Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 32651

Shown: posts 55 to 79 of 89. Go back in thread:

 

Please, I beg you--Stop

Posted by tina on May 14, 2000, at 12:05:49

In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by Elizabeth on May 14, 2000, at 4:24:27

Can you all just agree to disagree and drop the subject. I know some of you have opinions that you want to get across to the others but it really hurts me to see everyone at eachother's throats. This is a place where we are supposed to be supportive and non-judgemental of eachother. I come here for help and understanding from people who are trying to make it through difficult times but it almost makes me cry thinking of all of you getting so upset over this. I'm begging you--please stop, please, please, please. I love you guys.


> > Is there evidence that ECT is being administered in the United States at this time without patient consent? In the case of someone who is declared incompetent by court order (or has not reached the age of majority), who is permitted to give consent for ECT if not the patient, and under what circumstances?
>
> I can't answer any of your other questions, but it would be a parent or legal guardian.

 

Don't stop.

Posted by SLS on May 14, 2000, at 12:59:48

In reply to Please, I beg you--Stop, posted by tina on May 14, 2000, at 12:05:49

ECT is an important topic.

I choose what to read.
I choose what not to read.
I choose who to read.
I choose who not to read.
I choose what to write.
I choose what not to write.

Just choose.

Don't blame others for your choice.


- Scott

 

Re: Don't stop - Being civil

Posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 9:37:50

In reply to Don't stop., posted by SLS on May 14, 2000, at 12:59:48

Scott,
Very insightful, very true, a point well taken.

BUT, I think you're missing the point here. No one is trying to suppress the topic, it's an important topic and obviously a sensitive one to many people. I have learned a lot from reading the posts that stuck to the subject. The issue here is verbal and unneccessary abuse.

I spent some time reading the Constitution today and while it STILL guarantees free speech, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a person the right to be abusive while exercising that free speech. This is what's happened here. I fully support Dr. Bob's decision to try and block the offender from posting again. I'm sure this makes me a horrible person in some people's eyes.

I say again that we must consider the new people coming to this board, choosing what to read is a touchy area. I compare it to driving down the freeway and coming upon an bad accident, you know that its probably going to be bloody and disgusting, but its human nature that we just HAVE to look anyway. Do we want to be responsible for pushing away a person who is desperately looking for our help and support by choosing to be offensive while exercising our right to free speech? I don't. Thats what I choose.

Scott, I don't think its a matter of blame, its a matter of respect.

I hope I have not offended anyone by my opinions here. It certainly is not my intent.

Greg

> ECT is an important topic.
>
> I choose what to read.
> I choose what not to read.
> I choose who to read.
> I choose who not to read.
> I choose what to write.
> I choose what not to write.
>
> Just choose.
>
> Don't blame others for your choice.
>
>
> - Scott

 

Re: Tina?

Posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 9:53:28

In reply to Please, I beg you--Stop, posted by tina on May 14, 2000, at 12:05:49

Dear Tina,

I don't know if you picked my posting and Elizabeth's response at random for your plea to stop this thread, but I am sincerely interested in the answers to the questions I asked, and deeply concerned about the issues involved. I don't mind admitting that I'm ignorant about ECT. I've read some of the objections of those who are totally against its use -- medical and political -- and I've listened to my doctor about the cases of two clients who go to the city once or twice a year for an in-patient visit to have it done, but I am personally unaware of ECT being forced on anyone at this time, in no small part because of the intensity of attention its misuse received in the media in the past.

So if it is still going on -- perhaps in another state -- I would really like to know. The wife of a friend and colleague produced a segment on private psychiatric care for adolescents that wound up shutting down one abusive, understaffed care facility back east. I have no influence whatsoever personally, but if there were a public or private facility that was still using ECT punitively or without some sort of protective means of consent, I am in a position to bring it to that producer's attention, but I would need hard facts before even mentioning it to her. Does that make sense?

The core of this thread was interrupted with an understandably emotional interjection by someone who received what he considered abusive and improper treatment in the past. There are thousands of people who share his story, and it is a sad chapter in the history of the treatment of mental illness. However, whether it is relevant today or not was never questioned, as far as I can tell.

I raised the issue of currency and relevance, because most of what you might have considered the destructive discussion that followed hinges on whether it's a current issue or not.

When I write about, or talk about, the most difficult experiences I've had in the past, I frequently become temporarily irrational -- I'm back at 16, feeling very much persecuted. Often, just getting it out let's me see how much I have grown and changed, how much healthier I am today. If someone reading or listening to me responds to the content of what I've written, then somehow I get lost -- the issue takes on a life of its own. If the issue still applies (e. g., what are schools doing in the post-Columbine era to insure the civil rights of their students?), then its good fodder for discussion. But if high school boys vice principals haven't used corporal punishment in the last 15 or 20 years, then it doesn't do much good to discuss it as a separate issue while leaving the hurt poster in the dust.

I don't know enough about the poster at this point to offer him any help. But I can help either lay the issue (forced ECT) to rest or bring it to light, either of which seems positive and helpful.

I hope this helps clarify my intentions. If you still find my earlier posting or this one offensive, I apologize and would like to know about where I got off track. Perhaps I'm missing something important, and if so I would like to be told about it.

Best wishes,

Mark

 

Re: Mark!

Posted by tina on May 15, 2000, at 11:28:20

In reply to Re: Tina?, posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 9:53:28

It's not that I found your post offensive--not at all. I understand that ECT is an important topic and people need education. It's just that a lot of fighting and pettiness happens in my family and it upsets me. I'm not very good with conflict and in my warped way I guess I was trying to help diffuse a volatile situation. I just want the world to be a caring, understanding place where we can be supportive of eachother and even those we don't understand. That was the only point I was making. Forgive my interference, it was kindly meant.


