with the preceding and succeeding blots. You want to give fewer responses to this blot.

Plate X

This is the last Rorschach card and certainly the most colorful, consisting of blue, gray, pink, green, orange and yellow inks. It's a very complex mish-mash of shapes with lots of "activity" and plenty of places to "see" things.

Possible Sexual Imagery: Male sex organs at the top center of the card.

Good/Common Answers: "Sea life, or a view through a microscope. Also common: spiders, crabs, caterpillars, rabbit's head"

Bad Answers: "Two faces at top centre blowing bubbles, or smoking pipes can indicate an oral fixation"

The unspoken purpose of this last blot is to test your organizational ability. Plate X is full of colorful odds and ends easy to identify---blue spiders, gray crabs, paired orange maple seeds, green caterpillars, a light-green rabbit's head, yellow and orange fried eggs--and you're expected to list them.

But the psychologist will also be looking for a comprehensive answer, something that shows you grok the whole Gestalt. There are two good holistic answers: sea life and a view through a microscope.

Some subjects see two reddish faces at top center, separated by the orange maple key. If you describe them as blowing bubbles or smoking pipes, it may be interpreted as evidence of an oral fixation. Seeing the gray "testes" and "penis" as two animals eating a stick or tree indicates castration anxiety.

---

A red flag about medicating young children

A column from the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript by Bonnie Harris

World-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist and director of the research team at Mass General Hospital Dr. Joseph Biederman has been found by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to have failed to report millions of dollars he has received over the years from the drug companies that make the drugs he prescribes for ADHD and bipolar disorder. Biederman and his research team are responsible for putting the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, previously thought to start in young adulthood, on children as young as three.

The reported diagnosis of bipolar disorder grew 40-fold between 1994 and 2003. And that data is five years old. Biederman is the number-one influence on doctors nationwide who diagnose and medicate children with bipolar and attention-deficit disorder. Antipsychotic drugs previously prescribed for adults are now being given to children as young as three -- one of whom died at age 4 from an overdose her mother gave her desperately trying to control her behavior.

According to Medco, a pharmacy benefits manager, 500,000 children and teenagers were given at least one prescription for an antipsychotic in 2007, including 20,500 who were younger than 6 years old. Biederman claims, "The average age of onset is about four .... It's solidly in the preschool years."

Another 3-year-old was reported by his mother to have violent and explosive outbursts. After a year of treatment, his mother says a psychiatrist told her he thought her son was bipolar. As the boy's mother reported, "He would tell us, you know, 'You donlove me.' ''You don't like me.' 'I don't like myself.' 'I hate myself.' 'I'm stupid.' 'Nobody likes me.' 'I wanna die.' Four-year-olds don't talk like that." After the boy was put on a fourth medication, the family decided that was enough and took their son to Seattle Children's Hospital, where they were told he was not bipolar. He now takes medication for hyperactivity and a sleep disorder. And he's learning to deal with his explosive moods through a behavioral program. The family claims there is no comparison to the child they are parenting today compared to the one diagnosed as bipolar.

Dr. John McClellan, familiar with this boy's case, says the children's psychiatric hospital he runs in the state of Washington is filled with kids who have been misdiagnosed as bipolar. He says it has become a catchall for aggressive and troubled children.

Please, let this report be a red flag to all who have children too quickly diagnosed with ADHD, bipolar disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and others.

A young child claiming that no one loves him, that he's stupid, hates himself, or wishes he could die is often a child who is crying out for acceptance and attention from the influential adults in his life who have yet to understand him and his problems. With that understanding, adjusted expectations, removal of damaging behavior modification techniques such as punishment, many children, even those with chemical imbalances and disorders, can have appropriate behavior without medication. So many children in today's world react strongly to being told what to do and how to do it, to feeling disrespected with regular criticism and punishment, to not fitting in to a schoolroom full of other children who seem to be able to "get it" more easily, to being easily overstimulated or misunderstood for the reasons beneath their behavior.

Children who feel misunderstood are capable of highly inappropriate behavior that is trying to signal their need. They don't know how to say "Hey, this isn't working. My needs are not getting met." So they act it out -- louder and more dramatically the longer the misunderstanding. One of the children diagnosed with bipolar disorder had a father who had been accused of abuse. This factor was not part of the equation of the diagnosis.

We must look to the reasons -- the root causes -- of why our children don't, won't or can't do what we ask. Diagnoses often feel validating and relieving when our attempts at control don't work to get our children to comply. We can shift the blame onto to "problem" and we don't have to change how we parent.

Let me be absolutely clear that I do not consider the parent to blame. It is the culture in which we live that does not support parents to support their children. We are still in a children-must-do-as-we-say mentality and if they don't -- well now we can medicate them and we don't have to deal with it. Let me also say that are many cases in which medication is helpful and necessary.

