Scientology vs. Psychiatry

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Wow, that's ignorant. I know three psychiatrists on a personal level, and all of them became psychiatrists because they were fascinated with the mind-body connection, and wanted to help people who had a screw loose function better.
 

owl

Patron with Honors
Wow, that's ignorant. I know three psychiatrists on a personal level, and all of them became psychiatrists because they were fascinated with the mind-body connection, and wanted to help people who had a screw loose function better.

uh did you mean this reply for me?
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I believe you were one of the people advocating a position that people who become psychiatrists do so because they want to be in a position where they can hurt people. That might be true for some small percentage of them, but the ones I know did it out of intellectual interest and a drive to help.
 

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
...The idea that a given doctor performs electroconvulsive therapy...
...Seriously. Think of an individual doctor...

...symptom of conspiratorial and delusional thinking commonly associated with Scientology indoctrination...
a) I was not speaking about "individual" doctors, I should have made that clearer in my post, I assure you I was speaking of the industry as a whole. And yes, I do think the psych industry as a whole would not outlaw it, because it would make their past actions look bad. Yes, I absolutely think that. Absolutely, yes, I think that is an absolute fact.

b) I was ridiculing psychs and their patients long before I was introduced to scientology. And people worldwide ridicule the same way, for the same reasons, with no scientology indoctrination, so enough again with that argument. Please, you must know people ridicule them for this reason, so please, assuming you are arguing in good faith, stop with the argument that this was scientology induced. Please stop it Kha Khan.

I think OSA would hate it if the psychs outlawed brain frying and lobotomies. I think the CCHR, would hate it too, because it would mean the psychs were cleaning up their act.

I can understand you saying; to make a blanket statement that it is nothing more than "frying brains" and simply "indefensible," without evidence, is not only wrong, but ignorant.

But I can understand mine to; Brain frying and lobotomies are probably 1/10 of 1% of their "services", but 99.9% of their negative stigma.
 
Last edited:

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
um no i believe he performs ECT on a patient because he enjoys being in a position to do something like that to another person. thats why so many f*cked up people choose to become psychiatrists, because they like the idea of putting people on drugs, giving them ECT and lobotomies.
And the evidence for this is?


And when, for example, a "large multicentre clinical follow-up study of ECT patients in New York ... found remission rates of only 30-47 percent," meaning 53% to 70 of the patients had a long term benefit, this evidence should be disregarded because... you don't like it? It doesn't fit your preconceived and fixed ideas? Anything that contradicts your preconceived and fixed ideas is obviously, and irrefutably, the result of a psych conspiracy?
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
a) I was not speaking about "individual" doctors, I should have made that clearer in my post, I assure you I was speaking of the industry as a whole. And yes, I do think the industry as a whole would not outlaw it, because it would make their past actions look bad. Yes, I absolutely think that. Absolutely, yest, I think that is an absolute fact.
Not good enough.

Even if the psych industry does not outlaw electoconvulsive therapy, any given electoconvulsive therapy treatment is performed by an individual doctor. (Just because it is not outlawed, he is not required to do it.)

So tell me, do you think that an individual medical doctor has performed electoconvulsive therapy in order to ensure that his past actions, or the past actions of fellow psychiatrists, didn't look bad?

Does it really make sense that he would expose himself, personally, to civil liability for negligence in case anything went wrong, or even if nothing went wrong but for conducting an allegedly unnecessary and useless treatment, in order to ensure that his past actions, or the past actions of fellow psychiatrists, didn't look bad?

If so, could you please name the doctor. You know, as evidence. An example. Of course, he might sue you for defamation.

And if you do name one doctor, do you really believe that all indivdiual doctors who perform electoconvulsive therapy do it for that reason?

b) I was ridiculing psychs and their patients long before I was introduced to scientology. And people worldwide ridicule the same way, for the same reasons, with no scientology indoctrination, so enough again with that argument. Please, you must know people ridicule them for this reason, so please stop with that argument.
Your absolutely right. I've known a number of people who've never studied Scientology who engage in completely circular, delusional conspiracy theories for which they can cite absolutely no evidence. I stand corrected.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Your absolutely right. I've known a number of people who've never studied Scientology who engage in completely circular, delusional conspiracy theories for which they can cite absolutely no evidence. I stand corrected.