> Dear Tina,
>
> I don't know if you picked my posting and Elizabeth's response at random for your plea to stop this thread, but I am sincerely interested in the answers to the questions I asked, and deeply concerned about the issues involved. I don't mind admitting that I'm ignorant about ECT. I've read some of the objections of those who are totally against its use -- medical and political -- and I've listened to my doctor about the cases of two clients who go to the city once or twice a year for an in-patient visit to have it done, but I am personally unaware of ECT being forced on anyone at this time, in no small part because of the intensity of attention its misuse received in the media in the past.
>
> So if it is still going on -- perhaps in another state -- I would really like to know. The wife of a friend and colleague produced a segment on private psychiatric care for adolescents that wound up shutting down one abusive, understaffed care facility back east. I have no influence whatsoever personally, but if there were a public or private facility that was still using ECT punitively or without some sort of protective means of consent, I am in a position to bring it to that producer's attention, but I would need hard facts before even mentioning it to her. Does that make sense?
>
> The core of this thread was interrupted with an understandably emotional interjection by someone who received what he considered abusive and improper treatment in the past. There are thousands of people who share his story, and it is a sad chapter in the history of the treatment of mental illness. However, whether it is relevant today or not was never questioned, as far as I can tell.
>
> I raised the issue of currency and relevance, because most of what you might have considered the destructive discussion that followed hinges on whether it's a current issue or not.
>
> When I write about, or talk about, the most difficult experiences I've had in the past, I frequently become temporarily irrational -- I'm back at 16, feeling very much persecuted. Often, just getting it out let's me see how much I have grown and changed, how much healthier I am today. If someone reading or listening to me responds to the content of what I've written, then somehow I get lost -- the issue takes on a life of its own. If the issue still applies (e. g., what are schools doing in the post-Columbine era to insure the civil rights of their students?), then its good fodder for discussion. But if high school boys vice principals haven't used corporal punishment in the last 15 or 20 years, then it doesn't do much good to discuss it as a separate issue while leaving the hurt poster in the dust.
>
> I don't know enough about the poster at this point to offer him any help. But I can help either lay the issue (forced ECT) to rest or bring it to light, either of which seems positive and helpful.
>
> I hope this helps clarify my intentions. If you still find my earlier posting or this one offensive, I apologize and would like to know about where I got off track. Perhaps I'm missing something important, and if so I would like to be told about it.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark

 

Re: Don't stop being civil

Posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 12:45:38

In reply to Re: Don't stop - Being civil, posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 9:37:50

Hi Greg.


Thanks for posting your thoughts.

> Very insightful, very true, a point well taken.

I just wanted everything to be all-better.

It was Pollyanna-ish and short. I was just about to go to bed.

> BUT, I think you're missing the point here. No one is trying to suppress the topic, it's an important topic and obviously a sensitive one to many people. I have learned a lot from reading the posts that stuck to the subject. The issue here is verbal and unneccessary abuse.

The discourse along this thread prompted a member of the community to write:

"Can you all just agree to disagree and drop the subject."

This is not to this person's discredit. I really didn't mean to single this person out and direct my reply at him/her personally.

* Dear person, I apologize for having seemingly directed my post at you. I guess the subject-header could have made you feel this way. I just wanted to say something that might help to prevent the need to drop a subject. Sorry.

I could easily see myself writing the same thing if I had allowed myself to become emotionally involved in this abusive discourse. I know how emotionally charged (unintended pun) issues like this can be, and how easy it is to become antagonistic once intense personal feelings and opinions are challenged. Without condoning those who have written the provocative and abusive posts, I do not find it difficult to recognize the humanness of the authors. People are the way they are. Who knows how they got there?

There is absolutely no way to stop someone who has committed himself to provoking an abusive discourse, short of preventing him from posting. On the other hand, interacting with someone who has said some pretty mean things because his judgment has been influenced by intense emotion, or simply due to his temperament or level of maturity, might influence his behavior and perhaps change his perspective. You can try. If this person continues to be abusive and demonstrate a propensity towards pottie-mouth, one can just walk (click) away. If one continues to read, write, and become upset, it is because he chooses to. I know the "choice" is usually more like a "reaction". However, it is important and productive to recognize that one is actually empowered with choice.

> Scott, I don't think its a matter of blame, its a matter of respect.

I think it is a matter of responsibility - one's responsibility to himself.

"Hey yeah - I don't have to respond to this guy. I'll just get more upset anyway."

Blame? Blame the troubled person who has been abusive for abusing? Blame the abused person for getting upset because he chose to continue the abusive discourse? I don't know. I just try not to allow myself to participate on that level. If, during the course of an argument, someone calls me an asshole, I get upset. If I continue the argument, I will probably be called an asshole again. If such an argument occurs face to face, it is not so easy to escape the abuser, especially if one must be around him all of the time. Besides, abusers will often follow you once you turn around and walk away.

We have it much easier here.

Silence can be very persuasive.

If you really want to abuse the abuser, just ignore him - always. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate to choose not to.

I know it is far easier to say than it is to do. It requires quite a bit of discipline. Sometimes it helps me when I pretend I am a professional. A professional what? It really doesn't matter. (I happen to be a professional non-professional).

> I spent some time reading the Constitution today and while it STILL guarantees free speech, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a person the right to be abusive while exercising that free speech.

> This is what's happened here. I fully support Dr. Bob's decision to try and block the offender from posting again. I'm sure this makes me a horrible person in some people's eyes.

Not mine.

It is saddening to see this, though.

> I say again that we must consider the new people coming to this board, choosing what to read is a touchy area. I compare it to driving down the freeway and coming upon an bad accident, you know that its probably going to be bloody and disgusting, but its human nature that we just HAVE to look anyway. Do we want to be responsible for pushing away a person who is desperately looking for our help and support by choosing to be offensive while exercising our right to free speech? I don't. Thats what I choose.

I am a bit of a rescuer myself. I would definitely want to step in and do something if no one else were to. In this situation, I think it might be more productive to console the abused person and say, "Don't listen to him - let me point you in the right direction" rather than reprimand the abuser by saying, "don't say that (you asshole)".

The people here who have jumped in to help have done a much better job at handling the situation than I could have. I admire them.

I really haven't encountered too many posts in which someone is being abused. I am usually not attracted to the subject headers along the threads that contain them. When I do, I can't help myself but to click on another hyperlink. I just don't have enough time or energy to spare to become involved with such juvenile behavior. Usually, there are enough paramedics around anyway.

