What are your views on psychiatry?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Personally, I think psychiatry will fade out in favor of neurology.

Neurology is more scientific and gets more predictable results.

Psychiatry is at best in cope.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Claire Swazey]

Conversely, I've seen and heard of some very bad things (shit) with scientology.

I've not claimed or implied the opposite.

I was responding to Commander Birdsong.

 

[programmer_guy]

Personally, I think psychiatry will fade out in favor of neurology.

Neurology is more scientific and gets more predictable results.

Psychiatry is at best in cope.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I think that psychiatry will eventually join with (or eventually use) neurological research advancements.
This would be similar to medical practice finally adopting and advancing Surgery (as in "War zone field surgery" of long ago).

 

[Helena Handbasket]

As a bipolar person who has been treated for severe depression I'll give you a perspective I have which most people never consider.

Extended depression is completely debilitating. Often a person reaches a point where absolutely anything requires too much effort, suicide included. I see one reason that administering anti-depressants can result in a suicide even though the patient is seen to be "recovering" as a result of treatment is precisely because they are working. They can raise a person's ability to function sufficiently that, if they had been seriously contemplating suicide before, they now find themselves capable of carrying out such actions where they had not felt capable of doing so before. This is particularly an attractive option where a person has a reasonable expectation of continuing in a cycle of successive depressions of varying severity throughout the rest of one's life.

The fault then would lie not in their purported causing of "suicidal thoughts" so much as in raising the ability of the person to function sufficiently to act out on an impulse.


Mark A. Baker

The above is absolutely true.

Helena

 

[Adam7986]

Psychotherapy and neurology are two sides of the same coin. Whereas neurology deals with the physical brain matter, psychotherapy deals with the cognitive processing part of the brain. I really don't see one being replaced by the other. Both lead to a greater understanding of each other.

 

[Lurker5]

If you are against psychiatry because of bad psychiatrists then you should also be against school because of bad teachers or against medicine because of bad doctors.

There are a lot of horror stories out there about bad medical treatment, but people still go to doctors when they need help.

I don't know why psychiatry is suddenly set aside from every other profession where mistakes are made? Hell yeah there are horror stories in psychiatry, just like there are horror stories about everything else in life.

And if against psychiatry because of a few bad psychiatrists, what about being against scno/co$ - for all the bad that has dished out to folks. IMHO, no contest who rises above the shit, psychiatry, good and bad, as one can walk away, anytime, no questions asked, and what wallows in it, dishes it out regularly, just to suck the next buck out of parishioners (ha ha - more like pychological abuse victims) - the co$/scno.

Oh the irony . . .

 

[Claire Swazey]

If you are against psychiatry because of bad psychiatrists then you should also be against school because of bad teachers or against medicine because of bad doctors.

There are a lot of horror stories out there about bad medical treatment, but people still go to doctors when they need help.

I don't know why psychiatry is suddenly set aside from every other profession where mistakes are made? Hell yeah there are horror stories in psychiatry, just like there are horror stories about everything else in life.

Others may have different opinions, of course, but I personally am not "against psychiatry". As I said, they've helped more people than they've harmed. But there is a metric fuckton of guesswork in it, it doesn't always work out. This I know because my family lived it. But, again, overall, I am totally in favor of the existence and practice of psychiatry and its related mental health fields and I think that if Jeremy Perkins had been put on medication, it is likely that a hideous tragedy would have been averted.

 

[uniquemand]

I'm not against psychiatry, either. I wish it existed.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

I'm not against psychiatry, either. I wish it existed.

It does! - What do you mean? - Existed? - Like Hubbardian non-exsistence? - WTF!!???

Psychiatry exists.. A gawdawful lot of people all over the world are working to figure this shit (Human mentality, or brain) out. Some of it has been figured out. A lot has not..

Scientology could have been a part of the effort if there was any truth in it, but it was/is simply a kind of troll making noise. It needs to be stomped out.

 

[uniquemand]

It does! - What do you mean? - Existed? - Like Hubbardian non-exsistence? - WTF!!???

Psychiatry exists.. A gawdawful lot of people all over the world are working to figure this shit (Human mentality, or brain) out. Some of it has been figured out. A lot has not..

