![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 7 to 31 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on June 23, 2010, at 21:20:44
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » Christ_empowered, posted by jade k on June 23, 2010, at 20:49:13
If not I have when working. Must take meds. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on June 24, 2010, at 7:28:56
In reply to yes, I think so..., posted by Christ_empowered on June 23, 2010, at 18:29:13
That's what my mother thought about my cousins. Until she spent time with them in an unmedicated state. Now suddenly all her complaints about the mental health system have disappeared into thin air.
My cousin's family have been through h*ll dealing with the situation. Off the hook? They'll never ever be off the hook. They will never be free of wondering when one of them will do something dangerous and self destructive, or destructive to others. They aren't violent towards others. But when they are psychotic, they make choices that are dangerous for themselves and others.
I also remember an aunt who didn't really gain a close and warm relationship with her children until she got on meds and stayed on them. Yes, they had side effects. But the side effects of not taking the drugs were far worse for her.
That's the way my favorite of my psychiatrists put it when I discussed my concerns about side effects. He said that, yes, medications do have side effects. Not taking medications also have side effects. It's my choice which side effects I wish to have.
My cousins shouldn't have that choice. When they go off their meds they do things that have nearly gotten them killed, things bad enough to require long medical hospitalizations. And things that have brought danger to their families. They don't have the objectivity and insight to understand that themselves. That's part of the illness.
It really upsets and angers me when I read advocacy for the mentally ill to choose whether to take their medications, because I remember my cousins. And their families.
Posted by europerep on June 24, 2010, at 9:20:32
In reply to yes, I think so..., posted by Christ_empowered on June 23, 2010, at 18:29:13
> Not to go too "anti-psychiatry" here, but...this just goes to show (to me, anyway) that a lot of the "mental illnesses" are just reactions to serious problems that life sometimes throws our way. I think it sucks that a lot of times people get victimized and then they end up in a mental health system that pumps them full of toxic drugs, labels them, and strips them of their dignity...all while saying the problem is a "brain disease," thereby letting society and people in the patient/victim's immediate social network (family, friends, colleagues, etc.) off the hook.
>I still don't see your point. Any responsable treatment with drugs goes along with some sort of therapy, unless the patient expresses his wish to ONLY take his medication. then it is his decision, based upon "free will".
what are you gonna do about post-abuse schizophrenia other than treating it? once done, all these terrible experiences can't be undone.. it would be good to have better policies of prevention or intervention as early as possible, but that's a different issue..
and whether you call it mental illness or post-abuse difficulties syndrome doesn't change anything about what is actually happening in the brain..
and why victimization, or what exactly do you mean by it? people are not forced to anything unless they are dangers for themselves or others (and it is true that the subquestion of forced treatment is full of ethical questions, and full of inhumane treatment realities in so many institutions, but I think that is not what your post is about?)..
really, I'm confused :)
Posted by sigismund on June 24, 2010, at 22:30:52
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by europerep on June 24, 2010, at 9:20:32
At university in the 70s I came across a friend who looked me in the eye with a wide eyed very interesting expression and said that he felt like he was on a thousand tabs of acid.
They said he was schizophrenic; now they would say bipolar. He was treated with old fashioned APs, the only treatment available then AFAIK. It didn't save him....he died a long time ago of an OD, probably hungering for something pleasant.
Posted by Zyprexa on June 24, 2010, at 22:52:54
In reply to yes, I think so..., posted by Christ_empowered on June 23, 2010, at 18:29:13
Thats exactly what I think! There is nothing you can do so they say you are crazy, then your forced to live a lie. A good way to shut you up and make every one belive you are just talking crazy.
Posted by Zyprexa on June 24, 2010, at 23:04:56
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by europerep on June 24, 2010, at 9:20:32
What are you going to do about post abuse. Go kill the bastard that put you in this place. Oh, you can't do that?! Well I guess I will have to take my meds to calm me for the rest of my life. While everyone thinks I'm crazy. Forced to live someone elses lie...
Posted by Zyprexa on June 24, 2010, at 23:07:42
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » Christ_empowered, posted by Dinah on June 24, 2010, at 7:28:56
They want me to belive the lie.
Posted by Zyprexa on June 24, 2010, at 23:39:35
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by europerep on June 24, 2010, at 9:20:32
They forced me into treatment. At the mental hospital. Because I didn't know what to think. or understand. Ya! they fried my brain till I couldn't remember what had happened untill more than a decade later. What are you going to do then. Everyone thinks I belive the lies now. My pdoc could n't help me. I told him what happened to me and there was nothing he could do about it. now what just take meds for the rest of my life? Its the only thing keeping me from going out and do something. I can't even imagine life with out pills, but imagin it would not be the same. I have to take the pills, because I'm schitzoaffective now. What happened???? I'm not confused.... Just sick
Posted by Zyprexa on June 24, 2010, at 23:44:10
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by sigismund on June 24, 2010, at 22:30:52
I can't decide if my life would be more pleasant with or with out psychiatry or not. Maybe I would have died sooner. Or maybe it would have been worse..