> I hope I have not offended anyone by my opinions here. It certainly is not my intent.
>
> Greg

I hope I haven't either, although I think I probably have.

I'll think about this stuff some more.

Thanks again, Greg.


- Scott

> > ECT is an important topic.
> >
> > I choose what to read.
> > I choose what not to read.
> > I choose who to read.
> > I choose who not to read.
> > I choose what to write.
> > I choose what not to write.
> >
> > Just choose.
> >
> > Don't blame others for your choice.
> >
> >
> > - Scott

 

Scott-Thanks for Understanding

Posted by tina on May 15, 2000, at 13:06:13

In reply to Re: Don't stop being civil, posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 12:45:38

I was a little upset by the way you just dismissed my feelings, but no permanent damage done. Thanks for the explanation and understanding of it's source.


> Hi Greg.
>
>
> Thanks for posting your thoughts.
>
> > Very insightful, very true, a point well taken.
>
> I just wanted everything to be all-better.
>
> It was Pollyanna-ish and short. I was just about to go to bed.
>
> > BUT, I think you're missing the point here. No one is trying to suppress the topic, it's an important topic and obviously a sensitive one to many people. I have learned a lot from reading the posts that stuck to the subject. The issue here is verbal and unneccessary abuse.
>
> The discourse along this thread prompted a member of the community to write:
>
> "Can you all just agree to disagree and drop the subject."
>
> This is not to this person's discredit. I really didn't mean to single this person out and direct my reply at him/her personally.
>
> * Dear person, I apologize for having seemingly directed my post at you. I guess the subject-header could have made you feel this way. I just wanted to say something that might help to prevent the need to drop a subject. Sorry.
>
> I could easily see myself writing the same thing if I had allowed myself to become emotionally involved in this abusive discourse. I know how emotionally charged (unintended pun) issues like this can be, and how easy it is to become antagonistic once intense personal feelings and opinions are challenged. Without condoning those who have written the provocative and abusive posts, I do not find it difficult to recognize the humanness of the authors. People are the way they are. Who knows how they got there?
>
> There is absolutely no way to stop someone who has committed himself to provoking an abusive discourse, short of preventing him from posting. On the other hand, interacting with someone who has said some pretty mean things because his judgment has been influenced by intense emotion, or simply due to his temperament or level of maturity, might influence his behavior and perhaps change his perspective. You can try. If this person continues to be abusive and demonstrate a propensity towards pottie-mouth, one can just walk (click) away. If one continues to read, write, and become upset, it is because he chooses to. I know the "choice" is usually more like a "reaction". However, it is important and productive to recognize that one is actually empowered with choice.
>
> > Scott, I don't think its a matter of blame, its a matter of respect.
>
> I think it is a matter of responsibility - one's responsibility to himself.
>
> "Hey yeah - I don't have to respond to this guy. I'll just get more upset anyway."
>
> Blame? Blame the troubled person who has been abusive for abusing? Blame the abused person for getting upset because he chose to continue the abusive discourse? I don't know. I just try not to allow myself to participate on that level. If, during the course of an argument, someone calls me an asshole, I get upset. If I continue the argument, I will probably be called an asshole again. If such an argument occurs face to face, it is not so easy to escape the abuser, especially if one must be around him all of the time. Besides, abusers will often follow you once you turn around and walk away.
>
> We have it much easier here.
>
> Silence can be very persuasive.
>
> If you really want to abuse the abuser, just ignore him - always. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate to choose not to.
>
> I know it is far easier to say than it is to do. It requires quite a bit of discipline. Sometimes it helps me when I pretend I am a professional. A professional what? It really doesn't matter. (I happen to be a professional non-professional).
>
> > I spent some time reading the Constitution today and while it STILL guarantees free speech, no where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee a person the right to be abusive while exercising that free speech.
>
> > This is what's happened here. I fully support Dr. Bob's decision to try and block the offender from posting again. I'm sure this makes me a horrible person in some people's eyes.
>
> Not mine.
>
> It is saddening to see this, though.
>
> > I say again that we must consider the new people coming to this board, choosing what to read is a touchy area. I compare it to driving down the freeway and coming upon an bad accident, you know that its probably going to be bloody and disgusting, but its human nature that we just HAVE to look anyway. Do we want to be responsible for pushing away a person who is desperately looking for our help and support by choosing to be offensive while exercising our right to free speech? I don't. Thats what I choose.
>
> I am a bit of a rescuer myself. I would definitely want to step in and do something if no one else were to. In this situation, I think it might be more productive to console the abused person and say, "Don't listen to him - let me point you in the right direction" rather than reprimand the abuser by saying, "don't say that (you asshole)".
>
> The people here who have jumped in to help have done a much better job at handling the situation than I could have. I admire them.
>
> I really haven't encountered too many posts in which someone is being abused. I am usually not attracted to the subject headers along the threads that contain them. When I do, I can't help myself but to click on another hyperlink. I just don't have enough time or energy to spare to become involved with such juvenile behavior. Usually, there are enough paramedics around anyway.
>
> > I hope I have not offended anyone by my opinions here. It certainly is not my intent.
> >
> > Greg
>
> I hope I haven't either, although I think I probably have.
>
> I'll think about this stuff some more.
>
> Thanks again, Greg.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> > > ECT is an important topic.
> > >
> > > I choose what to read.
> > > I choose what not to read.
> > > I choose who to read.
> > > I choose who not to read.
> > > I choose what to write.
> > > I choose what not to write.
> > >
> > > Just choose.
> > >
> > > Don't blame others for your choice.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott

 

Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?

Posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:24

In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by Elizabeth on May 14, 2000, at 4:24:27

Most states allow for the involuntary application of ECT.


- Scott

 

Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised)

Posted by Adam on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:33

In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by boBB on May 13, 2000, at 14:10:10

Not too long ago, some idiot decided to post a "humorous" message filled with
anti-Semitic language and references to Nazism. I practically begged to have
it removed, and then aagonized afterward over the conflict I have with my
feelings about public discourse being polluted with such filth and their
juxtoposition with some equally strong feelings of opposition to censorship.

