--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Martin Kessler <titaniummdk@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Michel,  I agree that psychiatry is doing a lousy job really helping their
"patient" by understanding their behavior.   But modern psychiatry is no longer
interested in truly understaning thier patient - that takes time - time
insurance companies do not have the patience for (since the amount of counceling
is highly variable) and are not willing to fund the "treatment".  So psychiatry
has turned to drugs to "treat" their patient's maladies.  In order to get
reimbursement from the insurance company,  the psychatrist has to give the claim
adjuster a "diagnosis".  Unfortunately,  a psychiatric diagnosis is a barrier to
understanding the patient's behavior rather than a key to the patient's
"recovery".
>
>
>
>Hi Martin,

Basically the biologic view of psychiatry goes against the "social" one,
independently of insurance companies though it is true that it is an important
factor.

Many people, especially after one hospitalization, may be for years as
outpatients though the number of appointments per year, after a while, decrease
dramatically. In addition, psychologists can take over either paid by the
patient or can/could use a shorter therapy paid by the insurances.

The psychiatric diagnosis is pretty loose. A person may have 2 very different
diagnosis in 2 different hospitals. Diagnosis is very much affected by the
patient cooperation. The more the psychiatrist is fought the heavier it is.

Have a nice day
Michel

>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop. Learn more.
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/videos-tours.aspx?h=7sec&slideid=1&me\
dia=aero-shake-7second&listid=1&stop=1&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_\
WIN_7secdemo:122009
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Michel,  I agree that psychiatry is doing a lousy job really helping their
"patient" by understanding their behavior.   But modern psychiatry is no longer
interested in truly understaning thier patient - that takes time - time
insurance companies do not have the patience for (since the amount of counceling
is highly variable) and are not willing to fund the "treatment".  So psychiatry
has turned to drugs to "treat" their patient's maladies.  In order to get
reimbursement from the insurance company,  the psychatrist has to give the claim
adjuster a "diagnosis".  Unfortunately,  a psychiatric diagnosis is a barrier to
understanding the patient's behavior rather than a key to the patient's
"recovery".



Martin



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: michel.latulippe@...
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 01:40:49 +0000
Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Re: Psychiatry and rite of passage.







--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@... wrote:

>Among them are no doubt some who fit your description and many
> more who do not.

This is right. It is even possible not even a single person fits exactly this
description.

Actually, the point is that psychiatry instead of going in the same direction as
the development of a person, stops it and even bring back the person to a prior
stage of development. This is why there is something wrong about psychiatry.

Michel





_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/videos-tours.aspx?h=7sec&slideid=1&me\
dia=aero-shake-7second&listid=1&stop=1&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_\
WIN_7secdemo:122009

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

--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@... wrote:

>Among them are no doubt some who fit your description and many
> more who do not.

This is right. It is even possible not even a single person fits exactly this
description.

Actually, the point is that psychiatry instead of going in the same direction as
the development of a person, stops it and even bring back the person to a prior
stage of development. This is why there is something wrong about psychiatry.

Michel

Michel.latulippe wrote:
>
>
> ...Therefore, whatever we call it: mental disorder, madness,
> psychopathology, insanity, bad habit, deviance, disagreement,
> psychiatric scapegoating, disapproved behavior or incompetence, mental
> illness is a fact acknowledged by common sense.
>
I have no objection if YOU yourself, Mr. Michel Latulippe, want to be
insane, you are insane.
That´s how we market our new advance directive called PatVerfue here in
Germany: we added as subtitle to "PatVerfue":
"Insane? Your own decision!"
(The questions of payments to a health insurance are another matter,
which I do not deal with in this reply.)

Here you may read the "Notes for judges, guardians and psychiatrists" to
explain how our new law in Germany works for these professions:
http://www.zwangspsychiatrie.de/non-german/notes-for-judges-guardians-and-psychi\
atrists

I report about this because I think it is important to spread the news
about another path to abolish forced psychiatry because, at least here
in Germany, the UN disability convention turned out to be a complete
failure (read here "Deception failed":
http://www.die-bpe.de/deception_failed.htm ) The hopes built on the
convention were perhaps disappointed, because the aim of abolishing the
violence in psychiatry all at once is too far reaching, as we could
achieve this only with an implicit statement in such a convention. So
our consideration here in Germany after the failure of the convention
was to lobby for a law on advance directives, which indeed allows us to
opt out of the psychiatric coercion system. This is a very important
step in between, because it enables us to opt out of being diagnosed by
the simple use of a signed scrap of paper. This can now be done
successfully and the result is that the psychiatric lie of being able to
detect an objective "mental" illness proves to be a myth, comparable
with the "emperor without clothes".  Because we do not want to be
mentally ill, we cannot be mentally ill, being protected simply by a
scrap of paper :-)
An illness which can disappear just by a declaration of the person
concerned can never fulfill the criteria of an illness as an objective fact.

