Talk:Treatment Advocacy Center/Archive 1

humane?

I changed "timely and humane" to just "psychiatric" treatment as "timely and humane" is both POV and incorrect. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I added "judged" before "likely to become violent" because TAC's presumption that all those with psychiatric labels are more likely to become violent is far from clear. TAC's promotion of such views further stigmatizes those with psychiatric labels. TAC's claim that 1,000 murders are committed every year by the untreated mentally ill is a wild exaggeration and does not stand up to scrutiny The claims of Edward Fuller Torrey and his Treatment Advocacy Center should be viewed with skepticism. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the reference to "serious brain disorder" as there is not yet any proof that psychiatric disorders are brain diseases, in the sense of tissue pathology. I also referred to "increasing legal power" because that is exactly what the TAC promotes. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56 -- please stop vandalizing

Major changes need to be discussed here, on the discussion page. Please be a responsible wikipedian. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, 24.55.228.56, please discuss major changes here first. Also, please consider getting a wiki account. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 06:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, 24.55.228.56, please consider abiding by wiki-rules. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have have a strong negative view of this organization . . .

If you have have a strong negative view of this organization, please consider contributing to this article in a "Criticism" section. Wording that takes a specific point of view (pro and con) does not belong in the introduction or main body of this article.--Ombudsperson 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But I'm also not going to let the fluff on the TAC website stand in for a description of what this organization is really all about. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to disappoint Francesca (something at which I seem to be adept), I think Ombudsperson is making good NPOV edits here. However critical one may be of the TAC, this should not be a reason for using loaded terminology in the intro. Look at the almost dispassionate way Wikipedia covers known mass murderers (forgive the analogy). If we can NPOV Charles Manson, why can we not NPOV the TAC? JFW | T@lk 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you're right that "loaded terminology" doesn't belong in the intro. However, Ombudsperson should be discussing substantial changes here first and, clearly, he's not. As for Charles Manson, at least he's honest. He never pretended to be a saint, as does Torrey. And, frankly, Charles Manson has caused less pain and suffering. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not comparing Ombudsperson to Charles Manson. The article about Charles Manson can be NPOV. I think you should withdraw your comments, as they can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha, ha. No, silly, I was comparing Torrey to Manson. Ombudsperson is just an apologist. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I would hope that a lot of the criticisms that users are adding throughout this article (in language and in actual statements) could be backed up with specific citations. Otherwise, they really do not belong in the article. Mike5904 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As the article stands now there is not even mention of the fact that *there are* criticisms of the TAC; surely one can differentiate between providing references for specific assertions and neglecting even to mention the fact that they exist? Historian932 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ombudsperson

Please consider applying the same standard to both sides of an argument. Also, it's wiki-etiquette to discuss major changes first. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You just made 18 POV edits without discussing them. Please practice what you preach. By the way, it's wiki-etiquette to avoid editing articles when you have an extreme POV on the subject (e.g. mindfreedom.org), especially when this issue has been discussed with you on numerous occasions. I will now revert your extreme POV edits.--24.55.228.56 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should I be the only one to follow the rules? I did discuss changes and tried to use edit summaries but my contributions were disregarded. I've asked and asked you here to discuss changes. Being a member of MindFreedom doesn't exclude me as an editor. We aren't ANTI psychiatry. We're ANTI forced treatment. I'm going to ask for page protection on this one if you keep it up. Please consider getting a wiki-account. You lack credibility with an IP address for a handle. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are part of an extremist group on psychiatry issues, you shouldn't be making edits to a psychiatry article. I welcome a 3rd party's involvement here. I will now again revert your extreme POV edits. Have a great day! --24.55.228.56 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any question here that you have a very negative opinion of the TAC. This is fine, but many of your edits show this quite clearly, and without direct citations these edits appear to be baseless allegations. Even if these claims are true (which I am not of the authority to say), the language of your edits is very evidently intended to put the organization in as negative a light as possible. This is not appropriate in promoting the neutral point of view so heralded here. Please find some sources to back your claims up, and discuss the article with its major contributors before editing so substantially, as there is obviously a dispute. Thank you. -Mike5904 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, learn to read!!! We're not "extremist." We're not "anti-psychiatry." Get a wiki-account or go away. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're clearly pro forced treatment. So, by the above standard, you shouldn't be editing either. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One more personal attack and you risk being banned. JFW | T@lk 14:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

JFW I agree with Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC - you are not NPOV at all. That was not a personal attack at all but now you are using your status as Admin to threaten people. How does one report you? --207.207.28.109 04:45, 05 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have tagged the article with an NPOV warning because of the back-and-forth reverts between multiple editors. I am not an expert on this subject, nor do I have a strong opinion on it, but I am interested in keeping with a neutral language and content.

