Most depressing google ever

I found it repulsive in the SWAN page that they link to organisations like MIND and SANE - of whom I know nothing about but whos very identity is founded on the bankrupt notion of 'mental illness' and sanitary concept of 'mental health' so briliantly exposed for exclusion and subjugation discourse it is by Foucault and the antipsychiatrists, and as symptom of an illness called capitalism by Deleuze..

that'd be flaming then

yeah i think the whole foucault/antipsychiatry thing is more about the construction of an 'other', which Foucault traced back to the treatment of leprosy and then madness, rather than denying the existence of problematic mental issues. Today its more 'terrorists' or 'hoodie kids'. And iirc, Deleuze & Guattari don't deny the existence of schizophrenia and don't praise schizophrenia beyond what they see as a liberating of flows of desire etc; that is they see positives in a condition usually viewed negitively. They do seem to attribte schizophrenia to capitalism, but their history/anthropology isn't particularly convincing, although the stress etc inherent in wage slavery by definition increases mental problems.

thank you asher, well said.

Which is why I get very angry when people spout this 'no such thing as mental illness' crap. This isn't some floaty bit of theory, it's people's lives.

MIND are OK-ish. They led a campaign against ECT in the 90s. And users/survivors of the mental health system play a large role in the organisation.

But SANE are not OK; the husband of their Chief Executive, Marjorie Wallace, was a board member of Glaxo Wellcome (the pharmaceutical giant) before the merger with SmithKline Beecham. (Which I would suggest questions their independence.) And SANE has been at the forefront of media scares and the demonisation of people experiencing mental illhealth.

Of course mental illness is largely a result of environmental factors, just as much physical illness is. But if someone's brain has 'imploded' does that not make them mentally ill, regardless of the cause? You may as well say "there's no such thing as physical illness, it's a societal condition, give someone some germs, and their bodies implode" Do you think it is possible to have a society in which no-one is treated like crap and so 'mental illness' does not occur?

I would argue that many of these less tangible mental health problems are only so because we don't understand the brain properly yet. So if somebody has a problem which affects their ability to live a normal life (eg someone who can't interact socially properly and so is always being taken advantage of, beaten up, left homeless etc) this may well be due to their brain not developing this capacity properly as a child (for example children brought up in social isolation are unable to interact properly and have low IQs all their lives.) They don't have any specific brain disease or injury, but there is clearly something physically wrong with their brains that we can't fully comprehend yet. I would say that this is mental illness and so yes it does exist, even if it is not fully understood by us yet as a clear manifestation.

Quick note on ECT, which is always considered the ultimate evil in mental health treatment.

I've seen it performed, on somebody who had sunk into a huge depression for no apparent reason and was refusing to eat, drink, speak to anyone or take his vital anti-epilepsy medicine. He was dying before our eyes.

He was given general anaesthetic before each treatment and was not even aware that it had happened afterwards. And he snapped out of it and went back to normal (for him) - ie it worked. The brain is a fucking wierd thing.

Not trying to make any particular point, just saying - I'm sure it's been used in much worse ways than this.

No idea mate. I do know that in this case it was a very very last resort and the decision was not taken lightly. Where I worked it would certainly never be used as a punishment, which tends to be how it is presented.

What is the 'social model'? Is it as simple as saying that mental health problems are caused by environmental influences including society's social structure, as opposed to the medical model which sees only chemical imbalances and suchlike. If that's the case then I agree entirely.

Not quite, although partly that. No, it's more like the social model sees the difficulties facing people experiencing mental illhealth (or indeed with other disabilities) as being amplified by society's reaction to them. For example my difficulty in getting a job isn't because my illhealth prevents me from turning up at an interview, performing well, or being good at the job, but because the employer sees only difficulties.

A good analogy is the person using a wheel chair needing a kitchen designed for their use. Society is not designed for use by people with disabilities, and only makes it harder for them. With the right design, the wheel chair user can be a very good cook. With the wrong design, they need someone else to cook for them. The axiom goes "I am not handicapped by my impairment, I am handicapped by society". That might be the way I am seen, the way furniture is designed, or the way support, employment, benefits, whetever is designed.

The social model says see the person, not the disability. See the potential, not the problems.

By contrast, the medical model focuses on medical intervention. It is reductionist, in that it says "Here is a pathology. Is there a drug/surgery/intervention we can use to alleviate the symptoms?" Thus schizophrenia is described as a chemical imbalance in the brain. (I'm not denying this, I'm only saying that isn't the whole story). We try to restore the balance with chemicals. Things like talking therapies are not prescribed for psychotic illnesses because they don't restore chemical imbalances. Psychiatry is very much tied to the medical model. In my years of experience in the disability movement I've heard the same story in slightly different form over and over again: I was given these pills and told to wait to see if they work, if they don't then different dosages or different pills will be tried. If I mention anxiety about my psychosis, my treatment, my life as a person experiencing ill health, I'm prescribed more pills.