I hope my explanations are an incentive for others to intensify their
activities for a change in the national law to end the cruelties the
psychiatrists commit as state protected criminals.

rene talbot

michel.latulippe wrote:

>  As a result, first, they reject the
>  responsibility of having caused the illness.

You are doing the same as most people on both sides of the argument do:
you are assuming we all agree who this hypothetical person is. You are
overlooking the infinite variations in personal stories. The only thing
all "psychiatric patients" or "people with mental illness" have in
common is that they have come or been dragged to the psychiatrist's
office. Among them are no doubt some who fit your description and many
more who do not.

Mira

Paranoia and naivety: one of the elements presents in a paranoid process
consists in going beyond the superficial appearances of the world in general
e.g., understanding in the media the strategy behind the political stands. The
politician may assert something in which they don't believe to get to their aim,
like a hockey player who pretends to shoot in the left side of the goal to
better score in the right corner.

On the one hand,the naive understands reality as he perceives it. Then according
to him, information describes the world. Hence, he takes for granted the
information he gets. In a way, he is like the scientist who describes facts.

The politician, on the other hand, sends messages in order not to describe, but
to change his environment. This is why they often lie. Now, the problem in the
relation between sciences and politic is that politic tries to use the
reputation of objectivity of science, which makes its credibility, in order to
get to its aim, to change its environment.

During a paranoid process, over a period of time, the naïve understands with
fear that there is something different behind the appearances. There is
strategy, tension between social classes, political party, unions and
management, inside families, abuse in the work places between the workers
independently of industrial relations, between students at school, etc. He
understands that lies are everywhere. He was raised in believing in truth. To
lie was unacceptable to him. This belief in truth is the cause of his naivety.
And then, this breaking through beyond the world of the appearances is
awareness, a passage through mental and moral pain to the world of adulthood.
The naïve is a child though he may be twenty five years old. In this way, the
sudden awareness of a state of fight for survival beyond appearances of
smoothness, which cause a paranoid crisis, is a sort of rite of passage that
never happened in his life before. If this paranoid crisis is severe enough, a
psychiatrist will take over in a so-called "process of healing".

What the psychiatrist does, is to stop this process of development. In fact, he
wants to break the drive of the naïve in his try to become psychologically full
fledged, most of the time with the help of his parents who are over protective,
for, they want their child to stay child, to stay in his state of mental
infancy. In this view, as every human being wants to achieve his full potential,
the psychiatrist, with the help of parents, boss, etc. stops this effort and
keep him in a state of psychological underdevelopment. Pretending to be someone
important like Napoleon, John Lennon, etc. is a means to be acknowledged as a
member of the world of adults. Unfortunately this need is denied. The means is
not appropriate to the aim. The paternalistic view of the psychiatrist is the
proof of this view.

In my view, most likely in Szasz's point of view too, to be paternalistic means
to consider as incompetent the patient he is supposed "to heal". As with the
parents who are overprotective, meaning through that that they lack confidence
in the young person to be able to solve his problems or difficulties as any
normal mature human being do. This being so, parents see themselves as necessary
for his well being. It is then a way to get a good image of themselves, to feel
important.

The mental patient's parent and friends advocacy groups, go along with the
psychiatrist in advocating that mental illness is genetically caused. As a
result, first, they reject the responsibility of having caused the illness.
Second, as they believe it is mainly a disease of the brain, they support the
use of drugs. In fact, they reject the responsibility of keeping the teenager in
infancy. Of course, there is no need to blame the parents  although the real
role of a psychological healer should be, instead of blocking the way toward a
full development of a person, to help him overcome the impediment encountered on
his way to personal fulfillment.

Michel Latulippe

Dear Mr. Talbot,

I read in the link www.irrenoffensive.de/providence.htm ,from message 1987, the
3rd patch "why `mental illness' does not exist", but, I keep thinking that, on
the contrary, it is real.

In order to better analyse the topic, let's compare the Thomas Szasz's
definition of illness to the Aristotle's description of it:

  Instead of accepting the phenomena called mental illness as diseases, the
decisive initial step I take is to define illness as the pathologist defines it
–as a structural or functional abnormality of cells, tissues, organs, or bodies.
Insanity: the idea and its consequences, 1987, p. 12.