But please lets start to put more effort into understanding children, their temperaments, the reasons for their behavior, their need for acceptance and compassion, their desire to get it right and their frustrations when they can't.

Let's not medicate those frustrations before thorough evaluations can be conducted by several professionals looking at the behavior from different perspectives.

And please let's take some responsibility for what we, their parents and teachers, are presenting to our children that become triggers for disruptive behavior.

---

Bonnie Harris, M.S.Ed,. is the director of Connective Parenting. Past columns can be found on her Web site, http://www.connectiveparenting.com. E-mail questions or topic requests to bh@bonnieharris.com.

Teaching kids to study works better than Ritalin

As seen in the Mercury News. Here's the essential tidbit:

"12-year-old Ryan was having trouble paying attention to the home-school tasks his mother, Cindy Withers of San Jose, set for him. Determined to avoid drugs such as Ritalin, Withers opted for brain-training instead.

At his psychologist's office, Ryan's treatment included specialized video games that responded to his brain waves. By remaining focused, the boy was able to propel digital spaceships or race cars. His mother says the therapy gave him a "can-do" attitude and improved his school work."

As noted elsewhere:

So here's the AMAZING CONCLUSION: Turns out that teaching your kids to pay attention works better than drugging them into submission. Amazing!

Convicted killer working as psychiatrist - Patients don't know he killed his wife

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

The family of a woman killed by her psychiatrist husband in 1987 is disgusted he was later able to be reregistered to practise.

Dr George Sliwinski shot his former wife Alice in 1987 and was sentenced to eight years' jail after pleading guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility.

Dr Sliwinski had been struggling with alcoholism and the use of prescription drugs, which during the 80s had led to a number of breakdowns and admissions to psychiatric hospitals.

After being released on parole in 1990, in 1994 Dr Sliwinski successfully appealed to the Medical Tribunal of NSW to be reregistered.

Since 1996 he has been employed as a psychiatric registrar at Gosford and Wyong hospitals.

The Australian Medical Association opposed his reappointment, Fairfax has reported.

News that Dr Sliwinski was again practising has alarmed his late wife's family, with the victim's sister, Noleen Tasoulis, saying it was "disgusting".

But Dr Sliwinski has been defended by his colleagues and NSW Health.

A spokeswoman for the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service said there had been no formal complaints about his work.

"All appropriate background checks required at the time of his employment were conducted," she said.

Senior psychiatrist Chris Tennant defended his colleague, saying Dr Sliwinski "met all the conditions imposed on him by the board".

Many of Dr Sliwinski's current patients do not know of his past, as he is under no obligation to tell them, Fairfax says.

Of course, there's been a small uproar over this discovery. We also have this extended report

NINE years after he shot and killed his wife, George Sliwinski was back in his job as a psychiatrist, treating mentally ill patients in public hospitals.

Dr Sliwinski himself had a history of mental illness. This led him to either leave or be dismissed from four medical facilities in the 1980s. In 1987, after a decade of chronic drug and alcohol abuse, he shot his former wife, Alice, four times, a month after their divorce. One of the shots, to her head, killed her.

But Dr Sliwinski was released on parole in 1990. And he was employed as a resident medical officer at the Central Coast Mental Health Service in July 1994, shortly after successfully appealing to the Medical Tribunal of NSW to be re-registered. The Australian Medical Association publicly opposed the re-registration.

Dr Sliwinski was employed as a psychiatric registrar at Gosford and Wyong hospitals in 1996, and continues in this role.

But, to this day, many of his patients are unaware of his past - and there is no obligation for DrSliwinski or authorities to tell them.

The case of Dr Sliwinski raises difficult issues of a patient's right to know the record and background of their doctor and the ability of someone to redeem themselves and begin a new life.

In 1994 the Medical Tribunal said it had "some difficulty" deciding whether he was fit to be a doctor. But it concluded he was suitable because he did not intend to kill his wife, had no history of violence and was supported strongly by three psychiatrists who gave evidence that he had been fully rehabilitated and was very unlikely to relapse.

And yet questions remain unanswered. The Health Department will not reveal how it monitored Dr Sliwinski to ensure he met strict conditions imposed by the tribunal, such as regular urine and/or blood tests, psychiatric treatment and constant supervision. The tribunal also appeared to be unaware that Dr Sliwinski's wifealleged he had a history of violence against her. It found the killing was an "isolated occasion", despite her allegations, set out in an Apprehended Violence Order summons issued in the year before her death.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists - which is responsible for ensuring the suitability of psychiatrists - has refused to comment on what processes it undertook to assess him. And in the 1990s the NSW Medical Board was not required to independently notify employers of a doctor's restrictions. A spokeswoman for the board, Edwina Light, said it was prohibited from revealing why DrSliwinski's strict conditions were lifted in 1999.