You're absolutely right. Scientology is *always* worse than you think. No matter how bad you think it is.

It's a recursive phenomenon.

Zinj
 

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
...Just because it is not outlawed, he is not required to do it....
But because it is allowed by the industry -- everybody in the industry -- including all the doctors -- and all the patients -- suffer from the ridiculing stigma -- for as long as these practices continue. Don't you see that?

As I have said before, (I realize without scientific numbers); brain-frying and lobotomies are probably 1/10 of 1% of psych "services", but 99.9% of their negative stigma. Given the perceived low number, I don't care about evidence. And CCHR doesn't care either, they just want the psychs to continue unsavory practices, so CCHR will have more substance to bitch about, and they would be right. The psychs are shooting themselves in the foot over this.

So if the psych profession won't stop it for scientific reasons, then at least stop it because it f***s up the reputation of the psych industry -- and embarrasses everybody who uses their services. You may think the world is irrational over this, I don't agree with you, but you may think so. But I think could both agree that it's an extremely low number, so the psych industry should stop.

And I have also said the the CoS, CCHR, OSA would hate it if the psych industry ended this practice. And I'm pretty sure they've made an attempt to distort this discussion.

And would you please stop talking about individual psychs, because I am NOT talking about individuals, I'm talking about the industry as a whole, outlawing these practices.

As I have said, I would rather be dead than visit a psych, under today's conditions.
 
Last edited:

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
As I have said before, (I realize without scientific numbers); brain-frying and lobotomies are probably 1/10 of 1% of psych "services", but 99.9% of their negative stigma. Given the perceived low number, I don't care about evidence. And CCHR doesn't care either, they just want the psychs to continue unsavory practices, so CCHR will have more substance to bitch about. The psychs are shooting themselves in the foot over this.

So if the psych profession won't stop it for scientific reasons, then at least stop it because it f***s up the reputation of the psych industry.
Do you think it is possible that: (a) psychiatrists, being pretty sharp people, are aware the electroconvulsive therapy is bad PR; but (b) don't abandon it in the 1/10 of 1% of the services they perform because, consistent with the evidence I cited above, they honestly believe that for that small percentage of patients it is the best, if not only, hope?

Seriously, psychiatrists (who are by definition medical doctors) are not stupid. They know it is bad PR. Why would they continue to perform electroconvulsive therapy in the 1/10 of 1% of cases unless they honestly believed it was necessary or the best treatment available for a very hard case? Because you are more knowledgeable about the PR and business implications than they are? Really?

Oh, and btw, you didn't answer the critical question. You want to outlaw electroconvulsive therapy? Fine. Then please tell me how you would treat the patient who suffers from "severe major depression with psychotic features, manic delirium, or catatonia," who "has not responded to other interventions," and who has demonstrated "a lack of a response to, or intolerance of, antidepressant medications?" What is your treatment?
 

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
a) ...[Psychs] know [shock treatment and lobotomies are] bad PR. Why would they continue to perform electroconvulsive therapy in the 1/10 of 1% of cases...