Posted by SLS on June 25, 2010, at 5:27:12
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by Zyprexa on June 24, 2010, at 23:44:10
You take two people with different genes and subject both of them to the same psychological insults. One becomes a psychological mess. The other becomes a psychological mess and a psychotic schizophrenic. Are these two conditions the same? Do they require the same treatment? Should the schizophrenic reject biological treatments because he discovers that most people who experienced similar psychological insults do not need such treatments to address their issues?
- Scott
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 11:50:01
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by SLS on June 25, 2010, at 5:27:12
> You take two people with different genes and subject both of them to the same psychological insults. One becomes a psychological mess. The other becomes a psychological mess and a psychotic schizophrenic. Are these two conditions the same? Do they require the same treatment? Should the schizophrenic reject biological treatments because he discovers that most people who experienced similar psychological insults do not need such treatments to address their issues?
>
>
> - ScottI think I'm picking up what you're putting down brotha.
What I hope comes out of this is an awareness that genetic predispositions can be brought out of someone in a greater, more destructive way if children are not given what they need. As long as most people believe that illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar are simply genetic and are guaranteed to cause great suffering and struggle amongst those inflicted, then people will be less likely to try to make changes that will help prevent mental illness such as these from becoming the monsters they can become. I compare it to the "war on drugs". The best way to win this war is for there to be a social revolution that changes the way we look at the reasons why people behave the way they do and, in turn, influences us to make changes in the way we care for our children. People get addicted for a reason. Sure genetics may play a role, but the major reason for addiction is need for escape-escape from the pain and suffering that lurks within someone, most likely resulting from lack of proper nurture in childhood.
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 11:54:08
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 11:50:01
Basically I am saying that prevention is the wave of the future of resolving much of our problems with mental illness. It's like my therapist said to me one time, "If there were no criticism or abuse(some believe criticism to be as damaging as some forms of abuse) in the world, I would probably be out of job".
Posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 13:40:18
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 11:50:01
> > You take two people with different genes and subject both of them to the same psychological insults. One becomes a psychological mess. The other becomes a psychological mess and a psychotic schizophrenic. Are these two conditions the same? Do they require the same treatment? Should the schizophrenic reject biological treatments because he discovers that most people who experienced similar psychological insults do not need such treatments to address their issues?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> I think I'm picking up what you're putting down brotha.
>
> What I hope comes out of this is an awareness that genetic predispositions can be brought out of someone in a greater, more destructive way if children are not given what they need. As long as most people believe that illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar are simply genetic and are guaranteed to cause great suffering and struggle amongst those inflicted, then people will be less likely to try to make changes that will help prevent mental illness such as these from becoming the monsters they can become. I compare it to the "war on drugs". The best way to win this war is for there to be a social revolution that changes the way we look at the reasons why people behave the way they do and, in turn, influences us to make changes in the way we care for our children. People get addicted for a reason. Sure genetics may play a role, but the major reason for addiction is need for escape-escape from the pain and suffering that lurks within someone, most likely resulting from lack of proper nurture in childhood.I doubt it is that simple. The fact is, many people are genetically predisposed to certain mental illnesses. Many will become ill regardless of psychological insults, childhood abuse, poor nurturing, etc. These can be triggers for sure, but I doubt a wave of prevention of childhood traumas, criticism, and other abuses will all but cure serious illnesses such as schizophrenia and Bi-polar 1. I think it will be more in the form of a better understanding of these illnesses and the development of better medications to treat them.
~Jade
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 14:04:55
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » morganator, posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 13:40:18
I do agree that there is a need for better understanding and better medication. Maybe I should not have used the word prevention. I think it may be more realistic to at least be able to reduce the risk of mental illness developing into a debilitating destructive force in many people's lives.
I don't blame you for thinking the way you do, but I think it can be somewhat counterproductive to progress. You do know that there is plenty of evidence that nurture may play just as large a role in mental illness as nature do you not? Many children that are predisposed to schizophrenia were neglected or abused in some way that lead to drug abuse in their early teens. There is evidence that drug abuse, especially early on in life, can trigger psychosis. Now how do you know for sure that psychosis is guaranteed to develop at some point just because someone is genetically predisposed?
One day we will be able to show that someone has the genetic predisposition for mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. Then will be able to prove that it is possible for some to go a life time without having a single episode and show that this was most likely due to an environment where there was plenty of love, nurture, and the right amount of protection.