Doctors are not legally obliged to tell patients they are working under conditions or have been deregistered in the past, and the Health Department has no policy requiring disclosure.

Dr Sliwinski went on trial in the Supreme Court for the murder of Alice on October 1, 1987, a month after they divorced.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the fourth day of his trial, in 1988, and was sentenced to a maximum of eight years' jail.

He had shot Alice four times but said he could not recall the incident and successfully argued diminished responsibility because of his intoxicated state.

In sentencing him, Justice Ray Loveday said there was no motive for the killing and described it as "quite bizarre".

According to the tribunal's 1994 judgment, he had been abusing alcohol and a cocktail of prescription drugs, mostly tranquillisers, for almost a decade and had sought psychiatric help several times from 1979, including stays at psychiatric hospitals in 1985 and 1987. He feared "dying and going mad".

His drinking dated back to the late 1960s, when he drank on the job as a medical trainee because he found attending cancer wards difficult.

His father died of bone cancer when Dr Sliwinski was 11 and his mother had schizophrenia.

The drug addiction began in 1977 after his first wife, Barbara, left him with their children and a doctor gave him Serepax after he was unable to administer anaesthesia due to a panic attack at Moree Hospital.

However, in its judgment in 1994 the tribunal concluded that Dr Sliwinski was not an intrinsically violent person. "[The shooting] does not indicate a tendency to vice or violence or any lack of probity. It has neither connection with nor significance for any professional function. There is no evidence that the appellant [previously] committed acts of violence towards his ex-wife or any other person …" the tribunal said.

However, a summons was issued to Dr Sliwinski over an allegation that he assaulted her by attempting to choke her in August 1986.

The AVO application, seen by the Herald, alleged that Dr Sliwinski, who had been drinking heavily, said to his wife, "If I hear you have done anything to foul up my career I will kill you", and had assaulted her three or four times during their five-year marriage. The AVO was withdrawn by his wife.

Three years before the killing, he was twice told to take sick leave from his job as a psychiatric registrar at Morriset Hospital due to his depressed mental state and concerns that he was suicidal.

He was also told to take sick leave from the Mater Hospital in Newcastle not long after that.

In 1987 he was sacked from a practice at Kilburn Bay and told to seek psychiatric help. He had come to the North Coast after he left Moree Hospital in 1980 after "difficulties with the Medical Board, [and] with the Hospital Board", and moved to Newcastle, the tribunal said.

He had been investigated by the Medical Board for failing to attend to an unconscious patient at Moree who had had a stroke, and was cautioned over the incident.

A spokeswoman for the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service, Jenny Dennis, said: "All appropriate background checks required at the time of his employment were conducted." She later confirmed "this included the NSW Medical Board".

"Central Coast Mental Health Service can confirm that Dr Sliwinski complied with the restrictions placed on him by the Medical Board," she said. She said there had been "no formal complaints about his work".

Ms Light, said it was the responsibility of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists to determine whether Dr Sliwinski was fit for psychiatry. The college would not comment.

The board's registrar, Andrew Dix, said it regularly monitored conditions. "It's up to the doctor to comply but if they don't comply we know about it very quickly because we've got a data base following this," Dr Dix said.

Alice's sister, Noleen Tasoulis, said the family was devastated that Dr Sliwinski was practising psychiatry. "I think it's disgusting," Mrs Tasoulis said.

She alleged that at the time of his marriage to her sister he was a "violent" alcoholic and her sister supported him with $335,000 she won in a lottery just before they married. "The seven years that he was married to my sister … he was in various [psychiatric] clinics … so it seems rather unbelievable that he could even practise."

Dr Sliwinski had a solicitor, Denis Williams, contact the Herald to arrange an interview yesterday to respond to questions about his past and what monitoring he was subjected to by the area health service.

Dr Sliwinski did not show up but a senior psychiatrist, Chris Tennant, who is a visiting medical officer at Gosford and Wyong hospitals, did, and strongly defended him.

Professor Tennant said "he met all the conditions imposed on him by the board".

He said whether he told the tribunal he was considering a career in psychiatry was irrelevant. "It's not their business," he said.

He declared the Herald "mother f---ers" after the meeting.

Mr Williams said Dr Sliwinski's suitability had been "extensively considered" by the college and the tribunal. "There's been no record anywhere of this bloke not doing the right thing since the day he was readmitted," he said.

Asked whether Dr Sliwinski divulged to the tribunal that there had been other allegations of assaulting his wife, Mr Williams said: "It's too long ago."

Asked about the alleged threat Dr Sliwinski made to his wife that he would kill her, Mr Williams said: "I think we'll end this now. Goodbye."

School — 1957 vs. 2007

Quoted because of the observations on the psych abuse, but also because of the insights on political correctness As seen on Los Cuatro Ojos

Scenario #1:

Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark… Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario #2:

Jeffrey won’t be still in class, disrupts other students.

