Psychiatric Fascism

Tasneem Project · 08-10-2003, 12:22 PM

The USA government are unique in the world in having a psychiatric system that is an arm of government control.

In the USA, you don't have to be a criminal or a terrorist to be locked away. No, thanks to a policy instigated by President JFK, someone who is simply a social nuisance can be dragged from the streets, imprisoned, drugged - on the basis that this person is said to be mentally ill.

Ronald Laing, a long-time critic of the USA psychiatric system, commented on the definition of mental illness by the American Psychaitric Association (APA) as 'fitting just about most people walking down the street'. Year on year, the APA revises its diagnostic criteria to include even more labels which can be used to justify imprisoning people against their will without trial.

Have you ever been a victim of the mental health services in the USA or elsewhere. Have you read the works of Thomas Szasz?

All polite replies welcomed!

Whit · 08-10-2003, 12:43 PM

     Here is my polite reply:

Quote:

The USA government are unique in the world in having a psychiatric system that is an arm of government control.

     Please back this statement up by showing the direct connection between the US Goverment and the psychiatric system or this entire thread is nothing more than you attacking the US with what appears to be a blatant lie. I await you response.
     Thank you.

Tasneem Project · 08-10-2003, 12:47 PM

Sorry, I might be a little confused here, but who pays for the psychaitric services in the USA? And who pays for the rest of the health service? I mean, do you need medical insurance before they lock you up?

xoxoxoBruce · 08-10-2003, 12:58 PM

Quite the contrary, dude. The mental institutions have been closing in droves. Now these wackos are homeless on the streets.
They're sooo much better off. You don't have a clue, do you.

Whit · 08-10-2003, 12:59 PM

     LOL, you are more than a little confused on this subject. Beginning with the idea that people get pulled off the street and sent to an institution. I've lived here all my life and the only person I know that was ever sent off was a neighbor lady that frequently had conversations with people that were not there (well, I guess they were for her...) and I, with no connection other than that of passerby had to stop from hurting herself on more than one occasion. Also, she was not taken away by the goverment, her family brought her in for treatment. Oh, and they paid for it, the family I mean.
As far as the specifics of cash go, Wolf? This is your department.
     So, Tasneem why do you hate the US so much? I'm really curious, this is a pretty wild accusation. And only one of a string of assaults coming from you on this site. What's with all the hate?

Tasneem Project · 08-10-2003, 01:01 PM

Of course. I suppose Bush must be slashing the psychiatric services' budget to pay for his new bombs!

Whit · 08-10-2003, 01:19 PM

     I doubt it Tasneem, he's to busy trying to figure out how to piss of the, what? Three or four countries he has not alienated yet.

juju · 08-10-2003, 03:18 PM

TP, you have one of the largest perception filters I've ever seen. You're worse than a Christian!

xoxoxoBruce · 08-10-2003, 09:30 PM

Juju, your brilliant. You hit it right on the button. TP!

wolf · 08-11-2003, 12:21 AM

People do not end up in psychiatric hospitals because of some vague or mysterious government agenda. This isn't the former Soviet Union where psychiatric "treatment" was a means of bringing you back into line with the party's desires.

They end up there because they represent a clear and present danger to themselves or someone else. A good proportion of these folks understand that they are in need of assistance, come for an evaluation and sign themselves in.

There are, however, some folks who don't get that.

And still need help.

And, as a consequence of being severely mentally ill, represent a clear and present danger to themselves or someone else. The specific criteria for dangerousness vary from state to state, but contain usually four essential elements ... attempt of homicide or physical harm to another, attempt of suicide, attempt of self multilative behavior, or being so debilitated by the mental illness that the person is unable to meet their needs for food safety of shelter to such an extent that grevious bodily harm will occur if such behavior goes untreated.

You can't put someone in the hospital because they are wacky, or merely because they talk to people you can't see. You also can't (state laws vary) put someone away just because they are drugging or drinking or retarded or senile.

Any attempt to hospitalize someone against their will is a multi-step process. There are some general similarities.

First, someone having directly observed the potential patient's behavior goes to the commitment authority ... sometimes a common pleas court judge, sometimes a specialist designated by the mental health administration of the state or county. They file paperwork which is then reviewed against the legal standard specified for both mental illness and dangerous behavior. If it meets the criteria specified in the law, a warrant is issued and then the individual is picked up and brought before a psychiatrist for evaluation. That doctor decides whether the patient, on the basis of the interview is indeed dangerous to themselves or others, and is hospitalized for a brief period of treatment and observation.

Not every one who is evaluated is admitted.

If the treating physician during the admission feels the person needs further treatment, before the expiration of the original commitment (depending on the state, usually between 72 and 120 hours later) there is a hearing before the mental health court to determine the need for further inpatient treatment. Additional court reviews occur from that point at specified intervals.

