![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dan_MI on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:54
I know Scientology is a religion, and because of that it enjoys certain protections here and elsewhere, but Scientology also presents its self as a quasi-medical organization in its outspoken efforts to eliminate psychiatry, so I believe they are fair game for discussion here.
Lisa McPherson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson) was a woman who was a Scientologist, who also had a psychotic breakdown. She was in the emergency room about to receive psychiatric care when members of the Church of Scientology (CoS) swooped in and arranged for her to be discharged.
Once out of the hospital, they took her to a motel and instituted what is called an "Introspection Rundown" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_Rundown), which consisted of restraining her to a bed and keeping her there until she was no longer psychotic.
To that end, McPherson was tied to the bed for so long waiting for her psychosis to disappear that she developed a pulmonary embolism and died, emaciated and dehydrated.
Just as certain members have every right to refuse treatment with drugs, in my opinion every mentally ill person has the right to receive drugs for their deadly ilness.
Lisa McPherson is the Matthew Shephard of mental illness. Hopefully her case will be the last vestige of an attitude that has pervaded society since humans became endowed with these big brains of ours: that we can just snap out of depression, psychosis, OCD, or whatever.
Posted by mrtook on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
In reply to Scientology, posted by Dan_MI on June 17, 2010, at 10:46:01
I think most would agree that forcing people to take meds and forcing people not to take meds are equally reprehensible.
Posted by Phillipa on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by mrtook on June 17, 2010, at 11:25:04
This has been a heated topic on here before. Phillipa
Posted by Dan_MI on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by mrtook on June 17, 2010, at 11:25:04
i agree. particularly cruel, imho, is to force people to take anti-psychotics.
> I think most would agree that forcing people to take meds and forcing people not to take meds are equally reprehensible.
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Dan_MI on June 17, 2010, at 14:10:04
I don't necessarily disagree with you -- even the mad have rights -- but just to play devil's advocate, what about someone who is psychotic and dangerous to himself or others? Should family or the state be able to "force" that person to take anti-psychotic meds? The situation seems to present competing interests that are difficult to reconcile.
Posted by Christ_empowered on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
In reply to Scientology, posted by Dan_MI on June 17, 2010, at 10:46:01
I think a lot of times when you look at Scientology vs Psychiatry, people think "Oh, look at these freaky cult filled with rich celebrities trying to destroy a medical field because of their crazy beliefs," when really what you have is a case of one religion vs another.
Yes, Scientology is more overty religious--they have IRS non-profit church status-- but Psychiatry is, as Dr. Thomas Szasz has argued, a religion in its own right. Psychiatrists operate on dogma, not research or science. Psychiatrists have beliefs that are reflected in everything they do, from the DSM to day-to-day "treatment" of patients. Among these beliefs: suicide is bad; people who have a different perception of reality are "psychotic"; objectionable behavior can and should be controlled through medical interventions (what sociologists call "the medicalization of deviance"--its what happens when old forms of religion, like Christian churches, become unable to control behavior that is considered undesirable, but is not illegal); use of (non-prescribed, illegal) drugs is bad and needs to be dealt with. Hardship in life (divorce, violence, etc.) is "traumatic" and needs to be either "treated" or "worked through." Conversations with a specially trained person can "heal" conflicts that lead to undesirable behavior ("therapy" can cure/help "mental illness"). So on and so forth.
So, I guess I'd say it is terrible that this poor woman died under these circumstances. The authorities should look into prosecuting people. However...psychiatrists kill patients every single day, and it is extremely rare for them to be punished for it. Patients die from overdoses, from side-effects from medications (sometimes meds they were coerced or forced into taking), from drug-drug interactions...all in the name of "mental health". Where's the outrage when doctors kill off the very patients they are paid (often by taxpayers and the patient/victim) to help?
Just a thought.
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:56
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Christ_empowered on June 17, 2010, at 14:36:41
>...psychiatrists kill patients every single day...<
Could you provide some evidence for this assertion?
Posted by mrtook on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:56
In reply to Re: Scientology » Dan_MI, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 14:34:40
> I don't necessarily disagree with you -- even the mad have rights -- but just to play devil's advocate, what about someone who is psychotic and dangerous to himself or others? Should family or the state be able to "force" that person to take anti-psychotic meds? The situation seems to present competing interests that are difficult to reconcile.
So my blanket statement would apply more to those deemed "competent" I guess. Now what "competent" means, who decides it, and who decides the treatment are all debatable points as you correctly point out.