User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's edits appear to very strongly reflect a personal opinion. In addition, many of her claims are not currently supported by external source. I would like for her to find legitimate materials backing up these claims, and if none are found, the claims should most likely be removed. The language reflecting a specific opinion on certain people, organizations or viewpoints should (in my opinion) be removed as well. -Mike5904 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

MY SOURCES ARE NOT ALLOWED. MINDFREEDOM SUPPORTS HUMAN RIGHTS IN PSYCHIATRY. THEREFORE THEY MUST BE "EXTREMIST" AND "ANTI-PSYCHIATRY."

Protected

Please work out your differences or use dispute resolution. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FRANCESCA'S COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.

Let's Review User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's recent edits

Here are a few examples of User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's extreme unreferenced POV that she continues to insert in this article:

MY REFERENCES WEREN'T ALLOWED. NOW I'M CRITICIZED FOR OMITTING THOSE VERY SAME REFERENCES. DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THIS DEBATE ANYMORE.

1. She changes the term "people with mental illness" to "people with psychiatric labels," which suggests that serious mental illness doesn't exist and is merely a label created by psychiatry.

THEY ARE MERELY LABELS. MENTAL ILLNESS IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM, ABOUT AS DESCRIPTIVE AS DERMATITIS.

2. She refers to Dr. E. Fuller Torrey (who the Washington Post calls "the most famous psychiatrist in America") as "intellectually and morally bankrupt."

FAMOUS, YES. INFAMOUS, YES. A BIGOT AND A LIAR, YES.

3. She refers to TAC's statistics as "falsified and alarmist."

WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE.

4. She refers to the medical condition of anasognosia as "medical fiction."

THERE IS NO TEST FOR THIS ALLEGED DISORDER. THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY "LACK OF INSIGHT" WHICH MEANS NOT AGREEING WITH YOUR DOCTOR.

Actually, anosognosia is a well described phenomenon in medicine related to cortical strokes in the non-dominant hemisphere. Patients with this type of stroke often exhibit hemiparalysis or hemiparesis of which they are not aware. For example, a person may be paralyzed on the left side, and will raise only the right hand when asked to raise both hands. Anosognosia is when the patient does not realize the paralysis is there. They will answer that they are raising both hands. Some psychiatrists have objected to using this term in psychiatry as there are fewer objective signs that the disorder is actually present. --DocJohnny 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, DocJohnny. I was actually referring to the psychiatric version of anosognosia which isn't an illness at all but is merely a way to further stigmatize a mental patient. I don't doubt what you describe above. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article referring to Dr. Torrey and Dr. Szaz and anosognosia. [1]--DocJohnny 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. I had already read Szasz's article on Torrey. I just scanned this just now quickly. Where does Torrey get off saying schizophrenia has been "proved" to be a brain disease? There is no such evidence, never mind proof. Torrey's a quack. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Although psychiatric drugs have helped millions, User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC writes that "Psychiatric drugs are very dangerous and disabling (neuroleptics were used as a torture device in the former Soviet Union) and many reasonable patients refuse to take them."

ALCOHOL HAS ALSO "HELPED" MILLIONS. AND MANY OF THESE DRUGS ARE INDEED DANGEROUS AND DISABLING. HEARD OF TARDIVE DYSKINESIA? I LIVE IN FEAR OF GETTING THIS DISEASE.