Scientology could have been a part of the effort if there was any truth in it, but it was/is simply a kind of troll making noise. It needs to be stomped out.

I agree with you about Scientology.

Nope, Psychiatry doesn't exist, except in the sense that anti-gravity specialists exist.

When you don't know what a mind IS, and you don't know how it comes into being, and you don't know what it can and cannot do... well, you've got a program of study, but not a profession.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Nope, Psychiatry doesn't exist, except in the sense that anti-gravity specialists exist.

When you don't know what a mind IS, and you don't know how it comes into being, and you don't know what it can and cannot do... well, you've got a program of study, but not a profession.

Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. It includes both research and the application of research in a clinical scenario.

You acknowledge the research part exists. Research yields data such as this:

For symptoms x, y and z, treatment alpha yields an improvement in 50% of cases while treatment beta yields an improvement in 30% of cases but in 60% of cases that don't respond to treatment alpha.
For symptoms x, y but not z, treatment gamma yields an improvement in 60% of cases.
...

The practice of medicine is to identify the symptoms and exclusions and plan the most appropriate treatment based on the current data.

Psychiatry is sketchier only in that the symptoms are harder to conclusively identify (though this is where neuroscience is increasingly contributing) as are the criteria for improvement. It is also less mature for these reasons but is more mature than it was.

What exactly doesn't exist?

 

[Adam7986]

There is quite a bit of science behind the operative methods of Psychiatry. There are quite a few people here who are speaking as if psychiatry does not have a definite body of scientific research behind it, or as if it is still purely theoretical. I hate to tell you that its not 1865 anymore (which is what CCHR likes to pretend) and back then the methods of medicine were just as brutal as the methods of psychiatry.

Some of you might want to actually go out into the world of the internets and read some of the research on medication. Lots of people like to do the armchair scientist thing and say, "well whatever those medications aren't even proven to work or anything and they make people crazy."

The only reason that people thing meds make people crazy is because crazy people are on meds. It's confusion of causation and correlation. Just because A and B happened doesn't mean that one caused the other.

I spent quite a bit of time researching the chemical activity of psychoactive pharmaceuticals and talk therapy before decided to embark on a treatment plan of both. There are situations which call for purely medicated treatments and purely talk therapy, but I felt, and my doctors have both agreed, that my situation was best served by both.

I find that as I proceed with my treatment I am changing as a person. It's difficult for me to imagine, when my native personality does finally emerge, how my friends might perceive me. They have gotten used to me being a certain way, but I might not be the same anymore. I can see why someone, especially a family member, might be apprehensive to such changes. But even if you don't like the changes, what's more important is how the person who is changing feels about them.

So far I have noticed that I am more assertive and less passive when it comes to situations which involve me speaking up about what I would prefer or situations which make me uncomfortable. That could become an issue for people who have gotten used to my passive nature, however some people might appreciate that I am speaking up for myself more frequently now.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I've seen and heard of some very bad shit with psychiatry. But I think it's also helped a lot of people. It varies widely.

if a man is lying face down in a mud puddle, metaphorically speaking, psychiatry will at best get him to roll over and lie face up. it is more likely to either work on having become "adjusted" to lying face down or drug and/or butcher him so that he doesn't know or care that he is lying face down in a mud puddle


and those who are not lying in mud puddles need treatment for suffering from the obvious delusion that one need not lie in mud puddles because man is mud

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Conversely, I've seen and heard of some very bad things (shit) with scientology. Has it helped anybody........really beyond the Hub hype? I do like that a conversation exists on behavioral and medical science plane vs. the whole religion and church scam.

yes it has helped many

some of the shit you have heard is untrue. much of the shit about scientology you have heard that is true is the result of bad application of tech and policy and some of the shit came straight from elron's lower alimentary orifice

but...

intelligent study of the subject can be of great value

unfortunately CoS forbids the intelligent study of the subject

 

[SpecialFrog]

if a man is lying face down in a mud puddle, metaphorically speaking, psychiatry will at best get him to roll over and lie face up. it is more likely to either work on having become "adjusted" to lying face down or drug and/or butcher him so that he doesn't know or care that he is lying face down in a mud puddle
and those who are not lying in mud puddles need treatment for suffering from the obvious delusion that one need not lie in mud puddles because man is mud

much of the shit about scientology you have heard that is true is the result of bad application of tech and policy and some of the shit came straight from elron's lower alimentary orifice
but...
intelligent study of the subject can be of great value

Here is an essential difference between psychiatry and Scientology.