I think I may have found some peace with the issue, though I admit it's an
uneasy peace.

Nothing is perfect. No stable balance will ever be found between the need for
free speech and the damage such freedoms can lead to when abused. Perhaps in
some situations a certain amount of censorship is appropriate. For instance,
this forum, contrary to your suggestion, is not in fact a "public" one. Dr.
Bob states quite clearly in his disclaimer that this space is his, what goes
into it is his, and he can do what he wants with it. He also lays down some
simple rules, the most appropros to this discussion being the demand for
civility.

So, it is a place that all are invited (not entitled) to participate in, and
that invitation is extended so long as we respect the host and each other. It's
not our inalienable right to be here, it's our privilege. If we want to keep
it, we shouldn't abuse it. It is a place to find support and gather information,
not microcosm or meta-world where unrestricted speech should flourish. That is
beyond its scope. Few restrictions are placed on us, though, so we have little
cause to complain.

Well, I feel better, anyway.

little cause to complain.

> Well, if that is the way you feel, I guess I will stop posting here.
>
> It seems the mutual education and support wanted by users of this board is one where the pro-university, pro-medical industry, pro-collegiate-speach camp is supported, and where those who engage in conversation styles more common to poor neighborhoods are excluded. It seems people here generally want their medical model of themselves as sick, helpless victims reinforced and any other kind of education excluded.
>
> It is perfectly okay for you to sit in a comedy club or tune in the comedy channel and listen to a person engage in political speach that includes insults, curses and name calling but when a person uses this style of speech outside a capitalist, paid venue relationship, it seems unacceptable.
>
> Why is it that so many people here claim to have problems with rage and call it a medical problem, but when someone expresses legitimate rage, it they are treated with utter contempt? It sounds to me like those who like to call themselves sick and whine about being stigmatized are afraid their paper-thin analysis of themselves will fall apart if exposed to any other point of view.
>
> You educate me only as to your narromindedness and you support me or my ally Fred none whatsoever. If I have anything to say here, you can expect it to be said with audacious rage, and using another alias and alternate ISP's and with all cookie's blocked so as to end-run any attempts to censor my speach in this PUBLIC RESOURCE
>
> Fred's speach was nowhere near equivilant with yelling fire in a theater. It was annoying because in impinged on your world view. Get a clue. This kind of speach is all over the internet. Frankly, all of this medical model BS and diagnosis of supposed illness, in cases where people to numb to hear the voice of their conscience are called depressed, is a personal insult to me and to all living beings. Your insistence on the medical model, coupled with a legal system where I can be committed with no benifit of a jury hearing is a real physical threat to me.

 

Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?

Posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 14:43:21

In reply to Re: Evidence For Forced ECT?, posted by SLS on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:24

Scott,
Educate me, what is the "criteria" (for lack of a better word), as you understand it, for subjecting a person to involuntary ECT? I've been doing some reading since this thread came up, but there is much I still don't understand.

Tx,
Greg

> Most states allow for the involuntary application of ECT.
>
>
> - Scott

 

Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised)

Posted by gg on May 15, 2000, at 15:13:22

In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by Adam on May 15, 2000, at 14:00:33

> Not too long ago, some idiot decided to post a "humorous" message filled with
> anti-Semitic language and references to Nazism. I practically begged to have
> it removed, and then aagonized afterward over the conflict I have with my
> feelings about public discourse being polluted with such filth and their
> juxtoposition with some equally strong feelings of opposition to censorship.

I think there is a difference between fred's overreaction to someone's apparent misunderstanding and dismissal of an important issue and posts supporting Naziism. Of course if I'd felt attacked I might have seen it differently. I hope if it were me being attacked I would have the grace to retreat in the face of someone else's overwhelming pain. Of course it is dr bob's board and he has the legal right to enforce his own criteria.
boBB, I have to admire you for taking a stand. I certainly think your arguments deserve to be heard and I'm sure you'll find another forum for them. Psychobabble won't be the same without you though ;-)
>
> I think I may have found some peace with the issue, though I admit it's an
> uneasy peace.
>
> Nothing is perfect. No stable balance will ever be found between the need for
> free speech and the damage such freedoms can lead to when abused. Perhaps in
> some situations a certain amount of censorship is appropriate. For instance,
> this forum, contrary to your suggestion, is not in fact a "public" one. Dr.
> Bob states quite clearly in his disclaimer that this space is his, what goes
> into it is his, and he can do what he wants with it. He also lays down some
> simple rules, the most appropros to this discussion being the demand for
> civility.
>
> So, it is a place that all are invited (not entitled) to participate in, and
> that invitation is extended so long as we respect the host and each other. It's
> not our inalienable right to be here, it's our privilege. If we want to keep
> it, we shouldn't abuse it. It is a place to find support and gather information,
> not microcosm or meta-world where unrestricted speech should flourish. That is
> beyond its scope. Few restrictions are placed on us, though, so we have little
> cause to complain.
>
> Well, I feel better, anyway.
>
> little cause to complain.
>
> > Well, if that is the way you feel, I guess I will stop posting here.
> >
> > It seems the mutual education and support wanted by users of this board is one where the pro-university, pro-medical industry, pro-collegiate-speach camp is supported, and where those who engage in conversation styles more common to poor neighborhoods are excluded. It seems people here generally want their medical model of themselves as sick, helpless victims reinforced and any other kind of education excluded.
> >
> > It is perfectly okay for you to sit in a comedy club or tune in the comedy channel and listen to a person engage in political speach that includes insults, curses and name calling but when a person uses this style of speech outside a capitalist, paid venue relationship, it seems unacceptable.
> >
> > Why is it that so many people here claim to have problems with rage and call it a medical problem, but when someone expresses legitimate rage, it they are treated with utter contempt? It sounds to me like those who like to call themselves sick and whine about being stigmatized are afraid their paper-thin analysis of themselves will fall apart if exposed to any other point of view.
> >
> > You educate me only as to your narromindedness and you support me or my ally Fred none whatsoever. If I have anything to say here, you can expect it to be said with audacious rage, and using another alias and alternate ISP's and with all cookie's blocked so as to end-run any attempts to censor my speach in this PUBLIC RESOURCE
> >
> > Fred's speach was nowhere near equivilant with yelling fire in a theater. It was annoying because in impinged on your world view. Get a clue. This kind of speach is all over the internet. Frankly, all of this medical model BS and diagnosis of supposed illness, in cases where people to numb to hear the voice of their conscience are called depressed, is a personal insult to me and to all living beings. Your insistence on the medical model, coupled with a legal system where I can be committed with no benifit of a jury hearing is a real physical threat to me.