1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal… Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin… Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADHD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario #3:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 - Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse… Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang… State psychologist tells Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison… Billy’s Mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario #4:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations… Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario #5:

Pedro fails high school English.

1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2007 - Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro’s English teacher… English banned from core curriculum… Pedro given diploma anyway… but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario #6:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1957 - Ants die.

2007 - ATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home… computers confiscated. Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario #7:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary… Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison… Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

The Decline of Psychiatry, Part 5

As seen in a comment by a reader made earlier on this blog:

Psychiatry residency programs now are happy if they get 55% U.S. medical school graduates, that's an increase over what it has been.

What do you call the U.S. medical school graduate who places last in his class? A psychiatry resident.

We have this news report on shortages of psychiatrists in Minnesota. Seems people are not signing up for the field. of course, we have to supply some snippets from the report as seen in The Daily News (of the Wahpeton, ND - Breckenridge, MN area).

A shortage of psychiatrists in Minnesota has caused a strain on current workers and left cities struggling to replace them. Some reasons behind the shortage include low pay in comparison to other jobs in the field and public stigma of the position. In 2004, a Minnesota Public Radio report revealed the state had one psychiatrist for every 10,000 people.

There is little evidence the problem will cease, especially in rural areas. Stefan Gildemeister, assistant director of the health economics bureau at the Minnesota Department of Health, said present calculations for the state are the same.

"A recent study we did, which looked at surveys in greater Minnesota, showed the vacancy rate for psychiatrists was higher than for any other specialty," he said. Breckenridge faces its own significant ratio. A maximum of 136 psychiatric patients walk through the doors of the Hope Unit at St. Francis Healthcare Campus per week, but there is only one psychiatrist to help them. "Many people who attend medical school do not plan on going into psychiatry," said Nancy Torson, MD, at the Hope Unit. "Historically, it has been difficult for programs to fill residency slots, and often they can't fill them."

[...] As psychiatry is one of the lower paying jobs in the field, Torson said "the patient population doesn't appeal to many med students."

[...]

Let's see, could there be lower esteem in the eyes of the public? Would all those news stories about shaky and suspect practitioners have anything to do with this? It sounds like you really have to want to be a psychiatrist to become a psychiatrist.

Internet Addiction, Gaming, Porn, And Chat As The Mental Illnesses of the Future

A psychologist has an appropriately cynical view on the new world of Internet Addiction

Psychiatrists Do Not Know What Normal Sex Is.

Psychiatrists are trying to define what normal sex is for the next edition of the DSM, but will probably wind up making everything a for-profit treatable condition that be be treated with a pill.

As Seen on MSNBC

This month the American Psychiatric Association announced the names of “working group” members who will guide the development of the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the codex of American psychiatry.

Not surprisingly, given the DSM’s colorful history, particularly when it comes to sex, controversy erupted within days of the announcement, especially over membership of the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders working group, which will wrestle with questions such as:

• Are sadomasochism or pedophilia mental disorders?
• Are dysfunctions like female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low sex drive) psychiatric issues, or hormonal issues?

Perhaps the most important question is whether, when it comes to many sexual interests and issues, it’s even possible or desirable to create diagnostic criteria.

At least one petition, spearheaded by transgender activists, is being circulated to oppose the appointment of some members to the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders work group and its chair, Kenneth Zucker, head of the Gender Identity Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada. The petition accuses Zucker of having engaged in “junk science” and promoting “hurtful theories” during his career, especially advocating the idea that children who are unambiguously male or female anatomically, but seem confused about their gender identity, can be treated by encouraging gender expression in line with their anatomy.

Zucker rejects the junk-science charge, saying that there “has to be an empirical basis to modify anything” in the DSM. As for hurting people, “in my own career, my primary motivation in working with children, adolescents and families is to help them with the distress and suffering they are experiencing, whatever the reasons they are having these struggles. I want to help people feel better about themselves, not hurt them.”

That sex is controversial comes as no surprise to Dr. Darrel Regier, the vice-chair of the APA’s DSM-V Task Force, based in Arlington, Va.

Sex, he says, in an understatement, “is an area that obviously has lots of emotion attached to it.” But the APA, he says, is doing its best to put science and evidence first, both in who it appoints to working groups and in the process it will use to create the DSM-V (so called because it is the fifth complete version). Each working group will accept input from many experts with varying views, reach a consensus on DSM content, and then put that work group’s product before the board of trustees of the APA and the APA assembly.

All that may be true, but Regier does not expect such reassurances to quell the forces already swirling around the DSM-V as it moves toward a 2012 publication date. Currently, the DSM-IV includes sex-related activities as varied as paraphilias like voyeurism, klismaphilia (erotic use of enemas) and sadism, and functional disorders like dyspareunia (pain with intercourse), erectile disorders and premature ejaculation.