I do believe that someone could for example have the genetic predisposition, come from a near perfect upbringing(including optimal diet and a toxic free environment), but then say go to war and as a result to begin to suffer from the genetically predisposed illness. So yes, at any point in one's life, regardless of nurture, the right amount or type of stress/trauma could trigger the illness into action.
I'm pretty sure if the right study was done we would find that the majority, if not all, of people suffering from mental illnesses such as bipolar and schizophrenia have something in their past that likely contributed to the illness rearing it's ugly head in such a horrible way.
Posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 15:01:49
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » jade k, posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 14:04:55
> I do agree that there is a need for better understanding and better medication. Maybe I should not have used the word prevention. I think it may be more realistic to at least be able to reduce the risk of mental illness developing into a debilitating destructive force in many people's lives.
I'm all for risk reduction
>
> I don't blame you for thinking the way you do,
Gee, thanks
> but I think it can be somewhat counterproductive to progress. You do know that there is plenty of evidence that nurture may play just as large a role in mental illness as nature do you not?
Which mental illnesses are you refering too?
>>Now how do you know for sure that psychosis is guaranteed to develop at some point just because someone is genetically predisposed?
I don't. I never said that.
> One day we will be able to show that someone has the genetic predisposition for mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. Then will be able to prove that it is possible for some to go a life time without having a single episode
I already believe this to be true.
>>and show that this was most likely due to an environment where there was plenty of love, nurture, and the right amount of protection.
I wish "plenty of love" prevented mental illness.
It often doesn't. An absense of trauma may prevent an episode. What is "the right amount of protection"? Life hurles all kinds of unexpected challenges our way.
>
> I do believe that someone could for example have the genetic predisposition, come from a near perfect upbringing(including optimal diet and a toxic free environment), but then say go to war and as a result to begin to suffer from the genetically predisposed illness. So yes, at any point in one's life, regardless of nurture, the right amount or type of stress/trauma could trigger the illness into action.
"near perfect upbringing"????
>
> I'm pretty sure if the right study was done we would find that the majority, if not all, of people suffering from mental illnesses such as bipolar and schizophrenia have something in their past that likely contributed to the illness rearing it's ugly head in such a horrible way.
They do, its called genetics.
~Jade
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 15:34:42
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » morganator, posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 15:01:49
Well we will have to just agree to disagree. I happen to believe mental illness nearly always develops part as a result of genetic predisposition and part as a result of environmental factors. I'm not alone in this belief.
And, yes, there is such a thing as a "near perfect upbringing". It's called two very sound of mind well adjusted parents that do everything possible to raise a child with the right amount of structure, nurture, and love. This will produce a child that is much less likely to suffer from at least crippling or severe mental illness. A child brought up the right way by the right parents will love themselves for the right things and have a high healthy self esteem. And, yes, there plenty of parents out there that should not be having children and are flat out WRONG for the job. People are selfish though, they will do what they want regardless of whether they are ready for it. People simply should NOT have children just because they want to. That is a very selfish act. Having children is always somewhat a selfish act, but it should always be one that is unselfish and selfless as well.
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 15:38:04
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » morganator, posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 15:01:49
I think if you took enough psychology courses, talked to some people in the mental health field, or did some extensive research of your own you may understand better where I am coming from.
It's much easier to think of mental illness a purely a genetic disorder/disease. That way we don't have to get angry with anyone, parents don't have to take responsibility, we more easily avoid doing some very hard work in therapy, and we simply have to take a pill and hopefully make everything better.
Posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 16:04:57
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » jade k, posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 15:38:04
> I think if you took enough psychology courses, talked to some people in the mental health field, or did some extensive research of your own you may understand better where I am coming from.
Please do not presume to know what I do or do not understand about psychology, the mental health field or the quantity of research I've done.
>
> It's much easier to think of mental illness a purely a genetic disorder/disease. That way we don't have to get angry with anyone, parents don't have to take responsibility, we more easily avoid doing some very hard work in therapy, and we simply have to take a pill and hopefully make everything better.
I'm sorry if this has been your experience, it most certainly hasn't been mine.Gotta go :-)
~Jade
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 16:36:05
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » morganator, posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 16:04:57
Sorry if if I came off the wrong way. I just meant that you might find out some things that lead me to believe in what I believe in. I did not mean to presume anything. But I guess I did and I definitely showed it.
You seemed to be taking some of the things I said a bit personally. I am sorry that you are. I did not intend to offend you in anyway.