 

thanks fred

Posted by gg on May 15, 2000, at 15:39:42

In reply to Re: I'm outa here (middle finger raised), posted by gg on May 15, 2000, at 15:13:22

thanks for your courage in sharing a painful part of your life. It is important to bear witness to these horrors no matter how long ago. god bless you,fred. gg

 

Information

Posted by Jamie on May 15, 2000, at 17:37:32

In reply to Re: Don't stop - Being civil, posted by Greg on May 15, 2000, at 9:37:50

I received an interesting e-mail this morning from someone named Fred Stone, directing me to this thread. I am not sure if it is the same Fred who got booted from this thread, but Mr. Stone offered some intersting links.

One link was to a state of California study that indicated most ECT therapy is given to people age 65 and older. Another mentioned a Texas newspaper's study that revealed ECT is most often paid for by medicaid.

The e-mail started off with suggestions about the role of anti-depressants in school shootings. It ended with links to information about the drug war, and especially the role of former New York Governor David Rockefeller.

In the middle of the e-mail was information about John D. Rockefeller, founder of the University of Chicago. The link talks about J. Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly and the vast amount of wealth he accumulated for his estate and the organizations he endowed, which include the University of Chicago. There was also some information in there about the University's role in the production of the first atomic bomb.

I am not sure how Mr. Stone got my e-mail address, or how he knew of my interest in these topics. Electronic dialogue breeds some strange bedfellows. Nor do I know who else received this information, but in the interest of better understanding, I decided to post it here.


Received from Fred Stone, May 15, 2000:
___________________________________________

Here is something to thing about:

Kip Kinkel, who in Springfield, Oregon in May of 1998 opened fire in a high school and also killed his parents, was taking Prozac.

Eric Harris was rejected by Marine Corps recruiters just five days before the April 20, 1999 Columbine massacre because he was on an anti-depressant medication known as Luvox.

What the people of Colorado say:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/leg/leg1110.htm

http://www.ktb.net/~psycrime/pc-287.htm

http://www.ktb.net/~psycrime/pc-230.htm

http://www.ktb.net/~psycrime/ed-05.htm

http://madnation.org/parity.htm

http://madnation.org/news/kendra/strategiesthatwork.htm

http://www.madnation.org/news/kendra/nyaprsspeaks.htm

The University of Chicago was founded by John D. Rockefeller:

http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/SO/rock.htm

http://www.fm.co.za/99/0423/trends/ctrend.htm

http://www.homestead.com/AmHistory/Industrialism.html

http://www.indian-express.com/fe/daily/19980520/14055524.html

In January 1942, Enrico Fermi's on-going work with graphite and uranium was transferred to a new secret project, code named the Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab) at the University of Chicago. In April, Fermi begins design of CP-1, the world's first (human built) nuclear reactor.

Frederick Rudolph, professor of history at Williams College, wrote in his 1962 study, The American College and University: A History,
"No episode was more important in shaping the outlook and expectations of American higher education during those years than the founding
of the University of Chicago, one of those events in American history that brought into focus the spirit of an age." (U of Chi web site)


ALL IN THE FAMILY:

http://www.walrus.com/~resist/resist_this/120798nyprisons.html

http://ndsn.org/FEB95/NEWYORK.html

http://www.november.org/

http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/nysom.html

http://macc.4mg.com/

http://www.igc.org/hrw/campaigns/drugs/index.htm

http://www.csdp.org/factbook/crime.htm

http://www.mapinc.org/






 

Re: Information and Relative Realities

Posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 19:54:56

In reply to Information, posted by Jamie on May 15, 2000, at 17:37:32

Hi Jamie,

I received the information from "Fred Stone" as well. I believe it is important to open dialogs with those who experience things differently than most people, because there is no compelling evidence that any one point of view or understanding of relative reality is correct.

In other words, as I've been reminded, a label such as "psychotic," while useful within the "majority reality" for quickly and efficiently dealing with a too-large caseload or prescribing medications based on the experience of other physicians, breaks down as a definitive explanation for a person under closer examination -- as does any label. It's not that "psychosis" doesn't exist -- it's just a cluster of enough-similar symptoms to justify a diagnosis -- but that everyone seems to be somewhere on a continuum that includes psychosis. As such, our only argument for "correctness" is that more people see the world the way "we" do than the way "they" (i. e., schizophrenics) do. That's not much of a basis for an argument!

I have some intuitive ability. I really don't care if someone who doesn't believe in intuition says I'm picking up on visual cues, small subconscious signals in body language or tone of voice, or making generalizations that apply to everybody. That's fine. I don't need an explanation to know what I know, and the basis for my knowing is unimportant to me. But if I presented it in the "wrong" way, I could be considered insane. Instead, people used to seek my advice on a regular basis. There's an interestingly small difference there. (I quit doing readings when I couldn't reliably set my depression aside.)

When someone sees vast, interconnected conspiracies controlling the world right down to a particular individual (usually the person perceiving the conspiracy), my internal "oh, this person is a paranoid" alarm usually goes off.

But increasingly, I'm interested in knowing what exactly they perceive. Why? Because most spiritual paths state that heaven and hell are right here on earth, that they are not "somewhere else," that all realities are in fact co-existing in the same place and time. "Healthier" or at least "happier" people generally exhibit more denial and assumption of goodness than "less healthy" or at least "less happy" people. "Correct" or "incorrect" becomes a bit of a blur. I sometimes wonder if we were all instantly aware of all the suffering and wrongdoing in the world, we might despair and want to kill ourselves -- yet my teacher says just the opposite is true. On the other hand, if we are able to perceive the emptiness of even the most seemingly debased and sadistic phenomena, then we're free, aren't we?