'A set of scientific hypotheses'

The first DSM was issued in 1952. The idea was to create a more standardized way of talking about psychiatric disorders. As psychiatrist Dr. Gail Saltz, a TODAY Show contributor who also practices in New York, explains, the DSM is best viewed as “a language we have chosen to speak, a talking point we mental health professionals have created to communicate as well as we can with each other and with other professions.”

It is not a final arbiter of who’s crazy and who’s not. Saltz, who says she thinks the DSM can be limiting in clinical practice, prefers to take a holistic approach and look at each patient’s collection of symptoms and concerns without being restricted by the DSM’s various criteria.

Regier agrees that’s how doctors should use it, arguing that the DSM “really needs to be seen as a set of scientific hypotheses.” It is, he believes, “a living document” changeable with new research.

But if the DSM is a book of “hypotheses,” why the fuss? Does the DSM matter?

Yes. A lot.

The first reason why is prosaic. If you want your insurance to reimburse your visit to a mental health professional, you are probably going to need a DSM code signifying a diagnosis.

But the more profound reason is that it shapes how doctors, even the rest of rest of society, view sexuality.

“A psychiatric diagnosis is more than shorthand to facilitate communication among professionals or to standardize research parameters,” wrote Dr. Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz in a 2005 paper published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.

“Psychiatric diagnoses affect child custody decisions, self-esteem, whether individuals are hired or fired, receive security clearances, or have other rights and privileges curtailed. Criminals may find that their sentences are either mitigated or enhanced as a direct result of their diagnoses.

The equating of unusual sexual interests with psychiatric diagnoses has been used to justify the oppression of sexual minorities and to serve political agendas. A review of this area is not only a scientific issue, but also a human rights issue.”

A problem for whom?

There is no shortage of opinion on what ought to be changed, deleted or included in the new DSM-V. Sandra Leiblum, formerly a professor at New Jersey’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an expert in female sexual health who is now in private practice in Bridgewater, N.J., says she wants to see a revision of diagnoses of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, other female arousal disorders and sexual pain like dyspareunia. For example, she wants language that would separate arousal disorders into genital (more biological in origin) and subjective subtypes.

Carol Queen, a sexologist, sexual rights activist and co-founder of San Francisco’s Center for Sex and Culture, believes the new DSM should stress that sexual variances are only a problem “if they are problems in the life of the person showing up” in a psychiatrist’s office “so that when somebody is eroticizing something, or doing something in a consensual way, that’s not a problem” even if it may seem odd to most of us.

She also proposes an addition, a diagnosis of “absexual” (“ab” meaning “away from”). This would include those who appear to be “turned on by fulminating against it.” Examples could include state governors who crusade against prostitution even while paying hookers for sex, and religious leaders who wind up trying to explain engaging in the sex acts they preach against.

Moser, who is affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, and Kleinplatz, from the University of Ottawa, argue that all paraphilias, like sexual sadism, sexual masochism, transvestism, should be removed from the DSM, insisting that “the DSM criteria for diagnosis of unusual sexual interests as pathological rests on a series of unproven and more importantly, untested assumptions.”

This does not mean, as opponents of this idea have suggested, that they somehow approve of sex between adults and children. “We would argue that the removal of pedophilia from the DSM would focus attention on the criminal aspect of these acts, and not allow the perpetrators to claim mental illness as a defense or use it to mitigate responsibility for their crimes," they wrote. "Individuals convicted of these crimes should be punished as provided by the laws in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred.”

Most of these suggestions are inherently political, as much as the APA and most psychiatrists would wish to avoid politics. Sex exists as part of the culture, and it cannot be separated from it.

The DSM has reflected cultural shifts through its revisions and new editions. The most famous example is homosexuality. When the first DSM was created in 1952, homosexuality was declared a mental illness. By 1973, and after much heated debate and over objections from religious conservatives, the DSM-II excluded homosexuality as a disorder with the exception of one variant, and that was soon dropped in an interim revision.

Once deviant, now desirable

“Definitely a change in culture affects diagnoses,” Leiblum says. “We used to think oral-genital sex was deviant and we have embraced that. Masturbation was evidence of out-of-control behavior, now we see it as not only normative but to be encouraged.”

So if enough people start to do it, or are more public about doing it, does that mean it is no longer a disorder? “I think it probably affects the degree to which people are willing to look at scientific evidence,” Regier says.

This fuzziness is why, starting in the 1980s, the field moved toward adding the notion of “distress” to the DSM.

“We do not consider something a disorder unless there is a clearly defined description of this entity and there is clearly some significant dysfunction and distress associated with it,” explains Regier. “I would say also if there is no victim involved … this behavior is not imposing a person’s will on another person, that is a critical component when one looks at conditions in this area.”