Tardive dyskinesia is pretty awful, and permanent. That is why I would much rather have ECT than take antipsychotics.--DocJohnny 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But electroshock is primarily used for mood disorders. It's not often a patient is given a choice between antipsychotics and electroshock. The choice, if there was one, would more likely be between antidepressants and electroshock. And, of course, many of us never got to choose at all. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In my albeit indirect and limited experience, patients that get ECT are almost always already on both antidepressants and antipsychotics, most often being diagnosed with "depression with psychotic features" or "schizoaffective disorder". --DocJohnny 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why are you talking above about what your choice would be? Once you've get one label, the second often comes quickly. Ditto the prescriptions. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to say that in my opinion ECT is underused and is safer than a lot of the medication choices, especially antipsychotics. --DocJohnny 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that drugs can be more dangerous than electroshock. However, I don't believe the answer is to increase electroshock. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

These are just a few examples. User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC has been trying to insert her unreferenced extreme anti-psychiatry POV into articles related to psychiatry for many months now. I believe she has been warned enough times about her POV pushing. Is there anything that can be done to restrict her from editing articles related to psychiatry?--24.55.228.56 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

THE ENTIRE TALK PAGE WAS DELETED AS I DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH WIKIPEDIA ANYMORE.

I suggest a request for arbitration using those examples requesting Wikipedia:Probation with respect to articles concerning psychiatry. I will support the request but would be required to recuse. A hint, keep your request simple and to the point. Fred Bauder 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56, I am fully aware of this problem and have attempted numerous times to explain essential Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There is little change in this pattern, which disappoints me a bit. I would recommend you get a username - this will gain you credibility which is not normally extended to people editing under their IP (don't ask me why).

There is a guideline called resolving disputes. The first step is to politely explain policy. If that fails, requests for comments may help, but this is not strongly mediated and some cases drag on forever without resolution. Restriction of editing privileges is only done by the arbitration committee and only after all steps of dispute resolution have failed.

Again I encourage Francesca to avoid loaded terminology and to use only reliable/representative sources to source critical statements. Personal opinion, however, falls under original research. Considering Francesca claims to represent MindFreedom BC, it must be relatively easy to access critical pamphlets/editorials from the documentation of that organisation. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

JFW, I'm surprised at you. The above is very unfair. 24.55 doesn't deserve such consideration. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Intellectually and morally bankrupt" does seem a bit extreme when describing someone, particularly in the first paragraph! Andrew73 14:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CONTEXT, ANDREW73, CONTEXT. WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FLAME WAR.

NPOV wording

Let me propose the following wording for the intro:

The Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) is a United States nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting laws allowing 6 month intensive and court-ordered outpatient involuntary treatment for individuals diagnosed with severe mental illness. TAC advocates "elimination of legal and clinical barriers to timely and humane treatment for Americans diagnosed with severe psychiatric disorders who are likely to become violent if they refuse care." Founded in 1998 by schizophrenia researcher E. Fuller Torrey, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and other family members of people with mental illness and people with mental illness, TAC seeks to expedite treatment for people with mental illness who have a past history of violence associated with going off medicines. Their work is strongly opposed by Scientology and other members of the antipsychiatry movement, who contend mental illness does not exist and/or involuntary treatment is unethica.

How is that? The statistics probably don't belong in the intro anyway. Perhaps Francesca or someone else can help with the last sentence to better reflect their views. It remains factual without using euphemisms like "assisted treatment". DocJohnny 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If we have to believe Francesca, the TAC's stance is opposed even by those not aligned with antipsychiatry and even by those who do agree that mental illness exists. Can we not say that "Critics contend that involuntary treatment is unethical and/or is in violation of civil rights"? JFW | T@lk 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --DocJohnny 22:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's good up until "by the antipsychiatry movement, who contend involuntary treatment is unethical and mental illness does not exist." Many people who aren't "antipsychiatry" are opposed to involuntary treatment. And many people (such as myself) acknowledge mental illness and still oppose involuntary treatment. "Antipsychiatry" can mean a lot of different things. I think it would be more helpful to refer to mental patients' advocates or some such. I don't consider most of the Mad Movement to be "antipsychiatry." Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to change it to something more appropriate. Welcome back.--DocJohnny 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the following for the last sentence of the paragraph: "Their work is strongly opposed by psychiatric survivors and advocates who contend involuntary treatment is unethical, inhumane and constitutes a severe human rights violation." Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another problem is here: "TAC seeks to expedite treatment for people with mental illness who have a past history of violence associated with going off medicines. Their work is strongly opposed by Scientology and other members of the antipsychiatry movement, who contend mental illness does not exist and/or involuntary treatment is unethical." First, it doesn't take a history of violence to be captured under an outpatient commitment scheme (I certainly don't have one). Second, violence being "associated" with "going off medicines" is a slippery concept as some psychotropics actually increase episodes of violence. Lastly, Scientology doesn't deserve front and centre billing as they aren't representative of the much larger movement against psychiatry. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...