b) ...please tell me how you would treat the patient who suffers from "severe major depression with psychotic features, manic delirium, or catatonia," who "has not responded to other interventions," and who has demonstrated "a lack of a response to, or intolerance of, antidepressant medications?" What is your treatment?
a) Now that's the best question I've heard all day Kha Khan, I'm glad I stayed up so late. As you pointed out, psychs really can't be stupid -- but my experience is that even the smartest people in the world will fall for "third partying", and nobody is better at deceptive third partying than scientology. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the CoS, CCHR, OSA is "third partying" so that the psychs will continue the practice of shock treatment and lobotomies. They're doing exactly what scientology wants. That way the scilons will have "substance" to bitch about, and they'd be right. How can a large percentage of people not get worked up about it, even without third partying by the scilons. The psychs are shooting themselves in the foot. And every time they defend this despicable practice they make themselves look that much worse, to a large percentage of people, even if they haven't heard of scientology's third partying. That's my story and I'm SERIOUS about it. Scientology is really friging good at third partying. And I'll go you one step further, some of the 1/10th of 1% of the nuts who get turbo-zapped are pay-backs by OSA, and when the psychs throw the zapper switch, they're doing the dirty work for OSA, which increases the "stats" of somebody at OSA by the way. And I wouldn't be surprised if an occasional Dr. Zapper were accepting some money from OSA, he may not know it's from them, but he pockets the cash and doesn't ask any questions. I'm not saying everybody they zap is an OSA payback, but a percentage. If you don't believe me, check the backgrounds of these nuts being zapped. And the irony, if I'm right about this, is OSA provides the psychs with the nuts to zap, then bitches about the psychs for zapping the nuts. And some OSA thug gets a kick out of how naive the psychs are for doing exactly what scientology wants them to do. I think it's kind of sick, but I've been around the block. And I absolutely assure you, that OSA excels in getting other people to do their dirty work for them, while they sit back and watch. And they keep stirring the pot as necessary. Still don't believe me? Search YouTube and Google former GO/OSA ops Patty Pieniadz and Frank Oliver, and harassee Bob Minton. These are some wild stories, which describes how sophisticated and covert OSA is. Shock treatment and lobotomies must completely stop, 100%.

b) First of all, I don't believe in your premise, that it's a last resort. But that said, how would I treat these people that are presently being turbo-zapped? I don't know, but neither do the scilons. However, permanently and physically screwing up the brains up nut cases, hosing the entire reputation of an entire industry, and all their patients does NOT seem like a viable alternative, in order to benefit 1/10th of 1%.
 
Last edited:
CornPie,
To me shock treatment is repusive. I don't like it. It goes against my nature. But I'm not only not an expert, I have no experience in dealing with it. I think what you are missing here is that there is a profession, which, being a social science, is more art than science, but nevertheless has a paradigm of scientifically acquired data--not just statistics--but experience and research which they draw upon. You and I do not. You may just as well argue what a jet airliner pilots should do in an emergency.
Medical science advances, sometimes it stagnates, then other breakthroughs happen. This is progress. It is not a street gang. It is a whole range of groups of professionals and individuals. Your response is more emotive than logical.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
To me shock treatment is repulsive. I don't like it. It goes against my nature. But I'm not only not an expert, I have no experience in dealing with it.
When the psych industry allows shock treatment and lobotomies on the extreme minority of their patients, they ruin the reputation of their own profession, their entire industry, and they subject the 99.9% of their patients who are not subject to it, to the ridicule of everyone. Not everybody will ridicule them, but a majority will, maybe only behind their backs, because they just didn't know if they were shocked or not. And even those bystanders who say they don't care, well you have to know, a lot of them are looking at them differently from then on, and many wouldn't go to a psych in their lifetime, because there's a sleazy stigma that goes along with an industry that allows shock treatment. And none of this would be occurring if they just didn't engage in these shock treatment and lobotomies. And this is all done for the 1/10th of 1%. Can we agree on that?
 
Last edited:
One thing's for sure, when psychs do shock treatment and lobotomies the extreme minority of patients, they ruin the reputation of their own profession, their entire industry, and they subject the 99.9% of their patients who are not subject to it, to ridicule of others. Not everybody will ridicule them, just the majority. Can we agree on that?

I don't know why people have the bad impression of the profession that seems to be evident. I would think it is the fact that it seems many people are freaking out and they can't seem to do anything about it. The profession as a whole is losing its status because it simply can't get the results that the public demands of it. Just as psychiatry came into existence and was accepted by the public because they could answer questions which other professions could not answer, they are now struggling becasue they are not able to handle the apparent declining mental health of citizens.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
...I don't know why people have the bad impression of the profession...
But the fact is most people do have a bad impression of the psych industry. Regardless of whether we like it, people associate a stigma with the industry, their patients, forever branded as having been potentially zapped or lobotomized. And all the industry has to do is outlaw the practice, and people won't be ashamed to use their services. And those practices were only used in 1/10th of 1% of the cases anyway. And until the industry does outlaw it, people will get the weebie-jeebies every time they walk past a psych office.
 