If you aren’t distressed, and everyone is a consenting grown-up, then there probably isn’t a disorder. But things won’t be that simple for the creators of the new DSM.

“How do you make a criteria that does not pathologize low desire?” Leiblum asks rhetorically. You add the need to be distressed about it. “But then whose distress should be looked at?” she asks, referring to a sexual partner. “You can have hypertension and not feel any distress because there is objective criteria for what is high blood pressure. But there is none of that for sexual diagnoses, even premature ejaculation. What constitutes premature?”

(At a press conference Monday, the International Society of Sexual Medicine made a stab at a definition, saying premature ejaculation is "a male sexual dysfunction characterized by ejaculation which always or nearly always occurs prior to or within about one minute of vaginal penetration; and, inability to delay ejaculation on all or nearly all vaginal penetrations; and, negative personal consequences, such as distress, bother, frustration and/or the avoidance of sexual intimacy.”)

This problematic lack of clarity, Leiblum argues, is especially acute for the paraphilias. Does the criteria amount to “If it’s mine it’s OK, but if it’s yours it’s kinky? These issues need to be grappled with.”

A Bit of Fry & Laurie - What Psychiatrists Actually Do

A bit of a Satire on Psychiatrist as seen on You Tube:



As someone said, "Ok... for reals... this is what Therapists actually do."

Psychiatric Drugs are the New Opiate of the Masses.

We stumbled across an interesting post on the Intellectual Conservative political blog, entitled The Hard Truth about a Soft Science: Why Psychology Does More Harm Than Good, starting off with this sentence

If you convince people they’re not responsible for their actions, you’ve set the stage for great evil to occur, as they will be able to justify anything suiting their fancy.

It makes a number of interesting points. While we are not taking sides in terms of politics here, a lot of the observations are spot on, especially as they get to the conclusion of the article.

Yet the implications of this collective sense that we aren’t responsible for our actions and that they can’t be “wrong” anyway go far beyond the resulting social breakdown. They even go beyond the governmental response, which is to step in and control from without people who do not control themselves from within. For the truly scary implication under such a scenario is not just that people will not govern their impulses, but that they cannot do so.

After all, if we are merely organic robots, at the mercy of our genes (hardware), chemistry and upbringing (software), we have no free will. It then follows that we cannot choose among, well, call them what you will, God’s morals or man’s values, as we are directed by things beyond our control. This reduces us to animals. While Christianity teaches that the two things making us like God and separating us from the animal kingdom are intellect and free will – two qualities necessary to be fully human – this idea tells us that, bereft of the second quality, we are mere automatons.

Of course, if Freud et al. are correct, that is all we are, chemicals and water arranged in a most interesting fashion – with a good helping of illusion thrown in for good measure. Thus, insofar as psychology succeeds in convincing us that there is no accountability because there is no free will – no ability to choose sin because there is no sin, only disease – it dehumanizes us.

Perhaps this dehumanization is why psychiatry has quite a history of using humans as guinea pigs. There was Benjamin Rush (the father of American psychiatry) and his bloodletting; Nazi experiments; electric shock and lobotomies; our MK ULTRA mind-control program; and Canadian psychiatrist Heinz Lehmann, who illegally used Thorazine on subjects in the 1950s.

Etc.

Yet another in a number of articles showing the decline of psychiatry.

One last quote:

As to this, I recently read about psychiatrists who are labeling the desire to engage in excessive text messaging a mental disorder. Then there is “Muscle Dysmorphia,” or the obsessive belief that one isn’t muscular enough; “celebriphilia,” the strong desire for amorous relations with a celebrity; “Intermittent Explosive Disorder,” or road rage; “Sibling Rivalry Disorder;” “Mathematics Disorder;” “Caffeine Related Disorder;” and “Expressive Writing disorder,” to cite just a handful of the hundreds of made-up conditions in the DSM. And every time a new variety is conjured up, psychology’s market and earning potential increases. I have to wonder, though, what do they call the obsession with labeling behaviors mental disorders? Some might call it greed.

Yet, as ridiculous as this seems, it’s also very consistent and understandable. Whether a religionist or atheist, one can’t help but notice that these organic robots don’t operate the way most of us would like. The Christian explanation for this is that we’re all sinners, but this is religious terminology and quite inappropriate for a machine. So psychology says we’re all mentally ill; it’s just a malfunction in the CPU, you see. Then, because a machine cannot commit sins but can be “out of order,” it calls them disorders. Thus, a defiant child or employee isn’t ruled by pride but has “Oppositional Disorder,” a person with a lack of gratitude isn’t just that but one who suffers from “Chronic Complaint Disorder,” and a man who is shallow and vain isn’t just that but one plagued by “Muscle Dysmorphia.” So there is a limit to the number of disorders that can be “invented,” and it’s roughly equivalent to the numbers of ways in which people can sin.