In my mind there would have to be very clear and compelling reasons to decide against competency. IE an immedate danger to self or others (a suicide attempt in progress)
BTW...is it possible to include in a Living Will your wishes in cases of onset of psychosis. (I.E. when you are judged of sound mind and body can you state the definitley do/do-not want a treatment for psyhcosis?)
Posted by Dan_MI on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:56
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Christ_empowered on June 17, 2010, at 14:36:41
Scientologists, in my opinion, are dripping with hubris to think that every mentally ill person (myself included) can be cured with vitamins.
It reminds me of myself in college, where I actually believed I would be able to talk a schizophrenic person back into reality. It didn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_related_to_Scientology
> I think a lot of times when you look at Scientology vs Psychiatry, people think "Oh, look at these freaky cult filled with rich celebrities trying to destroy a medical field because of their crazy beliefs," when really what you have is a case of one religion vs another.
>
> Yes, Scientology is more overty religious--they have IRS non-profit church status-- but Psychiatry is, as Dr. Thomas Szasz has argued, a religion in its own right. Psychiatrists operate on dogma, not research or science. Psychiatrists have beliefs that are reflected in everything they do, from the DSM to day-to-day "treatment" of patients. Among these beliefs: suicide is bad; people who have a different perception of reality are "psychotic"; objectionable behavior can and should be controlled through medical interventions (what sociologists call "the medicalization of deviance"--its what happens when old forms of religion, like Christian churches, become unable to control behavior that is considered undesirable, but is not illegal); use of (non-prescribed, illegal) drugs is bad and needs to be dealt with. Hardship in life (divorce, violence, etc.) is "traumatic" and needs to be either "treated" or "worked through." Conversations with a specially trained person can "heal" conflicts that lead to undesirable behavior ("therapy" can cure/help "mental illness"). So on and so forth.
>
> So, I guess I'd say it is terrible that this poor woman died under these circumstances. The authorities should look into prosecuting people. However...psychiatrists kill patients every single day, and it is extremely rare for them to be punished for it. Patients die from overdoses, from side-effects from medications (sometimes meds they were coerced or forced into taking), from drug-drug interactions...all in the name of "mental health". Where's the outrage when doctors kill off the very patients they are paid (often by taxpayers and the patient/victim) to help?
>
> Just a thought.
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:56
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by mrtook on June 17, 2010, at 15:20:44
I agree that the threshold should be high. Your idea of a living will is interesting and it might be effective for someone who was not competent but also not dangerous; if a person is dangerous to herself or others, though, I think the interests of the family and/or the state would take precedence.
The idea of stating in advance that one wants to endure psychosis as long as one is not a danger was explored in the 1960s by R.D. Laing and other radical psychiatrists. The idea was that the psychosis was a journey into self-knowledge, a "trip" in the lingo of the day. I have some sympathy for this view because I believe that even radically "other" mental states might contain valuable experiences and knowledge. (Clearly, a person undergoing such an experience would have to be carefully and tenderly cared for, not tied to a bed.) The problem with Radical Psych is that many people who have lived through psychosis describe it as hellish and the very opposite of a creative or generative experience. Joan Greenberg, the author of "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" Mark Vonnegut, son of the famous novelist and author of an account of his own psychotic break, "The Eden Express," each describe psychosis in this way.
Posted by Dan_MI on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:56
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Dan_MI on June 17, 2010, at 15:53:19
In the second clip President of CCHR International (and surely a star in some sort of Scientology panto, The Psychiatrist Terrorist: Hes Behind You?) Dennis Clarke confidently describes Zawahiri as [bin Ladens] psychiatrist, thats his doctor, thats his therapist, thats [dramatic pause] the guy who runs him.
Posted by emmanuel98 on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:57
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Christ_empowered on June 17, 2010, at 14:36:41
Exactly how do psychiatrists "kill people every day?" I don't understand at all what you're referring to. You know, it's not as if psychiatrists and other mental health workers go trolling the streets for customers. People seek them out because they are having difficulty managing symptoms and are unhappy in their lives.
I have seen several mental health workers (inclluding psychiatrists) and ALL of them emphasized my strengths, healthy coping mechanisms, said things like you don't want to pathologize behaviors that are relatively normal.