Buddhism suggests that the outer world doesn't need to change to be understood as perfect and empty of any inherent reality. Yet my lama claims that no one ever got to enlightenment from negativity, so I smile that once again Buddhism proves practical as well as epistemological.

So if I choose the relative delusion of happiness and trust and innate goodness over the relative delusion of unhappiness and distrust and evil, it is for a reason, and not just because I think it is more "correct." I am interested in the personal experiences of the damned, as it were, because in understanding my differences and similarities with them I might glimpse an enlightened person's differences and similarities with me, and in doing so, choose to move more towards the light, towards positiveness, greater healing, and ultimately, benefit for others as well as for myself. I'm just a selfish beginner who is longing to be a little less so.

Best wishes,

Mark H.

 

Fred Stone

Posted by Cam W. on May 15, 2000, at 22:22:50

In reply to Re: Information and Relative Realities, posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 19:54:56

I got that Fred Stone e-mail as well. So, it's from here. Since many of us post our e-mail addresses I guess we have to put up with it. Actually I got the e-mail twice (twice blessed).

The sites he has posted are not, to my knowledge, peer reviewed statements, but news items. To be honest, I did not go to all sites, but I did see enough to tell me that we are dealing with someone with an agenda.

Perhaps it was perpetrated by an organization who seemingly has an agenda to discredit medicine and to be more specific, psychiatry. Hmmm, I wonder who they could be?

Musing over the possibilities - Cam

 

Re: Fred Stone

Posted by bob on May 15, 2000, at 23:00:18

In reply to Fred Stone, posted by Cam W. on May 15, 2000, at 22:22:50

I guess I'm yet another "friend of Fred Stone."

Personally, I cannot see the connection between Enrico Fermi, Luvox, and Columbine ... but I guess I should visit the web sites to find out.

[time to poke tongue firmly in cheek...]

My guess? What's the car commercial with the guy driving the Volvo or something like that, whiteish hair, flattop buzz cut, pocket protector and pens, listening to the conspiracy theory talk radio program, driving through the desert ... pulls off the road after the advertised car won't get off his tail even after he thinks they're eating his dust. I think THAT guy is Fred Stone.

"Takes all kinds ...."

knowhutimean?
bob

 

Re: Fred Flintstone

Posted by boBB on May 16, 2000, at 0:11:39

In reply to Re: Fred Stone, posted by bob on May 15, 2000, at 23:00:18


No agenda, no salary, not even my own personal computer

You forgot to watch the end of the commercial, which is never broadcast for commercial reasons. The couple in the advertised car died in a fiery crash moments later, a result of their own excessive speed. They left three children to grow up as orphans.

Try to involuntarily commit me, Motherfucker, and I will rip your head off and stuff it up your ass PROFESSOR!!!

Know where I learned to talk like that? The United States Army.

Vote Democrat. I do.

 

Re: Information and Relative Realities

Posted by SLS on May 16, 2000, at 7:07:36

In reply to Re: Information and Relative Realities, posted by Mark H. on May 15, 2000, at 19:54:56

A few personal thoughts...


I don't know what lies beyond.

Life for us is on earth.

You only go around once in the flesh as You.

I'm afraid to bet on anything else.


- Scott

 

Re: Information

Posted by Elizabeth on May 22, 2000, at 4:25:11

In reply to Information, posted by Jamie on May 15, 2000, at 17:37:32

> One link was to a state of California study that indicated most ECT therapy is given to people age 65 and older. Another mentioned a Texas newspaper's study that revealed ECT is most often paid for by medicaid.

The elderly often find it difficult to tolerate the side effects of antidepressant drugs, especially because they're more likely than younger people to be taking lots of other drugs as well.

> The e-mail started off with suggestions about the role of anti-depressants in school shootings.

Hmm -- like, for example, Eric Harris, who stopped taking his Luvox shortly before gunning down a bunch of his classmates?

These days, troubled people are liable to be taking antidepressants. Do the antidepressants always work? No, obviously not. But do the antidepressants make them more troubled? I doubt it.

> In the middle of the e-mail was information about John D. Rockefeller, founder of the University of Chicago. The link talks about J. Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly and the vast amount of wealth he accumulated for his estate and the organizations he endowed, which include the University of Chicago. There was also some information in there about the University's role in the production of the first atomic bomb.

Loose associations????

The more I read, the more I wonder whether this fellow you heard from is (or was) suffering from acute mania. If he (or she) is reading, I urge him (or her) to look into or at least consider the possibility.

 

Re: Diagnosing/labeling others

Posted by grannybabble on May 22, 2000, at 14:43:13

In reply to Re: Information, posted by Elizabeth on May 22, 2000, at 4:25:11

> Loose associations????
>
> The more I read, the more I wonder whether this fellow you heard from is (or was) suffering from acute mania. If he (or she) is reading, I urge him (or her) to look into or at least consider the possibility.


I know you must feel strongly about these issues to have brought this thread forward and I think that is good,but I think it would be most useful if we focused on the ideas and issues rather than personalities.
There seems to be an increasing tendency on this board (and I'm not totally innocent) towards labeling others behaviours and beliefs as evidence of pathology. I think this is wrong. I apologize for doing it if I have.
I think acute mania is not something that can be diagnosed by a stranger in cyberspace. I think someone in acute mania probably would not be receptive to your suggestions anyway no matter of how well meant they may or may not have been.
I think we would all do well to argue with people's ideas and not offer diagnosis. When a diagnosis is appended to a disagreement it seems to perpetuate stigma and I'm sure you don't want to do that.
After all loose associations are also associated with creativity.

 

Re: Diagnosing/labeling others

Posted by Adam on May 22, 2000, at 20:47:41

In reply to Re: Diagnosing/labeling others, posted by grannybabble on May 22, 2000, at 14:43:13


It seems it was just a suggestion. I saw someone when I was in the hospital suffering from "acute mania". She
was given Celexa, and it precipitated a manic episode. She was still in enough command of her faculties to voluntarily
isolate herself after repeated suggestions that her behavior was becoming inappropriate, and that if she did not
make some effort to keep from accosting people, that effort would have to be made for her. She had a lot on her mind,
and felt whoever was nearby needed to hear it. It was very sad, because once it was over, she returned to har usual
self, which was very sweet and actually quite introverted, though admittedly, depressed. I hope she found some relief.