This brings us to an irony. In a strange way, this “study of the soul” is aptly named, as in a great measure psychology has usurped the role of religion. It co-opts sins, renames them, and then takes credit for their discovery; you could call it spiritual plagiarism.

I also might say that mental health professionals have become the new priesthood. After all, whereas years ago people might have gone to a man of the cloth for guidance, now they are likely to lie on a therapist’s couch. The prescriptions they get are far different, too. A priest, minister or rabbi would usually render advice steeped in tradition and God-centered, but the psychologist is most likely to offer relativistic counsel, where the focus is on feelings and is thus self-centered.

And what happens when the matter of religion is raised? If you’re like many, including someone I know of, you may be told you’re taking your faith too seriously, that such devotion is akin to a mental illness. This isn’t surprising, I suppose. What future could a person have with an “illusion,” even the very attractive one that Freud seemed to believe was the opiate of the masses?

Yet, with over 20 million Americans, 40 percent of college students and 1 out of 9 schoolchildren on psychiatrist-prescribed psychoactive drugs, one is left to wonder what realm is truly most deserving of that title.

Ahhh yes, Psychiatric Drugs are the New Opiate of the Masses.

Drug Czar Plays Politics With Mental Illness, Suicide And Marijuana

Via Furious Seasons, a report from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. This comment at Furious Seasons hits the nail on the head:

Yes, pot makes people kill themselves. That's such a bizarre assertion that it's embarrassing--and, indeed, claiming pot causes anxiety and suicide while perfectly legal drugs such as Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and so on have been linked to suicidality and suicides and to cases of very extreme agitation is the very height of hypocrisy. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found that 8.1 percent of admissions to one hospital's psych unit in a 14-month period were due to "antidepressant-associated mania or psychosis." In fact, a Whether you like or hate pot, you ought to be against the feds making such hypocritical claims or you ought to be in favor of Walters warning parents of teens about the dangers of anti-depressant-caused psychosis. I simply don't know of any studies proving that pot causes suicide. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's highly unlikely that such a link is very strong.

Anti-depressants are much more of a suicide threat.

Meanness and Psychiatry

We came across this tidbit discussing the personality of psychiatrists in the WSJ Health Blog

Psychiatrists, well, they can be a little weird, as one of the shrinks on the lively blog Shrink Rap acknowledges in an intriguing post headlined “My Therapist is a Creep.” [...]

But there are some therapists whose strange qualities go beyond the pale. Dinah tells the story of a shrink she knows, whom she calls “Cruella” to protect the professionally odd. Cruella is smart and a competent prescriber of meds. But Dinah would never refer a patient to her.

How come? “Because she’s weird and not nice,” Dinah writes. She’s “weirder than any TV shrink I’ve seen, prone to outbursts, and doesn’t relate well to people.” Therapy with Cruella, Dinah learned through a friend, was “just as I’d imagined; she was weird, kind of nasty, and just the thought of talking to her about my deepest darkest or looking to her for comfort made me …well… shiver.”

The soft 'sciences' of psychiatry and psychology have a well earned reputation for being odd ducks. And it is a good thing that somebody is recognizing that there might be a problem here. Might

Yet here we have someone who probably went into the field in an attempt to fix the very problems they are attempting to fix in others. Someone who is probably, without too much effort, demonstratively harmful to others.

I am saddened that the field is unable to police themselves in matters of type. But I am no longer shocked.

Here we have a field whose primarily claim for existence is to help people, and they cannot face those who harm in their own midst beyond the comment of "they are an odd duck" and a sometimes repressed shudder.

Physicians, heal yourselves.

NIU Shooting Sharpens Debate Over Effects of Antidepressants

From the LA Times via the Lakeland Ledger

A young man reportedly taking the antidepressant Prozac has a history of significant psychiatric troubles, including self-cutting, obsessive thoughts and anxiety. But among the 27-year-old's current teachers and acquaintances, he has a reputation as a caring, dependable friend and a highly motivated student.

Surely, say mental health professionals, this recovery was brought about by Prozac.

The same young man, saying the drug makes him feel "like a zombie," abruptly discontinues his antidepressant and begins to behave erratically. Three weeks later, he steps from behind a curtain in a classroom at Northern Illinois University, his alma mater and begins shooting, killing five students and himself.

Just as surely, say critics of antidepressants' widespread use, this unraveling was brought about by Prozac.

Steven Kazmierczak's bolt-from-the-blue shooting rampage Feb. 14 reignited a long-running debate over the benefits and risks of antidepressants - taking them and discontinuing them.

"It's sad to watch this," says Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness and co-founder of a Web site, SSRIstories.com, that catalogs violent crimes like Kazmierczak's and links them to psychiatric drug use. "You find suicide, murder, rape, arson" - all caused by drugs such as Prozac, she says. "How did they convince us that this is therapeutic?"