First, the definition of illness above points out abnormality which has two
qualifiers: structural and functional.

Second, functional abnormality is nowhere to be found in the 3rd patch of your
document.

The description of health according to Aristotle is in this excerpt:
	 Now in the case of any other part (of the body), it is plain that it is healthy
if it performs its function satisfactorily and gives no pain and is not
exhausted after functioning: e.g. an eye is healthy when it does not produce pus
and can see and after seeing is not disturbed and incapable of seeing again.
History of Animals Bk. 10 633b16-633b23

Turning around this description of health into illness, the result is, "a part
of the body is ill if it doesn't perform its function satisfactorily, gives pain
and is exhausted after functioning" and then,

a) this description of illness is matching yours in a), 3rd patch, first step,
when you speak of `objectifiable change of the body tissue or body fluid'. In
the instance of the eye above it is pus. N.B. In the fourth century B.C. the
means of observation, of course, were much less efficient that nowadays. Five
centuries from now, they will be much better but still limited. So the meaning
of observation holds good for Aristotle as well.

b) In summary, there are three elements: the function, the pain and the fact of
being exhausted or not after functioning.

The above applies to an organ. But is it transferable to mind?

In order to answer this question, let's examine the following. Basically when 1)
a person intellectual faculties don't perform satisfactorily, 2) when there is
moral pain or feeling of displeasure (point b of your first step), and 3) when
he or she is exhausted e.g., after a crisis or depression, then, the mind is
sick in a literal sense.

It is relevant to point out, here, that there is no need to get to this
conclusion through blood test, brain scan, nor a microscopic, x-ray or
ultrasonic examination, for, of course, the mind is not measurable, and the
three criteria result from common sense.

These criteria are applicable to bodily and mental illness as well. Therefore,
whatever we call it: mental disorder, madness, psychopathology, insanity, bad
habit, deviance, disagreement, psychiatric scapegoating, disapproved behavior or
incompetence, mental illness is a fact acknowledged by common sense.

Michel Latulippe

--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@... wrote:
>
> *None* of these operations are perpetrated by psychiatrists.

You are correct that the cases of mutilation discussed by Williams weren't
committed by psychiatrists, but, in most cases, by a "traditional practitioner."
If the number of atrocities committed by psychiatrists is included, the total
would be much greater.  (I would also include the number of male mutilations.)

Consider that in modern society the psychiatrist has taken over the role of the
traditional practitioner.  In 'A Lexicon of Lunacy' Dr. Szasz explains:

'...as a people, we believe in mental health and mental illness, much as our
ancestors believed in God and Satan.  The struggle for God and against Satan was
the grand legitimizer of their age; similarly, the struggle for Mental Health
and against Mental Illness is the grand legitimizer of ours.'

The rationale of the traditional practitioner is often the same as the
institutional psychiatrist; mutilation can be used as a form of
torture/punishment or as a means to regulate fertility.
In 'The Rise of the Fourth Reich', Jim Marrs discusses the role of psychiatry in
Nazi Germany:

'Leading the movement to eliminate "mental defectives" from the German
population were lawyer Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche, who
popularized the chilling phrase "lebensunwertes Leben"--or "life unworthy of
life"--in a 1920 tract titled "Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten
Lebens', or "Lifting Controls on the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life"....

'The chosen means of prevention , enforced sterilization, was administered by
special "hereditary health courts," made up of two doctors--usually
psychiatrists--and one civil official, usually a judge close to the Nazi Party,
who acted as chairman.  The Nazi euthanasia program was not carried out in the
open but instead by secret decrees, as Hitler steadfastly refused to seek a
legal ruling, knowing that such a program was illegal under existing laws.'

In 'Theatre of Hell', Dr. Haha Lung discusses the use of castration as
punishment in the U.S.:

'Castration was...generally reserved for runaway slaves, although there are
instances of it being used as punishment for Whites as well throughout U.S.
history.  According to Carl Sifakis in his 'Encyclopedia of American Crime',
castration was used several 'hundred' times as punishment in twentieth century
California, with the last reported case of castration as punishment in America
appearing to have been in Colorado in 1972.'

It is the questionable legality of these practices that requires the "modern"
psychiatrist to find creative methods to conceal their procedures.  As Dr. Lung
explains:

'Whether a torturer decides to deliberately mark his victim depends on the time,
circumstance, and the effect and goal the torturer is trying to achieve (e.g.,
gaining information, terrorizing a populace, etc.).  On the one hand,
permanently marking a victim  can invite unwanted outside investigation and
provide hard-to-dismiss 'physical' evidence for criminal prosecution.'

