The Amy Winehouse situation with her family and recovery treatment got me to
thinking...

I certainly support the Szasz position on not incarcerating people against
their will for treatment. But I think there are valuable questions to be asked.
What are the results of getting people off dangerous substances when they enter
treatment voluntarily vs. involuntarily? Does involuntarily putting people in
treatment do anyone some good? I would think yes, it does, and some are grateful
later, but I would also say many feel humiliated and dehumanized leading to
other problems when they get out. So called interventions where a family members
is confronted and taken to the hospital have been known to do as much harm as
good. It is not just like taking a car against its well to the mechanic, since
the car has no feelings or resentment, whereas people are people and more
complicated, certainly.

Myself, I have persuaded several people to voluntarily go for a stint of
recovery treatment so to speak, and they eventually went voluntarily. It took
four hours to talk my brother into but I think not resorting to involuntarily
hospitalizing him meant we did not have to deal with that craziness later; he
surely appreciated it. Once that trust is broken, it is hard to get back.

I have even helped a very dear and close friend get through her bizarre
paranoid episode being on and coming off of crystal meth, which was one of the
scariest things I had ever seen in my life, like hell on earth... and believe me
I have seen a lot as a psychologist and adventurous person. Every thing wicked
they say about that drug is true, it takes people to crazy intense runs and
devastating lows which tricks people into wanting more to get rid of the lows.
(And this view comes from seeing dozens of people on this drug.) Her friends and
family had discussed making her go to the hospital or treatment against her will
but they never did, instead we loved her, and stayed with her day and night, and
talked to her when she would listen, and even confronted her and cried and
laughed with her, and got her movies to inspire and embolden her to believe in
herself again (the wizard of oz, for one), and helped her get away for a few
weeks, and she got through it, leaving the
paranoia and drugs behind her with relationships and trust in tact. If we had
involuntarily put her away somewhere against her will, there would a whole other
layer of distrust and trauma.

At the same time, I think we must be careful not to out of hand judge families
and friends and doctors who force people into a structured settting, hoping to
save their lives or give the person a respite from drug induced craziness or an
out of control state. While some do it out of authoritarian motives, others do
it out of love and fear, and being desparate. If I am temporarily acting crazy
and doing grave harm to myself or others, then I would understand if people
acted strongly to help me, but I hope I would be given every opportunity to make
the choices I was capable of making, and that love and care would rule over
power and control. But mostly, I have found, that most people will go somewhere
if there is care, love and support there, but that cannot be said of most so
called treatment centers.

There is a difference between humanitarian help and authoritarian help tho the
lines are often blurred. Liberty, responsibility, and community go hand in hand
and there is no perfect balance, but struggling to find them are worth the
effort.

Randy Wyatt, PhD
Oakland, CA

theduketed <theduketed@...> wrote:
The BBC report <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7207644.stm>
that the father of UK singer Amy Winehouse "admitted he asked for his
daughter to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act to help her stop
taking drugs ... [but] had been told she could not be sectioned because
she was not at risk of hurting herself." Mitch Winehouse is quoted as
saying "You might consider taking drugs is a danger to herself, but
unfortunately the authorities don't."

But Mr Winehouse then suggests that "unless she wants to do it of her
own accord, it's pointless... You can't lock the key and say, 'you can't
come out before you're better'. That's called abduction."

The BBC link to the story under the headline "Dad wants Winehouse
sectioned," yet both he and the BBC (not to mention the public at large)
seem oblivious to the contradictory nature of this situation. If only
psychiatrists were honest enough to admit that their profession is
scientifically fraudulent, then the political debate could begin.
Needless to say, suggesting that people ought to be detained and drugged
when there is nothing medically wrong with them is a more difficult task
than they would like to attempt. Sadly, I am not sure such arguments
would necessarily fail to win over the public, but it would be a start.
I hear that Dr Szasz has a book entitled "Psychiatry: the science of
lies" on the way, and so I eagerly await publication.

I well remember some critics of the (Szaszian) position I was discussing
responding along the lines of "but it's actually quite difficult for a
psychiatrist to detain a drug addict." Maybe so, but relative to what?
In any case, the Winehouse story is noteworthy not because it involves a
well-known singer, but because it captures perfectly the weak-willed
thinking that stretches across our entire society when it comes to the
issue of mental health and mental illness.

To be fair to Mitch, might it be the case that he once believed in the
morality of state psychiatry, but has since changed his mind (with the
BBC twisting his words in the hunt for a story, for example)? In which
case, is Mitch Winehouse a hero to the cause of
liberty-and-responsibility vis-a-vis psychiaty?(!!) If only...

Ted.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]