We don't need psuedoscientific horse shit posted to tildes. Szasz's stupid, hateful, ideas have been comprehensively debunked. They contain almost nothing of value, and there's no useful...
We don't need psuedoscientific horse shit posted to tildes. Szasz's stupid, hateful, ideas have been comprehensively debunked. They contain almost nothing of value, and there's no useful informative discussion that can happen as a result of posting this article here.
It's particularly frustrating because anti-psychiatry anti-science people like Szasz are so fixed on their dumb ideas they can't see the actual problems with real world psychiatry as it's practised, and so they're blind to the actual harm that happens and they're unable to offer any actionable useful techniques to prevent that harm from happening or to fix that harm when it has happened.
And no, I'm not going to do the tedious work of digging out the long list of articles that debunk Szasz.
I was about to post a comment but then I realized that you're right. This isn't worth it. I actually stopped and laughed multiple times throughout the article (the part where he "realizes" that...
I was about to post a comment but then I realized that you're right. This isn't worth it. I actually stopped and laughed multiple times throughout the article (the part where he "realizes" that he's right really tickled me).
I mean, the dude literally says nothing he does is based on science! It's unprovable! Who takes this guy seriously?!
Gotta agree, I don't really want to read stuff like this on here.
While I'm not far enough in to properly judge, I somewhat disagree with you. This paragraph really hit close to home, as someone who has been involuntarily committed for psychosis. This lines up...
While I'm not far enough in to properly judge, I somewhat disagree with you. This paragraph really hit close to home, as someone who has been involuntarily committed for psychosis.
Rejecting that jargon, I insisted that mental hospitals are like prisons not hospitals, that involuntary mental hospitalisation is a type of imprisonment not medical care, and that coercive psychiatrists function as judges and jailers not physicians and healers. I suggested that we discard the traditional psychiatric perspective and instead interpret mental illnesses and psychiatric responses to them as matters of morals, law and rhetoric, not matters of medicine, treatment or science.
This lines up with my personal experience a bit. I'm going to finish reading the article before I comment further.
Edit: I have since finished the article, and I have many thoughts, and will (hopefully) get around to posting a big post later.
Szasz isn't saying he wants better treatment, he's saying he wants no treatment. He's pushing for the right to live under a bridge, believing you're being gang-stalked by people who've implanted...
Szasz isn't saying he wants better treatment, he's saying he wants no treatment. He's pushing for the right to live under a bridge, believing you're being gang-stalked by people who've implanted chips in your head, free of medication or therapy or housing support or hospitalisation if needed.
instead interpret mental illnesses and psychiatric responses to them as matters of morals, law and rhetoric, not matters of medicine, treatment or science.
Think about this.
A person who kills someone else while floridly psychotic: are they mad or bad? If they're mad, should they be detained in a hospital and treated, or should we just lock them up in prison without treatment?
A person who goes on a spending binge because they have bipolar, building up debts they cannot pay, and going bankrupt: is that a function of illness, or are they merely irresponsible? What should we do for people at risk of being in this situation - should we give them a leaflet reminding them not to spend beyond their means, or should we support them to access medication if that works for them? Szasz's answer is that bipolar does not exist, that lithium does not, can not, work for anyone (and is in fact harmful for all who take it).
In my experience, involuntary mental hospitalization is good for preventing someone from hurting themselves or others at a temporary low point. Now, is it good for fixing the underlying problems?...
In my experience, involuntary mental hospitalization is good for preventing someone from hurting themselves or others at a temporary low point.
Now, is it good for fixing the underlying problems? No. Can it actually make things harder long term due to financial distress? Yes (ask me about my 10k medical debt for a voluntary three day stay because I had no insurance). But, for the majority of people, it gets them physically through a temporary low point.
For suicide, I think they raise a good point: Who are we to say that suicide is a moral wrong that should be prevented at all costs? I say this as a formerly suicidal teen. We've certainly...
For suicide, I think they raise a good point: Who are we to say that suicide is a moral wrong that should be prevented at all costs? I say this as a formerly suicidal teen. We've certainly re-evalutated within the contexts of terminal physical ailments....why do we assume that its still wrong for someone with a permanent mental ailment? "I want to kill myself unless I'm on drugs all the time" isn't exactly a great way to live, and we would certainly consider someone unhealthily addicted if they were self-medicating this with heroin instead of lithium. Lithium certainly makes them a more productive member of society....but does it actually make them happier or healthier? That's where the involuntary vs voluntary treatment comes into play.