It is this "unwanted outside investigation" (and malpractice suits) that, I
believe, has led today's psychiatrist to use covert methods like this one
described by Szasz in 'The Manufacture of Madness':

'In 1895, T. Spratling,...an English surgeon, recommended for the treatment of
masturbation among "adult insane males,...the complete section of the dorsal
nerves of the penis"....'

The "insane male" can also be sterilized by injecting the veterinary drug (not
approved for humans) Neutersol (Zinc gluconate neutralized by arginine) into the
"patient's" testicles.

Alas, the reader can't help but feel sympathy for the unfortunate who suffered
the sadistic "treatment" recounted by Szasz in 'Sex by Prescription':

'The patient was considered to have been homosexual from birth....  His
homosexual activity is decidedly more pronounced during the active phases of his
illness [paranoia]....  Castrated at the age of 46....  His psychic reaction to
the operation was completely consistent with his paranoid attitude: the doctor
has disabled him.'

It's Catch-22.  The psychiatric patient's resentment toward his captors and
their abuse is taken as further evidence of his "illness," probably requiring
more "treatment"!

   Today's
> practicing psychiatrists have never even heard of such treatments.

Unfortunately, it's the general public that is likely to be uninformed about
such treatments.  Szasz explains, in 'Coercion as Cure', how modern barbarisms
are disguised using pseudo-scientific jargon:

'...Psychosurgery continues to be practiced, albeit without the sensationalism
of the Freeman era.  In 1997, a notice posted on an Internet web site
advertised: "We at Massachusetts General Hospital perform a type of limbic
system surgery called bilateral stereotactic cingulotomy.  The primary
indication for which this procedure is considered is medically intractable
obsessive compulsive disorder....  Some people who suffer chronic pain
syndromes, refractory depression, and addictive disorders may also be candidates
for this procedure."  The old terms "lobotomy" and "psychosurgery" are replaced
with fresh, technical-euphemistic terms such as "cingulotomy," "Limbic
leucotomy," and "stereotactic surgery."  'Plus ca change'...'

It is telling that in his work Szasz refers to lobotomy as "cerebral spaying"!

   The
> history of their profession is not a required course and it is probably
> not even available as an elective.
>

Again, I'm afraid that it's the public that needs to educated. ("Those who do
not study history are doomed to repeat it."--Georges Santayana)

> I am dedicated to fighting psychiatry, but I do believe that we can
> accomplish little if anything by dredging up psychiatry's past sins. On
> the contrary, that will only elicit the response that it has changed,
> improved.

It is in this regard that the public has been "hoodwinked"; modern psychiatrists
are quick to defend their practices as more humane than those of their
forerunners.  They've merely dressed them up with impressive sounding new names.

>
> I.m.o. we need to confront psychiatry with arguments that everybody can
> see for himself are true, such as that psychiatry doesn't turn anybody
> into capable, competent, and productive persons....

My point exactly.  Mutilating a patient's genitals and/or brain will not create
a right-thinking, healthy sexually functioning member of society.

  people who
> heal are the ones who have *escaped* psychiatry, not stayed in it.
>

Amen!

mirah@... wrote:
>>  /*Our struggle is a political struggle.*/
>>
>
> Here I agree with you 100%.
So we agree on the key question but rather have some disagreements on
ideological grounds.

rEne

Hi René,

I have some problems with your definition of illness, because
a. changes in body tissue cannot always be identified (think of things
like fatigue, pain, or inability to move, which may have physical causes
even when they cannot be found);
b. conditions like coma would be excluded;
c. conditions like disfigurement or Gilbert syndrome would be included
if the person complains about them.

Anyway, there isn't much point to a definition if we can't make
everybody agree to it.

>  it would be left up to the
>  subjective feeling whether someone has an illness or not.

What is wrong with that? Why would not each of us decide for himself?
And whether he believes that there is something that can be done about
the illness?

Without socialist laws that make one person's wellness/illness another
person's business no one would care.

>  so far no society has been prepared to accept the far-reaching
>  consequences of this, because it would mean that - on the one hand -
>  everyone could sign his own sick leave certificate and - on the other
>  hand - the substantial function of the doctors would break down

Throughout most of human history there was no need for signing sick
leave certificates nor state registered gatekeeper doctors. When you say
"no society" you mean no *socialist* society.

>  but rather any spiritual
>  charlatanism would have the priority.