Morgan
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 16:39:14
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » morganator, posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 16:04:57
Have you ever considered that we have this built in defense/coping mechanism that allows us to perceive things in a way that is easier to accept? Have you also considered that there can be certain intangibles and not so obvious aspects of our childhood and how our parents affected us that are not easily seen or understood unless we spend some serious time in therapy analyzing our past and gaining a better understanding of it?
Posted by Phillipa on June 25, 2010, at 19:22:58
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » jade k, posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 16:39:14
Back to scizophenia isn't there an age time frame for this illness to rear it's head teens twenties not later? I knew a lovely family Mom was schizophrenic but you would never know it as she took her meds now her Son was my favorite patient ever. He would go off his meds and last time admitted to hospital had picked up road kill and was cooking it for dinner. Parents admitted him. He was given Cloraril when new and two weeks later was functioning very well. Totally different person. I feel he had loving caring parents but inherited a gene from Mom's side that caused his scizophrenia. Phillipa
Posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 19:24:34
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » jade k, posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 16:36:05
> Sorry if if I came off the wrong way. I just meant that you might find out some things that lead me to believe in what I believe in. I did not mean to presume anything. But I guess I did and I definitely showed it.
>
> You seemed to be taking some of the things I said a bit personally. I am sorry that you are. I did not intend to offend you in anyway.
>
> Morgan
Hi Morgan,Nope! Were cool :-)
~Jade
Posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 21:20:51
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 19:24:34
Right on..good I get very passionate about what I believe and sometimes I can put people off when I express it the way I do. Take Care.
Morgan
Posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 15:39:02
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 11:54:08
Morganator-I totally agree with you. I've noticed trends toward prevention and intervention, but there are also other factors that lead me to think those strategies will be more signifcant in the future.
When you consider the high prevalence of mental illness of those incarcerated, it becomes more noticable. The penal system has been slowly tranforming from punishment to rebilitation, focusing on prevention and intervention. Mental health courts are a good example. The large proportion of inmates who have comorbid substance abuse problems goes without saying...but is also relevant to the non-incarcerated mental health population...Substance abuse resources are pretty scarce and unerrated, imo. For the incaracerated-many of those inmates have children; also many of those inmates have victims and are victims themselves. Prevention needs to imfiltrate all areas of society--public schools can be a useful tool outside of medical practice.
I have noticed more prevention-oriented studies lately; those I have seen tend to be more recently dated. One I just recently came across copared those at risk for schitzophrenia who had early intervention for schitzophrenia with those who did not. It measured long-term functioning such as employment, relationships,etc. I don't remember what the particular results were, but studies measuring the effects of prevention or intervention can take years...With the increase in our statistical capabilities, and changes in government, social, technology, etc., I think we are going to see many changes to the mental health system (aside from just the bio aspect) and more emphasis on prevention as you stated.
There is an increased focus on risk management and prevention in clinical practice for non-mental health issues too. If the benefits can be empirically shown to outweigh costs of prevention strategies, it will eventually translate directly to the economic sector-insurance companies-employers, which is necessary to transform mental health care. It takes a while for research to translate to practice as you know, and I agree we will see more of this in clinical practice in the future. If prevention reduces costs in the long run, it could have an impact, maybe not as much although no one can truly predict it, but similar to the incentives that currently influeces the high prevalence of pharmacology-based treatments.
When I look at the mental health system holistically, I definitely think part of the problem is the seperation of psychology and biology, among other things. With more integration of endocronolgy, neurology, cognitive science, psychology...and more factors which reveal links to mental wellness, along with social research and government incentives, I think the seperation is integrating...At the same time, the accumulation of knowledge and our ability to keep up with it can lead to more branching off of the disciplines--I see that as a potential disadvantage; however, data management innovations and other strategies are possible. Things are slowly, but surely, changing.
If most mental health professionals agree with the bio-psycho-social model of mental illness, I feel optimistic about that line of thought translating to clinical practice as a result of changes/advances in research, technology, government, and our social beliefs.
Of course everything is evolving and changing...and the bio aspects are a huge influence and very important, but I wanted to say I happen to agree with you about increases in the psychological and prevention areas, and the overall integration of those important aspects of mental health. I welcome and anticipate these changes and am curious about the future of mental health treatments.
Thanks for bringing light to this topic. :)
Posted by morganator on June 27, 2010, at 3:20:24
In reply to Re: yes, I think so... » morganator, posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 15:39:02
Thank you for shedding more light on it. I enjoyed reading your post : )
I do believe, despite a trend for at least a part of the mental health professional(especially the psychiatric part) and medical field to have an apparent inclination to find biological/genetic explanations for mental illness, many and maybe most in the mental health field believe in the bio-psycho-social model. This is encouraging.
I also want to emphasize that if we really want a new trend in prevention to truly make progress and grow, success will heavily rely on parents.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.