...I'd wondered why E. Fuller Torrey had been so quiet lately. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WHY I DETEST TORREY

In the wiki-article, Torrey is quoted as saying "Until we find the causes and definitive treatments for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, we have an obligation to those who are suffering to try to improve their lives."

Let's have it now in English: Until we know what we are doing, let's just mess with people however and whenever we feel like it. If those ungrateful mental patients don't appreciate us, let's force them. Let's accuse them of "lack of insight" and try to pass THAT off as a psychiatric disorder. Let's pass laws throughout the land that the Nazis would have been proud of. What a pig this man is. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If the symptomatic treatment is at least partially effective it can prevent a lot of suffering. Nobody is suggesting we should "mess with people". When I admit an 80-year old with cough and fever I don't wait for the "definitive cause" (e.g. a positive sputum culture) to treat him with antibiotics. JFW | T@lk 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

But at what cost? Psychiatric treatment overall causes more suffering than it prevents. Yes, indeed, Torrey advocates "messing with people." It's one thing to help a person find relief. It's another to try to reframe their mind to conform with society's standards. Once treatment is involuntary, it ceases to be treatment at all. Your hypothetical patient above wants treatment. Can't you see the difference here? In the short-term, drugs can sometimes help, no question, and they should be available with informed consent. But, in the long-term, they lead to chronic psychiatric disability. Involuntary treatment is a legal and ethical issue, not a medical one. "Cough and fever" are relatively simple symptoms and it's absurd to try to compare physical health treatment with mental health treatment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Psychiatric treatment is for the benefit of those around the person with mental illness, typically, their families. So much easier to drug people into submission rather than helping them deal with their problems. Symptomatic treatment is all well and good when the symptoms arise from disease. However, there is no evidence for any disease aspect to mental illness. Psychiatric symptomatic treatment is all about making people conform. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, psychiatric treatment is actually to enable troubled people to function better and to cope as human beings. Why should I not compare physical health treatments with mental health treatments? And sometimes the patient lacks the ability to understand why he/she is in a state that can cause great harm to him/herself and surroundings. Some people who have been through an acute psychosis subsequently develop post-traumatic stress disorder, being traumatised by the experience of intrusive hallucinations! I see relatively little philosophical difference between a stroke patient who cannot talk and may actually prefer to develop aspiration pneumonia rather than be fed nasogastrically. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Functioning better and coping" isn't a process that is nurtured by forcibly drugging people. You shouldn't compare physical and mental health treatments because the former relies on science. With psychiatry, the chemical imbalance theory is just assumed to be correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (such as people doing better without treatment). Despite how little we know about mental illness, psychiatrists feel confident torturing their patients. And I mean torture. I've had things done to me on psychiatric wards that society wouldn't tolerate for serial killers. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is one of capacity. And in medicine this issue does arise as well. Doctors do have to make decisions when the patient is incapable of making their own. But in medicine that lack of capacity is usually more clear cut. Also, in medicine, patients are often allowed to refuse life saving treatments. In the US at least, it is very unlikely that even an aphasic stroke patient be subjected to involuntary treatments such as nasogastric feedings if the patient is able to communicate his wishes. The right of adult patients with capacity to refuse treatments is well established in the US. The problem is capacity. I think that the antipsychiatry movement has some legitimate points, especially about some of the circular logic involved in our assumptions of mental illness. I also think that their beliefs about mental illness are broadsweeping and inaccurate. --DocJohnny 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, psychiatric treatment is the only form of medicine that can be forced upon willing patients. Strangely, it's the least scientific branch of medicine that has the backing of legal power behind it. Only society's fear of the mentally ill allows this to happen, a fear which is exploited by the likes of E. Fuller Torrey. I'm not sure what beliefs you're referring to that are broadsweeping and inaccurate. If you're referring to those who dispute the very existence of mental illness, then I agree with you. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Further reading