Last edited:
But the fact is most people do have a bad impression of the psych industry. Regardless of whether we like it, people associate a stigma with the industry, their patients, forever branded as nuts. And I contend it's because of the shock treatment and lobotomies. And all the industry has to do is outlaw the practice, and people won't be ashamed to use their services. And those practices were only used in 1/10th of 1% of the cases anyway. And until the industry does outlaw it, people will get the weebie-jeebies every time they walk past a psych office.

I don't think the problem is shock treatment. I think more people are concerned about the shootings and murders from mentally deranged people than they are about shcok treatment. It seems to me that there is an anxiety about the inadequate level of mental health in society, real or imagined. I don't think that shock treatment is a factor. It may have been decades ago when the stereotype of a psychiatrist was a Viennese with a pointed beard who shocked people, but that is not the image today. The image today of a psychiatrist is a cross between Dr. Phil and a pharmicist.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
Did you know that in cases of extreme severe infant epilepsy, you can remove half of the brain entirely and it actually rewires itself so there's not any mental defects or damage? It's only done in a life or death kind of situation, but I always thought that was cool. The brain is a lot more resilient than people give it credit for.

That aside, electroconvulsive therapies and lobotomies are last ditch efforts to help people and it's not like they ambush people, strap them to chairs, and do it without their consent. You might not like the practice, but it works and if people who are at the end of their options choose this rather than more suffering or death due to their condition, I say that's absolutely their right to do so.
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
Has there ever been evidence of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and such problems observed in the animal world, including apes, our closest relatives ?

What methods worked for these animals ? With animal studies, you can pretty much rule out the placebo effect, which makes the results more reliable.

(I know, you have a crazy cat, but I'm talking about a properly diagnosed case of an animal with a mental disease)
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
Has there ever been evidence of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and such problems observed in the animal world, including apes, our closest relatives ?

What methods worked for these animals ? With animal studies, you can pretty much rule out the placebo effect, which makes the results more reliable.

(I know, you have a crazy cat, but I'm talking about a properly diagnosed case of an animal with a mental disease)

Absolutely. In fact, they've induced schizophrenia in animals like mice to help model the disease to better understand what causes it and how to treat it. It looks like most of the treatment is pharmacological for animals, probably to help understand how better and safer medications can improve mental illnesses, but there certainly are case studies of other treatments. Displayed mental illness models in animals, especially lab animals, is extremely important to help understand a disease and find a way to treat it. Animals are no different than people in that they can suffer a wide range of mental illnesses from anxiety and depression to schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder. In fact, many animals that are quite intelligent, such as parrots, can go insane if kept as pets and not given daily attention and mental stimulation. :(

Schizophrenic animal studies
Bipolar animal studies
Bipolar animals on PubMed
Electroconvulsive therapy on depressed rats
 

outtech

Patron with Honors
As far as medical procedures go, ECT has to be one of the least traumatic. Patients are given a general anesethic so they are unconscious throughout the procedure, with the entire procedure (start to recovery) taking around 10-15 minutes. One of the common adverse symptoms post-procedure can be headaches, but that generally depends on how good the anesthetist is. Although, I have seen some temporary short-term memory loss in patients undergoing prolonged courses of ECT.

It can be a very effective in patients who suffer acute depressive disorders and who do not respond to anti-depressants or other therapies. The most dramatic example I remember was of a woman who when hospitalised with severe depression, had stopped eating, was bed-bound, emaciated, covered in feces and had pretty much just curled up to die. After a course of ECT she stabilised, started talking, walking, caring for herself and interacting.

ECT is not a magic pill, can have variable results and adverse side effects, but it is not the barbaric circa 1900 treatment sensationalized by the CoS. It is an effective treatment used mostly on voluntary short-stay patients when other treatments have been ineffective. And in the rare case where it has been used on involuntary patients the patient has to be deemed a high risk of self-harm, unresponsive to other treatments and undergone stringent medical and legal reviews.

What pisses me off about the CoS’s scare mongering, militant ‘anti-psych’ agenda and aggressive pushing of Hubbard’s widely debunked quackery as a replacement, is that they stigmatise mental illness and invalidate the genuine advocates against abuse/ poor practice/ over-prescription within psychiatry, as they get associated with the CCHR extremists. It also may discourage ex-Scientologists who would benefit from psychological counseling from seeking assistance.
 
Top