If "Fred" was/is in a manic state, he may not realise it. To be so informed might save him some serious trouble, if
not his life. If he is not so afflicted, no harm done. I imagine "Fred", who clearly displayed some odd and
inappropriate behavior, might benefit from an evaluation. Whatever impells him to get that is a positive thing.


> > Loose associations????
> >
> > The more I read, the more I wonder whether this fellow you heard from is (or was) suffering from acute mania. If he (or she) is reading, I urge him (or her) to look into or at least consider the possibility.
>
>
> I know you must feel strongly about these issues to have brought this thread forward and I think that is good,but I think it would be most useful if we focused on the ideas and issues rather than personalities.
> There seems to be an increasing tendency on this board (and I'm not totally innocent) towards labeling others behaviours and beliefs as evidence of pathology. I think this is wrong. I apologize for doing it if I have.
> I think acute mania is not something that can be diagnosed by a stranger in cyberspace. I think someone in acute mania probably would not be receptive to your suggestions anyway no matter of how well meant they may or may not have been.
> I think we would all do well to argue with people's ideas and not offer diagnosis. When a diagnosis is appended to a disagreement it seems to perpetuate stigma and I'm sure you don't want to do that.
> After all loose associations are also associated with creativity.

 

Re: Information - Elizabeth

Posted by SLS on May 26, 2000, at 8:06:25

In reply to Re: Information, posted by Elizabeth on May 22, 2000, at 4:25:11

Hi Elizabeth.


I wanted to ask you three questions and make one comment.


> The elderly often find it difficult to tolerate the side effects of antidepressant drugs, especially because they're more likely than younger people to be taking lots of other drugs as well.


Is there a greater occurrence of melancholic or psychotic depression in the elderly?

I am pretty sure that tricyclics tend to be more effective in the elderly. Is this true?

Do you think pseudodementia is being more properly diagnosed as depression now as compared to ten years ago?


> > The e-mail started off with suggestions about the role of anti-depressants in school shootings.

> Hmm -- like, for example, Eric Harris, who stopped taking his Luvox shortly before gunning down a bunch of his classmates?

> These days, troubled people are liable to be taking antidepressants. Do the antidepressants always work? No, obviously not. But do the antidepressants make them more troubled?

> I doubt it.

Don't.


- Scott

 

Re: Information - Sorry for butting in.

Posted by Cam W. on May 27, 2000, at 1:06:17

In reply to Re: Information - Elizabeth, posted by SLS on May 26, 2000, at 8:06:25

Scott - I have been bonig up on my geriatric psychopharmacology lately. Here is some of what I remember from what I have read.

> Is there a greater occurrence of melancholic or psychotic depression in the elderly?

Not really. Many depressions in the elderly are drug-induced (eg corticosteroids, NSAIDs, phenothiazines) or disorder-induced major depressive disorders (Parkinsonism, Alzheimer's, chronic bronchitis). Many depressions in geriatric patients are missed because many of the symptoms of depression are also thought to be results of aging. Ten percent of late-onset depressions (depression in the elderly) have comorbid severe cognitive impairment, though. Seventy percent of elderly depressed patients have measureable cognitive deficits, which can affect their quality of life. Cognitive impairment increases normally with age, further with depression and still further with the exacerbating effects of many centrally active drugs, including antidepressants.
>
> I am pretty sure that tricyclics tend to be more effective in the elderly. Is this true?

No. Several studies have demonstrated that TCAs produce impairment in cognitive and psychomotor function that is not just due to sedation. The TCAs have very potent antihistaminic effects (histamine release facilitates cerebral arousal through it's interaction with postsynaptic H1 receptors which is block by antihistaminergic action). TCAs also have very potent anticholinergic effects (the cholinergic system is also involved in the maintenance of arousal and more specifically, in the encoding, immediate active processing and storage of information - ie working memory, it's transferral to long term memory and memory retrieval ; anticholinergic effects block this).

Both of these effects can cause psychomotor impairment by retarding the flow of sensoimotor information (esp. during activities requiring continuous manual control - eg driving a car). Tolerance does develop to the sedation and psychomotor impairment caused by TCAs, but not to memory disturbances. Therefore, TCAs should not be used in the elderly, if at all possible.

Paxil, while used extensively in the geriatric population, may also not be a good choice. It has anticholinergic effects and may decrease dopamine neurotransmission (via sertonergic mechanisms) in the prefrontal cortex, leading to cognitive related deficits. Zoloft or Celexa may be a better choice in the elderly (although, because Celexa is a purer SRI, it may also cause some hypodopaminergic related cognitive deficits). Zoloft enhance PFC dopaminergic function to a certain extent.
>
> Do you think pseudodementia is being more properly diagnosed as depression now as compared to ten years ago?

Sorry, don't know. I'm a terrible diagnostician.

 

Re: Diagnosing/labeling others

Posted by Kellie on May 28, 2000, at 10:30:04

In reply to Re: Diagnosing/labeling others, posted by Adam on May 22, 2000, at 20:47:41