I think temporary jailing is appropriate for the temporary suicide urge and threat to others, the same way that its appropriate for a drunk getting into bar fights. There's a bigger discussion about how jails and prisons are managed, and in that vein both they and mental wards both are in need of reform. But right now, it is possible to be involuntarily committed and not be allowed out unless a psychiatrist signs off. And that's very, very, very prisonlike. I was psychotic when I was involuntarily committed....but I was not suicidal or murderous. My parents lied and said I was suicidal to get me committed. I had to lie in order to get back out.
I don't wish to get into it further at this moment, as I have a bigger post to write which encompasses much of this, and more.
We don't need psuedoscientific horse shit posted to tildes. Szasz's stupid, hateful, ideas have been comprehensively debunked. They contain almost nothing of value, and there's no useful informative discussion that can happen as a result of posting this article here.
It's particularly frustrating because anti-psychiatry anti-science people like Szasz are so fixed on their dumb ideas they can't see the actual problems with real world psychiatry as it's practised, and so they're blind to the actual harm that happens and they're unable to offer any actionable useful techniques to prevent that harm from happening or to fix that harm when it has happened.
And no, I'm not going to do the tedious work of digging out the long list of articles that debunk Szasz.
I was about to post a comment but then I realized that you're right. This isn't worth it. I actually stopped and laughed multiple times throughout the article (the part where he "realizes" that he's right really tickled me).
I mean, the dude literally says nothing he does is based on science! It's unprovable! Who takes this guy seriously?!
Gotta agree, I don't really want to read stuff like this on here.
While I'm not far enough in to properly judge, I somewhat disagree with you. This paragraph really hit close to home, as someone who has been involuntarily committed for psychosis.
This lines up with my personal experience a bit. I'm going to finish reading the article before I comment further.
Edit: I have since finished the article, and I have many thoughts, and will (hopefully) get around to posting a big post later.
Szasz isn't saying he wants better treatment, he's saying he wants no treatment. He's pushing for the right to live under a bridge, believing you're being gang-stalked by people who've implanted chips in your head, free of medication or therapy or housing support or hospitalisation if needed.
Think about this.
A person who kills someone else while floridly psychotic: are they mad or bad? If they're mad, should they be detained in a hospital and treated, or should we just lock them up in prison without treatment?
A person who goes on a spending binge because they have bipolar, building up debts they cannot pay, and going bankrupt: is that a function of illness, or are they merely irresponsible? What should we do for people at risk of being in this situation - should we give them a leaflet reminding them not to spend beyond their means, or should we support them to access medication if that works for them? Szasz's answer is that bipolar does not exist, that lithium does not, can not, work for anyone (and is in fact harmful for all who take it).
In my experience, involuntary mental hospitalization is good for preventing someone from hurting themselves or others at a temporary low point.
Now, is it good for fixing the underlying problems? No. Can it actually make things harder long term due to financial distress? Yes (ask me about my 10k medical debt for a voluntary three day stay because I had no insurance). But, for the majority of people, it gets them physically through a temporary low point.
For suicide, I think they raise a good point: Who are we to say that suicide is a moral wrong that should be prevented at all costs? I say this as a formerly suicidal teen. We've certainly re-evalutated within the contexts of terminal physical ailments....why do we assume that its still wrong for someone with a permanent mental ailment? "I want to kill myself unless I'm on drugs all the time" isn't exactly a great way to live, and we would certainly consider someone unhealthily addicted if they were self-medicating this with heroin instead of lithium. Lithium certainly makes them a more productive member of society....but does it actually make them happier or healthier? That's where the involuntary vs voluntary treatment comes into play.
I think temporary jailing is appropriate for the temporary suicide urge and threat to others, the same way that its appropriate for a drunk getting into bar fights. There's a bigger discussion about how jails and prisons are managed, and in that vein both they and mental wards both are in need of reform. But right now, it is possible to be involuntarily committed and not be allowed out unless a psychiatrist signs off. And that's very, very, very prisonlike. I was psychotic when I was involuntarily committed....but I was not suicidal or murderous. My parents lied and said I was suicidal to get me committed. I had to lie in order to get back out.
I don't wish to get into it further at this moment, as I have a bigger post to write which encompasses much of this, and more.
Crazy how you can make any bullshit seem credible by publishing it on cambridge.org