Posted by Huxley on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:57
In reply to Re: Scientology » Christ_empowered, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 15:16:19
FDA Finds Zyprexa Has Killed 3,400 People,
Posted by BayLeaf on June 18, 2010, at 6:01:42
In reply to Re: Scientology » Dan_MI, posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
"even the mad have rights"
Please do not refer to us as "mad". And yes, not only do we have rights....we post here.
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 10:09:02
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Huxley on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:57
If you actually read the linked document you will see that many of the deaths reported were of people who were taking the AP and died, but whose deaths could have been caused by any number of factors. Association does not equal causation.
If I take a couple of ibuprofen this morning because I have a headache and then this afternoon I drop dead of a heart attack, are you going to conclude that the ibuprofen killed me? That is the sort of reasoning you're using.
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 10:18:12
In reply to Re: Scientology » chujoe, posted by BayLeaf on June 18, 2010, at 6:01:42
BayLeaf, no offense intended. I actually prefer the term "mad" to other ways of referring to those of use who suffer from various non-standard mental states. The therm has the weight of history and avoids the false sense of certainty of various medicalized terms. Also, I included myself -- both in the category of madness and among those who post here. Finally, my phrase was meant ironically: in the context of the conversation I was trying to highlight the very real social and ethical issue of how to treat people who are experiences psychosis.
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 10:22:38
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Huxley on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:57
If you were diagnosed with, say, lung cancer and your oncologist suggested a combination of four chemotherapy drugs, explaining that the drugs would damage your bone marrow and your kidneys, but had a 60% chance of shrinking your tumor, would you do the course of chemo?
Posted by bulldog2 on June 20, 2010, at 13:31:04
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Christ_empowered on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
> I think a lot of times when you look at Scientology vs Psychiatry, people think "Oh, look at these freaky cult filled with rich celebrities trying to destroy a medical field because of their crazy beliefs," when really what you have is a case of one religion vs another.
>
> Yes, Scientology is more overty religious--they have IRS non-profit church status-- but Psychiatry is, as Dr. Thomas Szasz has argued, a religion in its own right. Psychiatrists operate on dogma, not research or science. Psychiatrists have beliefs that are reflected in everything they do, from the DSM to day-to-day "treatment" of patients. Among these beliefs: suicide is bad; people who have a different perception of reality are "psychotic"; objectionable behavior can and should be controlled through medical interventions (what sociologists call "the medicalization of deviance"--its what happens when old forms of religion, like Christian churches, become unable to control behavior that is considered undesirable, but is not illegal); use of (non-prescribed, illegal) drugs is bad and needs to be dealt with. Hardship in life (divorce, violence, etc.) is "traumatic" and needs to be either "treated" or "worked through." Conversations with a specially trained person can "heal" conflicts that lead to undesirable behavior ("therapy" can cure/help "mental illness"). So on and so forth.
>
> So, I guess I'd say it is terrible that this poor woman died under these circumstances. The authorities should look into prosecuting people. However...psychiatrists kill patients every single day, and it is extremely rare for them to be punished for it. Patients die from overdoses, from side-effects from medications (sometimes meds they were coerced or forced into taking), from drug-drug interactions...all in the name of "mental health". Where's the outrage when doctors kill off the very patients they are paid (often by taxpayers and the patient/victim) to help?
>
> Just a thought.You embody all this misplaced hatred for this field of medicine that you are encapable of making rational statements. When I read your proclamations I feel all this hatred coming through. This seems in conflict to what you say yor name embodies.
Posted by 64Bowtie on June 21, 2010, at 4:39:11
In reply to Scientology, posted by Dan_MI on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:54
.........or is the other rumor that he faked his death to avoid some IRS levy that was dogging him??? Or....???
Rod
Posted by Dan_MI on June 23, 2010, at 6:46:02
In reply to » Dan_MI » Did L. Ron Hubbard really die???, posted by 64Bowtie on June 21, 2010, at 4:39:11
Oh he died, probably by the hand the current head of scientology, David Miscavige (rhymes with miscarriage). He had a cerebral hemorrhage and his blood was filled with Coumadin and Vistaril (a psychiatric drug).
> .........or is the other rumor that he faked his death to avoid some IRS levy that was dogging him??? Or....???
>
> Rod
Posted by capricorn on July 2, 2010, at 1:27:17
In reply to Re: Scientology, posted by Dan_MI on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:55
> i agree. particularly cruel, imho, is to force people to take anti-psychotics.
>Even if people are in denial of having an illness and as a result of not taking medication are barely functioning due to psychosis/are a danger to themselves or others?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.