Sure, pills help. (The right pills, at the right time, in the right dosages, for the right reasons). But they are only part of the picture. Too often the medical model thinks they are the picture.

Here's another illustration for you. The writer Mike Oliver took a real life questionaire designed for people with disabilities, and rephrased it from a Social Model perspective.

I am encouraged, yes.

I have to say, though, that I've seen the right things being learned, read, and said by social workers, CPNs, OTs etc for years now, but it seems to get knocked out of them by the structure/demands of the organisations they work for. I mean, I think some don't really understand it, but learn the right thing to say. But others - who really believe in this stuff - find it very hard to balance with organisational demands.

It can also get distorted. I knew a man with learning difficulties, for example, who was told that his choice - chosen and bought by him - of trainers was not "age appropriate". Now, that's nobody's business but his. Like my Superman badge. But this garbled edict happened because in the past support workers have been known to foist age-inappropriate stuff on people with learning difficulties, treating adults as if they were kids. So that's what went wrong, but trying to explain it was murder.

So you'll find it difficult, but I think with your insight into activist ideas, community self-help, individual self-management etc you'll find it easier to get a handle on. Best of luck.

Oh yeah, authors. Mike Oliver, obviously, Herb Lovett, John O'Brien, Marsha Forest.

But better still talk to someone at The Disabled People’s Direct Action Network (DAN) (no current website, sadly), or The British Council of Disabled People. Or another organisation. You'll hear a range of opinions, obviously.

Does it prevent people from getting treatment. No. Also, its quite a serious bit of philosophy, that has been shown, incidently, to ber false (more or less, I think) in its most extreme form. I feel that there is definetly something to be taken from Anti-psychiatry.

This is bullshit (no offenese), but how can there be a pathological way tpo socially interact. I think a much more accurate (and not at all radical) way of viewing this, would be an inability to interact as they would like.

I think it was Pilchardman who has been "depressed" (apologies if it isn't) how would you feel if ECT had been forced upon you. I may have been depressed, and I would be very very angry. No offense - but peeople should respect that it is something that I never want to go through - regardless of how rational a decision it is

And, IME, there is something deeply deeply humiliating about having to undergo psychiatric treatment against your will (imagine your worst day at work, times by x), and Magnifico - you need to grow up and realize that who you work for is not all a bed of roses. Bentall is good if you want a fairly standard critique of psychiatry (from a psychologist's perspective - shock horror - iyswim).

Yeah, MIND run programs all over the place, dunno if any good though.

Sure, if people want treatment, but to think that there is no ethical dilemma about forced treatment,m is madness, and ignorant of the debate that suronds psychiatry. You can't just labell it all away as liberal (Several people's commentsw here ought to be enough to convince you of that).

Anyway, could say alot on this issue, i have a few years experience of very little else, but, I have to say, that being "mad" is pissing me off at the moment, it takes over my every f*ing waking minute iyswim.

Depression is shit though its like, pain, in that its just by definition a really really bad thing.

The point I was making was that some people's mental health problems (for want of a better term) put them in a lot of danger. The most extreme example I suppose would be people who are suicidal. I don't know if you would advocate that suicidal people within the mental health system should just be allowed to kill themselves, but I'm sure there are a fair number of people still alive today who are glad that they were locked up and watched over because they have subsequently been able to recover and are now glad that they didn't throw their lives away.

Other examples might be people who are what you might call socially naive - who are constantly taken advantage of, for example sexually or financially - is it not in the best interests of such people to be kept somewhere secure so that they can work through these problems, or would you leave them to a life of rape and poverty?

Other examples might be those who cannot control their aggression or 'annoying' habits, and are constantly having the shit kicked out of them every weekend (I'm not arguing that any blame should be attached to such people, merely that they are in danger living in the society we live in), or people who are incapable of interacting with the outside world to the extent necessary to procure basics like food, or to maintain basic hygeine needed for health. Some people are just not capable of looking after themselves, and are incapable of understanding that this is a problem - would you not agree that some people with dementia or brain injury who just don't understand what the fuck is going on need to be kept somewhere and looked after so that they don't starve to death, walk under a bus or grope some macho man's girlfriend? These conditions are extreme examples, but to argue that forced treatment is never justified (as you seem to be) you presumably need to argue against it in these cases as well? The point I guess I am making is that some people are a danger to themselves, and just as it is not authoritarian to prevent a child crossing a busy road, it is not always authoritarian to force treatment on somebody who does not understand that they need it.

I never said it was, I just said that they would never use ECT except as a last option, or as a punishment, which they wouldn't. Why have you accused me of this?

I never argued that 'there is no ethical dilemma about forced treatment', I recognise that there is a huge ethical dilemma, I just happen to have an opinion on it, one that I have expressed. I don't consider myself to be the fount of all knowledge on this, indeed I'm very interested in what Pilchardman has to say (and you too, if you'd care to be a bit less hostile).