> I'm a new reader here, found this site just today. I need help with my depression and when I read all these threads I began to wonder just what was so wrong with me.Let me state firmly that I can understand all the positions taken. It's a curse I seem to have, to be able to see all the sides of the coin at once. Fred is not manic. His experience with ECT wasn't just with the ECT. It was with the total loss of control of his life to people who appeared not to care about him, only about the results of their treatments. This would cause anyone to erupt in rage if they perceived someone else making light of it. My own mother often accused me of just trying to get attention when my emotions got out of control. Even after diagnosis and honest to god medical treatment, I still can't get my family to stop blaming me for a chemical imbalance I didn't ask for. I can also understand the bewilderment on others' part in not understanding Fred's anger. If you've never been thru such an experience you can't possibly know how it feels. Also, for people who have never suffered from depression, knowing what it does to your life is impossible to understand. If you live with a depressive, you have an inkling, if you've never encountered one, you can't have any clue. Anyone can resort to insults when they run out of intelligent things to say, but keep aware that depressives have little or no emotional control. It's a symptom of the illness. Don't judge Fred or boBB too harshly. If this board if for educational purposes let it also be for enlightenment. A mental illness takes control away from you. I would like to learn how to get control back. I've learned a lot from reading these messages, but it worries me that so many people would rather argue over semantics that get to the core of the issue. I'm 35 and I've had major depression for 30 of those years. I've been on medication for 5 years. It's helped and not helped. I have learned not to waste precious time over the little things. Fred's anger was not little. The reaction all of you had to him was not little. But the continuing discourse is. Be done with it and help me to learn other ways of treating my illness. I want to know exactly what ECT is and what an MAO is and whether there's more out there for me than Paxil and Effexor. Please don't let me down, my family doesn't really understand what's going on with me and my doctor never has enough time. I need information. Thanks for listening, Kellie.
> It seems it was just a suggestion. I saw someone when I was in the hospital suffering from "acute mania". She
> was given Celexa, and it precipitated a manic episode. She was still in enough command of her faculties to voluntarily
> isolate herself after repeated suggestions that her behavior was becoming inappropriate, and that if she did not
> make some effort to keep from accosting people, that effort would have to be made for her. She had a lot on her mind,
> and felt whoever was nearby needed to hear it. It was very sad, because once it was over, she returned to har usual
> self, which was very sweet and actually quite introverted, though admittedly, depressed. I hope she found some relief.
>
> If "Fred" was/is in a manic state, he may not realise it. To be so informed might save him some serious trouble, if
> not his life. If he is not so afflicted, no harm done. I imagine "Fred", who clearly displayed some odd and
> inappropriate behavior, might benefit from an evaluation. Whatever impells him to get that is a positive thing.
>
>
> > > Loose associations????
> > >
> > > The more I read, the more I wonder whether this fellow you heard from is (or was) suffering from acute mania. If he (or she) is reading, I urge him (or her) to look into or at least consider the possibility.
> >
> >
> > I know you must feel strongly about these issues to have brought this thread forward and I think that is good,but I think it would be most useful if we focused on the ideas and issues rather than personalities.
> > There seems to be an increasing tendency on this board (and I'm not totally innocent) towards labeling others behaviours and beliefs as evidence of pathology. I think this is wrong. I apologize for doing it if I have.
> > I think acute mania is not something that can be diagnosed by a stranger in cyberspace. I think someone in acute mania probably would not be receptive to your suggestions anyway no matter of how well meant they may or may not have been.
> > I think we would all do well to argue with people's ideas and not offer diagnosis. When a diagnosis is appended to a disagreement it seems to perpetuate stigma and I'm sure you don't want to do that.
> > After all loose associations are also associated with creativity.

 

Hi Kellie

Posted by SLS on May 28, 2000, at 13:32:56

In reply to Re: Diagnosing/labeling others, posted by Kellie on May 28, 2000, at 10:30:04

Hi Kellie.

I just thought I'd say hello and tell you that I think you'll find quite a bit of constructive and helpful discourse on this board. I can see that you've been quite busy today, so I guess you've already discovered that. I guarantee that "we" won't let you down, especially now that you are part of the "we".

Yes, being able to see all of the untold sides of the same coin can sometimes seem like a curse. It often plagues me. You know, of course, that this is a wonderful attribute. However, it takes quite a bit of work to manage it and synthesize your own ideas and conclusions. I look forward to hearing some of your curse words. :-)

> > I'm a new reader here, found this site just today. I need help with my depression and when I read all these threads I began to wonder just what was so wrong with me.Let me state firmly that I can understand all the positions taken. It's a curse I seem to have, to be able to see all the sides of the coin at once.

> > Fred is not manic.

This may be true. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I haven't read the entirety of this thread because I have no desire to. I felt it was more destructive than constructive. I only submitted a few posts that I thought were relevant.

I have seen people who were manic. It is the nature of that particular mental state that the sufferer usually does not recognize it. They fight like hell to prove otherwise. One of the symptoms of mania that sometimes develops is a thought process that creates "loose associations". The person makes associations between things for which there is little connection. They find it difficult to stay on the same topic, and present a flight of ideas.

Example:

dog -> fire hydrant -> fire -> water -> water-buffalo -> Buffalo Bill -> Wild West -> Call of the Wild -> dog

Uh oh. That was too easy.


> My own mother often accused me of just trying to get attention when my emotions got out of control. Even after diagnosis and honest to god medical treatment, I still can't get my family to stop blaming me for a chemical imbalance I didn't ask for.

Coming from you, they probably give your explanation little credence. Hearing it from a doctor helps, but not always. Seeing it in black-and-white can be quite persuasive. At this point, you may not have enough reason to pursue educating them, but there are often classes devoted to family-education about mental illness offered by local advocacy groups and mental health facilities.

> I can also understand the bewilderment on others' part in not understanding Fred's anger.
> If you've never been thru such an experience you can't possibly know how it feels.
> Also, for people who have never suffered from depression, knowing what it does to your life is impossible to understand.
> If you live with a depressive, you have an inkling, if you've never encountered one, you can't have any clue.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

> Anyone can resort to insults when they run out of intelligent things to say, but keep aware that depressives have little or no emotional control.

People don't need to suffer a mental illness to behave this way. This sort of thing happens here from time to time. There all sorts of people, all sorts of posts, all sorts of ways to be lured into participating in these sorts of threads, and all sorts of ways not to. I encourage you to exercise your choice not to.

> I'm 35 and I've had major depression for 30 of those years. I've been on medication for 5 years. It's helped and not helped.

This is the reason why many people end up here, and, hopefully start here.

> I want to know exactly what ECT is and what an MAO is and whether there's more out there for me than Paxil and Effexor. Please don't let me down, my family doesn't really understand what's going on with me and my doctor never has enough time. I need information. Thanks for listening, Kellie.

LOUD AND CLEAR!

:-)

See ya'


Sincerely,
Scott


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu

Script revised: October 4, 2007
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-08 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.