In psychiatry, bad results are evidence that informs future decisions on appropriate treatment.

In Scientology. bad results mean you aren't doing it right and you need to start doing it right, e.g. "bad application of tech and policy", ...

No matter how bad psychiatry is, this approach means that it will surpass Scientology as a therapeutic methodology. Realistically, it was probably never behind Scientology.

Sorry you had bad experiences with it. Unfortunately, your experiences don't make your position right.

 

[uniquemand]

There is quite a bit of science behind the operative methods of Psychiatry. There are quite a few people here who are speaking as if psychiatry does not have a definite body of scientific research behind it, or as if it is still purely theoretical. I hate to tell you that its not 1865 anymore (which is what CCHR likes to pretend) and back then the methods of medicine were just as brutal as the methods of psychiatry.

Some of you might want to actually go out into the world of the internets and read some of the research on medication. Lots of people like to do the armchair scientist thing and say, "well whatever those medications aren't even proven to work or anything and they make people crazy."

The only reason that people thing meds make people crazy is because crazy people are on meds. It's confusion of causation and correlation. Just because A and B happened doesn't mean that one caused the other.

I spent quite a bit of time researching the chemical activity of psychoactive pharmaceuticals and talk therapy before decided to embark on a treatment plan of both. There are situations which call for purely medicated treatments and purely talk therapy, but I felt, and my doctors have both agreed, that my situation was best served by both.

I find that as I proceed with my treatment I am changing as a person. It's difficult for me to imagine, when my native personality does finally emerge, how my friends might perceive me. They have gotten used to me being a certain way, but I might not be the same anymore. I can see why someone, especially a family member, might be apprehensive to such changes. But even if you don't like the changes, what's more important is how the person who is changing feels about them.

So far I have noticed that I am more assertive and less passive when it comes to situations which involve me speaking up about what I would prefer or situations which make me uncomfortable. That could become an issue for people who have gotten used to my passive nature, however some people might appreciate that I am speaking up for myself more frequently now.

I have no doubt you're experiencing changes. Mind-altering substances alter the mind. This is not a new concept. I have no problem with people using chemicals to alter their consciousness, but I have a pretty big problem with people claiming that they understand how these changes are achieved when they do not. My ideas are not from the 1860s (though there were some beauties, then), they are quite current.

[video]http://depressionandmentalhealth.certifiedblogs.com/2011/09/23/dsm-5-critical-review-part-1/[/video]

I believe psychiatry and it's practice are logically flawed. Therefore, it's application is more like alchemy (when it's done by good people with good motives) or being a street vendor (when done without real interviews, including psychotherapy and assessments, etc.). I don't have a problem with people studying the area, but until some basics are better understood (or understood at all), it certainly isn't MEDICINE. Unless you mean in the leeches and bloodletting stages of medicine.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Here is an essential difference between psychiatry and Scientology.

In psychiatry, bad results are evidence that informs future decisions on appropriate treatment.

In Scientology. bad results mean you aren't doing it right and you need to start doing it right, e.g. "bad application of tech and policy", ...

No matter how bad psychiatry is, this approach means that it will surpass Scientology as a therapeutic methodology. Realistically, it was probably never behind Scientology.

Sorry you had bad experiences with it. Unfortunately, your experiences don't make your position right.

not only did i have bad experiences with psychiatry it is probable part of the reason for it is i was being fair gamed by CoS

and in your response you have transposed my statement into CoS koolaid

in 1950 the common practivce of inserting a medical instrument closely resembling "a dime store ice pick" through the occipital bone and wiggling it back and forth was far behind dianetics. today ECT and prozac continue to be far behind dianetics

as does CoS who is often on a par with orwell's big brother

 

[Claire Swazey]

There is quite a bit of science behind the operative methods of Psychiatry. There are quite a few people here who are speaking as if psychiatry does not have a definite body of scientific research behind it, or as if it is still purely theoretical. I hate to tell you that its not 1865 anymore (which is what CCHR likes to pretend) and back then the methods of medicine were just as brutal as the methods of psychiatry.