At each step it becomes HARDER for the hospital to prove justification for continuing inpatient treatment. The legal standard requires that care be provided at the "least restrictive setting."

The majority of funding for inpatient (and outpatient) psychiatric treatment comes from insurance payments. Many of these are private insurers. There is also insurance coverage provided to people who are on state or federal benefits. Medicaid and Medicare both have provisions for psychiatric funding. Some folks don't qualify for such programs, still need help, and receive it through funds earmarked by the counties for inpatient psychiatric stays. Self-pay for inpatient treatment is rare, but happens on occasion. A lot of treatment goes unpaid and unfunded. Hospitals eat the cost.

***

The problem with both Laing and Szasz, is that they were psychiatrists who did not believe in psychiatric illness ... kind of like a botanist who doesn't believe in dutch elm disease. It's clear to EVERYONE ELSE that the tree has dutch elm disease. Saying it doesn't have it won't change the matter.

Uryoces · 08-11-2003, 04:55 AM

Phew! I was wondering when you would arrive, wolf!

wolf · 08-11-2003, 11:21 AM

I was at a friend's house. I'm hooked on Zelda/Windwaker, but refuse to buy a game system for just one game. So I play it there. Priorities man. I have to keep my employer thinking I'm relatively normal by engaging in some face-to-face interactions occasionally.

08-11-2003, 12:16 PM

But you've got Mario Sunshine, wolf. That's 2 games. Plus, you could play Metroid Prime. So there's 3. Mmmmmmmmm. Metroid.

vsp · 08-11-2003, 12:25 PM

And the Resident Evils for crunchy zombie-killing goodness.

(Me? I'm hooked on Dynasty Warriors 3 and just bought Silent Hill 3 for my wife, so I need a second PS2 or something. Or maybe that's the excuse I need to drag the Cube into the back room and start on Metroid Prime.)

russotto · 08-11-2003, 01:16 PM

Szasz goes far too far in his claims; he takes a very real absence of evidence for what psychiatrists claim is the cause of certain mental illnesses, and tries to parley that into evidence of absence not only of that cause, but of the conditions themselves.

As for involuntary commitment, it doesn't really matter what the APA says; not every diagnosable condition can lead to involuntary commitment.

Here's a page on PA's involuntary commitment process: http://www.mces.org/302FAQs.html

(now, there is a grave injustice in that being "302"ed permanently deprives you of certain rights even if the evaluation determines that you were NOT mentally ill by the definition of the statute. But that's another matter)

08-10-2003, 12:22 PM	#1
Tasneem Project Writer of Writings Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: uk Posts: 14	Psychiatric Fascism The USA government are unique in the world in having a psychiatric system that is an arm of government control. In the USA, you don't have to be a criminal or a terrorist to be locked away. No, thanks to a policy instigated by President JFK, someone who is simply a social nuisance can be dragged from the streets, imprisoned, drugged - on the basis that this person is said to be mentally ill. Ronald Laing, a long-time critic of the USA psychiatric system, commented on the definition of mental illness by the American Psychaitric Association (APA) as 'fitting just about most people walking down the street'. Year on year, the APA revises its diagnostic criteria to include even more labels which can be used to justify imprisoning people against their will without trial. Have you ever been a victim of the mental health services in the USA or elsewhere. Have you read the works of Thomas Szasz? All polite replies welcomed! __________________ http://www.geocities.com/yakoub0001/index.html

08-10-2003, 12:47 PM	#3
Tasneem Project Writer of Writings Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: uk Posts: 14	Sorry, I might be a little confused here, but who pays for the psychaitric services in the USA? And who pays for the rest of the health service? I mean, do you need medical insurance before they lock you up? __________________ http://www.geocities.com/yakoub0001/index.html

08-10-2003, 12:58 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Quite the contrary, dude. The mental institutions have been closing in droves. Now these wackos are homeless on the streets. They're sooo much better off. You don't have a clue, do you. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-10-2003, 12:59 PM	#5
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	LOL, you are more than a little confused on this subject. Beginning with the idea that people get pulled off the street and sent to an institution. I've lived here all my life and the only person I know that was ever sent off was a neighbor lady that frequently had conversations with people that were not there (well, I guess they were for her...) and I, with no connection other than that of passerby had to stop from hurting herself on more than one occasion. Also, she was not taken away by the goverment, her family brought her in for treatment. Oh, and they paid for it, the family I mean. As far as the specifics of cash go, Wolf? This is your department.      So, Tasneem why do you hate the US so much? I'm really curious, this is a pretty wild accusation. And only one of a string of assaults coming from you on this site. What's with all the hate? __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

08-10-2003, 01:01 PM	#6
Tasneem Project Writer of Writings Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: uk Posts: 14	Of course. I suppose Bush must be slashing the psychiatric services' budget to pay for his new bombs! __________________ http://www.geocities.com/yakoub0001/index.html

08-10-2003, 01:19 PM	#7
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	I doubt it Tasneem, he's to busy trying to figure out how to piss of the, what? Three or four countries he has not alienated yet. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

08-10-2003, 03:18 PM	#8
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	TP, you have one of the largest perception filters I've ever seen. You're worse than a Christian! Last edited by juju; 08-10-2003 at 11:12 PM.