• Rael Jean Isaac and Virginia C. Armat, Madness in the Streets: How Psychiatry and the Law Abandoned the Mentally Ill, Treatment Advocacy Center (August, 2000), ISBN 0967993903
• Ann Braden Johnson, Out of bedlam: The truth about deinstitutionalization, Perseus (1990), hardcover, ISBN 0465054277; trade paperback, Perseus (1992) ISBN 0465054285

Those are excellent books. Madness in the Streets was orginally published in the early 90's. That book and Torrey's Surviving Schizophrenia (the best book ever written on mental illness) have had a major impact on mental health policy over the past 10 years. I have a family member who has been homeless because of a mental illness. Being homeless is difficult enough; being homeless while in a psychotic state is a living hell. Living on the street with mental illness is worse than the worst mental hospital. I only wish that my family member just had to deal with a psychiatric label rather than suffer with a severe mental illness.--24.55.228.56 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, is it now okay in wikipedia for one editor to refer to another editor as an "a##hole?" Why do I believe that I would be blocked from posting if I used the same language used by Ms. Allen?--24.55.228.56 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks covers that. Not the most serious offense though. Fred Bauder 03:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

24.55, I have apologized for that and removed it. Why do you feel the need to post it again here? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If living on the street is worse than being in a mental hospital, then why do they have to lock people up there? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You two are comfortable endorsing the second book above, which favours long-term, possibly lifetime, institutionalization of those with psychiatric labels? Glad you're not a member of my family. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggested reading is not a list of approved books, it is just what it says books which address the issues from one viewpoint or another. As to being a member of my family, my 58 year old developmentally disabled brother lives with me. He's a lot of trouble sometimes which could probably be reduced if he was kept doped up. Fred Bauder 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I truly hope you're joking with that comment, Fred. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of an author arguing to involuntary treat people who have a psychiatric label but no mental illness. Surely Ms. Allen must be joking with that comment.--65.87.105.2 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Fred's comment that his brother would be less trouble if he was drugged. Psychiatrists want to treat everybody with a psych label. The label is often wrong, however, so in effect they promote treating the label not the illness. The labels are also meaningless. "Schizophrenic" means displaying enough symptoms to warrant a DSM diagnosis. Etiology is not even considered. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Fred's comment was intended to show you that he understands your position. His brother would be easier to deal with if he were doped up, he said, implying that Fred doesn't take the easy route by sticking some pills in his mouth, presumably for a reason. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd all be easier to deal with.  :) Fred, I'm sorry I misunderstood. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that schizophrenia is not a real brain disorder is offensive to inviduals who suffer from it and their families. You are very fortunate to carry only a label and not have to suffer from a serious mental illness. Please do not make sweeping generalizations about mental illness. Alzheimer's is a real illness, too, and we do not know its cause.--65.87.105.2 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not merely a suggestion. There is simply no compelling evidence of a brain disorder. Schizophrenia arises from many different sources. Spontaneous remission happens, even decades into the disease. My label brought me incarceration, solitary confinement, forced drugging and electroshock so I don't see that luck had much to do with it. Alzheimer's, opposed to mental illness, is indeed a real illness. And they're doing more and more research pinpointing what's going wrong in the brain there. The tragedy of schizophrenia is that people do better without treatment (see World Health Organization studies) yet still the psychiatrists and families press on with their coercive and dangerous drug regimes. Are you familiar with Dr. Loren Mosher's work at Soteria House? Mosher had a success rate approximately double that of conventional treatment of schizophrenics and he did it all without resorting to toxic chemicals. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The strongest evidence against the biochemical theory of mental illness is all the ways of healing that don't involve alteration of the biochemicals. Psychiatric medication is for the benefit of the people around the schizophrenic. It's a lot easier to drug someone into submission then help them find their way. The biochemical theory is favoured by families in part because it is blameless but statistically schizophrenics are much more likely to have sustained abuse (either at home or elsewhere) than the general population. These are the issues that have to be addressed, not piling more and more coercion onto the mentally ill. I wish we could stop blaming the patient. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, it is offensive to suggest that schizophrenia is not a brain disorder and medication is not needed. Your views are extremist and inconsistent with modern psychiatry. It is well established that schizophrenia is a biologically based disorder.[2] With your sweeping generalizations, someone might think you actually have medical training or expertise. As you indicate, your knowledge stems not from experience as a medical professional, but as someone who was mistaken to have a mental illness. Your suggestion that people with schizophrenia do better without medication flies in the face of experience of people who actually have the disorder and their families. If people with schizophenia could actually be "healed" without medication, we would not have so many homeless people in the US wandering around in a psychotic state. --65.87.105.2 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I note that you didn't deal with the evidence, i.e. the World Health Organization studies and Dr. Loren Mosher's work, among many others. Instead your cite leads back to Torrey's website and Torrey engages in fraudulent medicine. Despite Torrey's lies that you have swallowed, the fact is that there is no compelling evidence for a biological basis (hence no objective test) for schizophrenia or any other mental illness. You cannot present a psychiatrist with two brain scans and have him reliably point to the one belonging to a mentally ill person. Accusing me of being "inconsistent with modern psychiatry" is a big compliment as modern psychiatry has nothing whatsoever to do with science. If anything, it's more akin to religion than science. My "suggestion" that people do better without treatment isn't just a suggestion. It's backed up by the World Health Organization and various researchers. For both mood disorders and schizophrenia, counselling beats drug therapy and incarceration for long-range outcomes. I wasn't, in fact, mistakenly thought to have a mental illness. I DO have a mental illness. But, like most people, I do better without the "help" of psychiatry. Homelessness is an issue of poverty, not mental illness. And many of the characteristics of the mentally ill that you see on the street are actually caused by neuroleptic medication, not the alleged illness. It's the label, rather than the illness, that disables people for life. Again, you refer to the comfort of schizophrenics' families. It's not about the families! It's about relieving human suffering and psychiatric treatment increases suffering. I do, in fact, have expertise in treatment of the mentally ill, far beyond any psychiatrist I have ever come across. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. We are talking apples and oranges. My experience with the chronically mentally ill is that you just can't get anywhere by talking to them. Those you can get somewhere by talking to (or can insightfully deal with their own problems) fall into a different category that don't need to be dealt with involuntarily. Not that they can't get into trouble Fred Bauder 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What does "can't get anywhere" with them mean? Do you mean they don't agree with your point of view? How does one adult have authority to tell another how to think? We allow people to make irrational decisions all the time. All people, that is, except those with psychiatric labels. These poor souls society feels entitled to lock up and torture. Psychiatric assault is probably the last human rights frontier in North America. Torrey and his ilk are at the forefront of the campaign against the mentally ill. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"You just can't get anywhere by talking to them" is the reaction that many people have when talking to an individual with schizophrenia who has fixed delusions and lacks insight into his/her illness. You can learn more about the lack of insight (called anosognosia) on the TAC site.[3] The worst experience a person with mental illness can have is to be left untreated in psychosis and on the street or in jail. If you had a mental illness or if you were a family member of someone with a mental illness, you would understand. Dr. Torrey has devoted his life to helping people with major mental illness.--24.55.228.56 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Lack of insight" means "not agreeing with your doctor." Involuntary treatment means forcing people to conform. Torrey promotes human rights violations. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"The worst experience...", huh? Given that psychiatric assault almost invariably causes mild to severe and permanent structural brain damage, and the fact that the World Health Organization reports much worse psychosis remission rates with neuroleptic treatment, it comes off as bizarre and more than a little misleading to see it alleged that living on the streats or being left untreated is the "worst experience" possible. More likely, the worst outcomes result from electro-convulsive shock treatment, frontal lobotomies, and, of course, atypical antipsychotics, especially when administered via coercive involuntary treatment. Ombudsman 13:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. The two WHO studies that you seem to be referring to actually compare remission rates in developed and developing countries. The authors make no claim that neuroleptic treatment was the causative factor for the differences involved. ECT as it is practiced today is extremely safe and has not been shown to cause any long term ill effects. And if you must invoke discredited treatment methods such as psychosurgery, you might as well include being burned at the stake for a little historical flavor. --DocJohnny 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Whitaker dealt with this in "Mad in America" and a very good recent essay. It certainly appears as though North American psychiatric treatment is the worst possible outcome for patients. Glad to hear that electroshock is harmless. The fact that I am still having severe memory problems proves that I'm just delusional, I guess. You're dead wrong on psychosurgery. That's been done recently at the Vancouver General Hospital. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I will tentatively retract my statement about ECT as I have just become aware of an interesting study. As for psychosurgery, I was responding specifically as to frontal lobotomies which is discredited. --DocJohnny 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you share the study, DocJohnny. I'm concerned that you seem to entirely disregard survivor experience but you're willing to change your mind on the basis of one study. What would it take to get you guys to believe what's in front of you? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinions are based on science and research, and my opinions were shaped by the studies I have read before. This discussion led me to do some more reading on recent research and there have been a few that I have not seen before that contradict the earlier studies and my earlier beliefs. What would it take? research. I hope you are not suggesting that medicine be based on anecdotes. Remember, all junk treatments have hundreds of testimonials. --DocJohnny 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, medicine shouldn't be based solely on anecdotes but, on the other hand, survivor testimony shouldn't be completely disregarded as it is now. I agree that research should be the answer but the problem is that most research is slanted heavily in favour of Big Pharma. Did you know that 75% of articles in publications like JAMA are funded by Big Pharma? These companies have a proven track record of disregarding science if it threatens their financial bottom line. Remember Traci Johnson? She almost became a trade secret of GlaxoSmithKline until they were *forced* to disclose her death. We need to be looking at these studies with a critical eye. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Torrey is not the only expert who believes that schizophrenia is a neurobiological brain disorder. That is the opinion of the American Psychiatric Association (the international association of 36,000 psychiatrists), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), the National Mental Health Association (NMHA) and every other mainstream organization on mental health issues. There were a few so-called "experts" who received publicity in the 1960's and 1970's (e.g., R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz) who argued that serious mental illness doesn't really exist or that it was a result of environmental factors, such as bad parenting. These theories have long since been discredited and most adherents to these theories have either passed on or changed their position to reflect modern science. Loren Mosher, now deceased, was a follower of R.D. Laing who was fired from his NIMH administrator position in 1980 because of his fringe views on mental illness. Mosher's claims of success at Soteria House in the 1970's did not hold up to the scrutiny of his peers and the project was stripped of its funding.--24.55.228.56 11:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not surprising that Mosher's peers were incredibly threatened by his great work. Mosher was brilliant and helped many, many schizophrenics. Don't hang your hat on peer review. Peer review's what brought us lobotomy, insulin shock, near drownings. There is no "modern science" in psychiatry. It's part witchhunt/part religion. Again, the organizations that you quote are in a serious conflict of interest as they're backed by Big Pharma. The drug industry would like nothing better than to have everybody labelled and medicated. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"claims of success at Soteria House in the 1970's did not hold up to the scrutiny of his peers"