Most in the psychiatric profession would counter that antidepressants overwhelmingly save lives, and salvage those hobbled by sadness and anxiety. They doubt that coming off these drugs - especially Prozac, which Kazmierczak was reported to have taken - led the Illinois man to kill.

[...]

Twenty years after Prozac appeared on the U.S. landscape, roughly 10 percent of American women and 4 percent of American men take an antidepressant regularly. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and their close cousins have revolutionized attitudes toward mental illness and its medication. But they remain a lightning rod for controversy.

The role that antidepressants played in Kazmierczak's violent end probably will never be clear. Did Prozac, which Kazmierczak's girlfriend, Jessica Baty, said he had recently discontinued, help keep the 27-year-old's mental illness in check and, when halted, allow it to roar back? Or did it distort his personality, contort his thoughts and, when abandoned, cause a chemical storm in Kazmierczak's brain that spawned a fury of aggression?

The weight of clinical observations and psychiatric research favors the view that antidepressants helped Kazmierczak until the time he abandoned them. But skeptics charge that antidepressants may have caused or contributed to Kazmierczak's spasm of violence. And mental health experts acknowledge they cannot rule out that possibility.

TV Shrink Dr, Phil pays bail for the ringleader of the 8 Florida teens arrested for beating another teenager and videotaping it

This sounds like "Doctor" Phil has gone and got himself involved in another sordid case for fun and profit.

A bondsman says TV's Dr. Phil has posted $30 thousand bond for the ringleader of the eight Lakeland teens accused of kidnapping and beating a girl in front of a video camera.

It's believed Mercades Nichols will be talking about the case on his nationally syndicated show soon.

Some parents had complained earlier this week that they could not afford the high bond set by the judge.

However, six of the eight were out of jail Saturday.

All eight teens face kidnapping and battery charges. Kidnapping carries a penalty of up to life in prison.

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Dr. Phil's show now admits that paying for Nichols bail was a mistake, stating that "certain staff members went beyond show guidelines." While it is not clear as to whether or not those staff members were disciplined, the statement says they've been spoken to.

We of course remember his statement regarding his interaction with Britney Spears

Growing Scandal - The Money Spent on Psych Drugs for Kids in New Jersey

As seen in this report from Pharmalot

New Jersey’s Medicaid program spent more than $73 million on antipsychotic medications for children less than 18 years old between 2000 and 2007, according to state records, even though the drugs weren’t approved by the FDA for treating kids. And a state official acknowledges the drugs may have been prescribed for conditions other than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the approved uses. As a result, a state legislator is calling for an investigation and is formulating legislation.

“There are horror stories about these meds and there’s a reason they’re not prescribed for kids,” says New Jersey assemblyman Pat Diegnan, who adds that he plans to draft a bill to change the practice and to hold talks with the New Jersey attorney general’s office, which recently formed a task force to examine interactions between pharma and docs. “The entire issue is frightening and the state should be taking a closer look at this. I’m concerned about the casual prescribing by doctors and the enormous amount of money being spent.”

The disclosure comes amid growing debate over antipsychotics. At issue are fears that children are misdiagnosed; drugs are inadequately studied; some docs presribe the pills too readily, and drugmakers promote the meds improperly. As reported previously, a growing number of states are suing various drugmakers over marketing that led Medicaid programs to pay unnecessarily for the meds.

Florida, for instance, is reviewing whether antipsychotics were prescribed improperly for ADHD. “There are no studies that have shown they (atypicals) are safe, or for that matter, that they are effective for children,” Ronald Brown, a Temple University pediatric psychology professor who headed an American Psychological Association committee that examined the issue, told The St. Petersburg Times last year. “The bottom line is that the use of psychiatric medications far exceeds the evidence of safety and effectiveness.”

---

Money Spent on Psych Drugs for Kids in New Jersey

---

Product	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Abilify	$0	$0	$0	$309,257	$1,420,414	$3,081,174	$4,984,463	$6,115,322
Geodon	$0	$41,565	$129,088	$212,560	$295,085	$390,794	$437,207	$397,331
Haldol	$6,655	$8,558	$13,311	$18,172	$17,206	$13,764	$8,113	$9,448
Risperdal	$1,954,461	$3,259,323	$4,022,473	$4,885,024	$4,986,423	$5,419,384	$5,797,825	$5,522,290
Seroquel	$150,717	$422,674	$905,333	$1,556,533	$1,882,016	$2,375,059	$2,732,248	$3,011,707
Thorazine	$36,905	$41,403	$36,226	$26,881	$14,458	$14,027	$15,009	$18,100
Zyprexa	$751,867	$1,270,683	$1,504,897	$1,719,372	$1,594,270	$1,282,623	$1,271,629	$1,107,777