08-10-2003, 09:30 PM	#9
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Juju, your brilliant. You hit it right on the button. TP! __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-11-2003, 12:21 AM	#10
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	People do not end up in psychiatric hospitals because of some vague or mysterious government agenda. This isn't the former Soviet Union where psychiatric "treatment" was a means of bringing you back into line with the party's desires. They end up there because they represent a clear and present danger to themselves or someone else. A good proportion of these folks understand that they are in need of assistance, come for an evaluation and sign themselves in. There are, however, some folks who don't get that. And still need help. And, as a consequence of being severely mentally ill, represent a clear and present danger to themselves or someone else. The specific criteria for dangerousness vary from state to state, but contain usually four essential elements ... attempt of homicide or physical harm to another, attempt of suicide, attempt of self multilative behavior, or being so debilitated by the mental illness that the person is unable to meet their needs for food safety of shelter to such an extent that grevious bodily harm will occur if such behavior goes untreated. You can't put someone in the hospital because they are wacky, or merely because they talk to people you can't see. You also can't (state laws vary) put someone away just because they are drugging or drinking or retarded or senile. Any attempt to hospitalize someone against their will is a multi-step process. There are some general similarities. First, someone having directly observed the potential patient's behavior goes to the commitment authority ... sometimes a common pleas court judge, sometimes a specialist designated by the mental health administration of the state or county. They file paperwork which is then reviewed against the legal standard specified for both mental illness and dangerous behavior. If it meets the criteria specified in the law, a warrant is issued and then the individual is picked up and brought before a psychiatrist for evaluation. That doctor decides whether the patient, on the basis of the interview is indeed dangerous to themselves or others, and is hospitalized for a brief period of treatment and observation. Not every one who is evaluated is admitted. If the treating physician during the admission feels the person needs further treatment, before the expiration of the original commitment (depending on the state, usually between 72 and 120 hours later) there is a hearing before the mental health court to determine the need for further inpatient treatment. Additional court reviews occur from that point at specified intervals. At each step it becomes HARDER for the hospital to prove justification for continuing inpatient treatment. The legal standard requires that care be provided at the "least restrictive setting." The majority of funding for inpatient (and outpatient) psychiatric treatment comes from insurance payments. Many of these are private insurers. There is also insurance coverage provided to people who are on state or federal benefits. Medicaid and Medicare both have provisions for psychiatric funding. Some folks don't qualify for such programs, still need help, and receive it through funds earmarked by the counties for inpatient psychiatric stays. Self-pay for inpatient treatment is rare, but happens on occasion. A lot of treatment goes unpaid and unfunded. Hospitals eat the cost. *** The problem with both Laing and Szasz, is that they were psychiatrists who did not believe in psychiatric illness ... kind of like a botanist who doesn't believe in dutch elm disease. It's clear to EVERYONE ELSE that the tree has dutch elm disease. Saying it doesn't have it won't change the matter. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

08-11-2003, 04:55 AM	#11
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	Phew! I was wondering when you would arrive, wolf! __________________ The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out.

08-11-2003, 11:21 AM	#12
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	I was at a friend's house. I'm hooked on Zelda/Windwaker, but refuse to buy a game system for just one game. So I play it there. Priorities man. I have to keep my employer thinking I'm relatively normal by engaging in some face-to-face interactions occasionally. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

08-11-2003, 12:16 PM	#13
dave Guest Posts: n/a	But you've got Mario Sunshine, wolf. That's 2 games. Plus, you could play Metroid Prime. So there's 3. Mmmmmmmmm. Metroid.

08-11-2003, 12:25 PM	#14
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	And the Resident Evils for crunchy zombie-killing goodness. (Me? I'm hooked on Dynasty Warriors 3 and just bought Silent Hill 3 for my wife, so I need a second PS2 or something. Or maybe that's the excuse I need to drag the Cube into the back room and start on Metroid Prime.)

08-11-2003, 01:16 PM	#15
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Szasz goes far too far in his claims; he takes a very real absence of evidence for what psychiatrists claim is the cause of certain mental illnesses, and tries to parley that into evidence of absence not only of that cause, but of the conditions themselves. As for involuntary commitment, it doesn't really matter what the APA says; not every diagnosable condition can lead to involuntary commitment. Here's a page on PA's involuntary commitment process: http://www.mces.org/302FAQs.html (now, there is a grave injustice in that being "302"ed permanently deprives you of certain rights even if the evaluation determines that you were NOT mentally ill by the definition of the statute. But that's another matter)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)