Some of you might want to actually go out into the world of the internets and read some of the research on medication. Lots of people like to do the armchair scientist thing and say, "well whatever those medications aren't even proven to work or anything and they make people crazy."

The only reason that people thing meds make people crazy is because crazy people are on meds. It's confusion of causation and correlation. Just because A and B happened doesn't mean that one caused the other.

I spent quite a bit of time researching the chemical activity of psychoactive pharmaceuticals and talk therapy before decided to embark on a treatment plan of both. There are situations which call for purely medicated treatments and purely talk therapy, but I felt, and my doctors have both agreed, that my situation was best served by both.

I find that as I proceed with my treatment I am changing as a person. It's difficult for me to imagine, when my native personality does finally emerge, how my friends might perceive me. They have gotten used to me being a certain way, but I might not be the same anymore. I can see why someone, especially a family member, might be apprehensive to such changes. But even if you don't like the changes, what's more important is how the person who is changing feels about them.

So far I have noticed that I am more assertive and less passive when it comes to situations which involve me speaking up about what I would prefer or situations which make me uncomfortable. That could become an issue for people who have gotten used to my passive nature, however some people might appreciate that I am speaking up for myself more frequently now.

Adam,

I do a lot of reading and study. My family suffered greatly from the guesswork and problems endemic in psychiatry. You don't know us. That being said, I still believe that it does more good than harm and that it's improved greatly. But I do not think the guesswork's gone out of it, simply because science does not know all about the brain OR the mind or some other things.

This is not a defense of scientology or a proposition that Scn is a certain way. That appears to be something that a couple may have read into my posts from the other day, but if so, that's a false perception.

Personally, when friends and acquaintances of mine say they are receiving or planning to receive psychology based treatment (whether it be therapy or a transition into psychiatric medicine) I have always encouraged them. That being said, I stand by what I've said in the preceding paragraphs and in other posts on this hread.

 

[FlunkYou]

I tried to change the title right after I wrote the thread, but I am obviously too stupid to figure out how....oh well.

My main question was about psych drugs, and how scientologist always blame the psychs and the drugs these nuts where taking. I see it as a double edged sword. Obviously these mass killers are messed up in the head to do what they do, but what responsibility do the drugs really hold in their cases? If they weren't on medication (like in the Jeremy Perkins' case) he should have been, right?

I spent over $100k on SCN trying to handle a mental issue. This was known by all the regs and field auditors involved with me and my situation. Unfortunately, I only got worse from the auditing. My last resort after years and years of auditing, vitamins, nutritionists etc, was to get on meds.

I'm 70% back to what I was pre condition, and that is strictly due to the med I take. I did talk to a psychologist a couple of times, but by then I had spent so much time in session looking inward, I couldn't do it anymore. I didn't see daddy rape, beat or abuse mommy...i don't have any major issues like that in my life.

Point being, I understand meds are tricky..we all have a different molecular mockups...our bodies assimilate things differently, but how much blame can you really place on the medications vs the fact that these people are just fuct up in the head, and no amount of chemicals (short of knocking the person out) would help?

 

[ClearedSP]

I don't have a problem with people studying the area, but until some basics are better understood (or understood at all), it certainly isn't MEDICINE. Unless you mean in the leeches and bloodletting stages of medicine.

Many discoveries are made in all different areas of science, which cannot be fully explained at the time of discovery. For example, there are many non-psychiatric meds which are used because they work, but with little or no understanding of exactly why/how they work. Eventually we figure it out... like with aspirin. It started off as an herbalist's drug for pain and fever, using willow leaves and bark. In the 1800s, the responsible chemical was isolated, but nobody could figure out why it worked (cyclooxygenase inhibition) until the 1970s. During the centuries where we knew it worked, but not why/how, it probably saved millions of lives. Ethically, does one have much choice? Save the patient with a poorly understood drug, or just let them die?

Does that make modern doctors bloodletters?