Oh that's funny - Soteria - 2008 Systematic Review "Conclusions: The studies included in this review suggest that the Soteria paradigm yields equal, and in certain specific areas, better results in the treatment of people diagnosed with first- or second-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders (achieving this with considerably lower use of medication) when compared with conventional, medication-based approaches. Further research is urgently required to evaluate this approach more rigorously because it may offer an alternative treatment for people diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders." http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/1/181 Tweak279 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to unprotect the page

Please unprotect the page. The page has been frozen in a one-sided POV state for 10 days.--24.55.228.56 17:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the page, ten days should be long enough. Please do not resort to edit-warring, but try to reach a consensus through negotiation on the talk page. Izehar 18:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

In respect to NPOV policy, majority and minority opinions can both be asserted, but must be clearly labeled as such. Anti-psychiatry opinions are minority opinions. I don't think it is appropriate to turn the article into a antipsychiatry soapbox. While I think the text itself should use neutral terms such as "involuntary treatment" and avoid euphemistic terms such as "assisted treatment" or POV terms such as "forced drugging", those terms may be individually appropriate in context. Specifically, a TAC spokesperson referring to the subject will use "assisted treatment" and an critic will use "forced drugging". Those are both appropriate. Peppering the entire text with disclaimers will not make things clearer. --DocJohnny 06:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Anti-psychiatry opinions are minority opinions." is an opinion. So "forced drugging" is a POV even though they really do actually use force to stick you with a needle. but "assisted treatment" is just "euphemistic"? So how are you NPOV? It seems like you are POV in TAC's favor. 207.207.28.154 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

category - political action

Hi, DocJohnny. You "re"-inserted a different (and very appropriate) category. The original category removed was re disabled rights or some such and, as I noted, such a category would certainly not apply to TAC. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)