Why would you assume that every spiritualist is a charlatan? Physicians
are no better at determining who is unable to work due to illness than
lay people, spiritual or not. If we must have sick leave certificates
and such, it would be more democratic to have the certification done by
a committee or jury of lay peers.

>  - no "suffering" accompanied by a desire for change can be present if
>  people are regularly locked up in psychiatric prisons.

What about people who are confused and tend to forget where they live or
how to cross a street safely?

What about people who are *not* locked up but complain of, say,
depression, or anxiety, or even a broken heart?

>  otherwise would leave and thereby extract themselves from the
>  psychiatric torture methods such as four-point restraint, forced
>  injections, electro-shocks etc. and constantly having to see these
>  fascist methods.

What I notice is that some people understandably feel so much anger and
hatred to the perpetrators of this violence, that they can no longer
conceive of care without it. However, such care does exist, just as
there are parents who care for their children without violence.

>  /*Our struggle is a political struggle.*/

Here I agree with you 100%.

Mira

Dear Michel and the other readers of this list,

michel.latulippe wrote:
>
> I look at the web site suggested by Hagai www.iaapa.org.il and I read
> some parts of René Talbot papers. He recalls having said at the US
> custom that he never suffered from mental illness because it doesn't
> exists. Here are some thoughts on that.
>
As you mention my papers, I would like to refer other readers to these
of my texts in English:
http://www.irrenoffensive.de/providence.htm
http://www.irrenoffensive.de/vancouver.htm
http://www.irrenoffensive.de/szasz_critique.htm
http://www.iaapa.de/zwang/new_ground.htm
http://www.irrenoffensive.de/symposium.htm

In "The Answer on the Mind-Body Question as a Crucial Means for Social
Control and Oppression" (the first link) I explain in patch #3
my view

/*Why "mental illness" does not exist.*/
There is simple proof why its existence necessarily and rationally must
be denied and this takes place in three steps:

The first step:
The description of what an illness is:
In order to speak meaningfully in the medical sense about an illness,
BOTH of the following conditions must be fulfilled:
a) an objectifiable change of the body tissue or body fluid must be
present, as determined for example with the forensic investigation of a
cause of death.
b) the person who has an illness must suffer from it subjectively and/or
believe that he will suffer, in other words, he must at least consider
that present condition to be unpleasant and have a desire to change it.
Furthermore, this is a precondition for anything like "therapy" to take
place.

The second step:
there is no illness, UNLESS both criteria a) and b) are fulfilled, because:

- if none of the two criteria are fulfilled, then the word "illness" can
only be used as methaphor: for example "a sick joke", or "the economy is
ill".

- if a) applies, but not b), then the doctors have lost a diagnosis and
an operating field: for example people under a certain height were
designated simply as being "ill" and the illness described as
"exceptionally short". But that becomes irrelevant from the moment that
dwarfs say that they are a normal part of mankind and do not suffer
because of their size. Another example is deaf people: as soon as they
organize themselves as people who speak differently, the "suffering"
disappears and with it the possibility to call deafness an "illness".

- if b) does apply but not a), then it would be left up to the
subjective feeling whether someone has an illness or not. Naturally so
far no society has been prepared to accept the far-reaching consequences
of this, because it would mean that - on the one hand - everyone could
sign his own sick leave certificate and - on the other hand - the
substantial function of the doctors would break down, because - in
contrast to todays orthodox medicine - investigations and a diagnosis
would no longer be needed, but rather any spiritual charlatanism would
have the priority.

The third step:
The alleged existance of "mental illness" can fulfill neither the
condition a) nor b) - although even the absence of one of the two
conditions of these alleged "diagnoses" would fall through for a
candidacy as "illness" (see 2.) because:

- there are no objectifiable changes in the body tissue. As everyone
knows, neither a blood test, nor a brainscan, nor a microscopic, X-ray
or ultrasonic examination is made, let alone even a "gene test", in
order to make any of the slandering psychiatric diagnoses.

- no "suffering" accompanied by a desire for change can be present if
people are regularly locked up in psychiatric prisons. Logically they
are locked up because they are not there voluntarily and otherwise would
leave and thereby extract themselves from the psychiatric torture
methods such as four-point restraint, forced injections, electro-shocks
etc. and constantly having to see these fascist methods. Rather it is
those who are locked up who are turned into suffering people by
psychiatry, by being degraded and humiliated, with attempts to break
their will, using torture methods to extract a confession in which they
finally admit to their "illness", so that afterwards the psychiatrists
will be able to call the whole martyr "medical" treatment.

To sum up: The use of the words "mental illness" are about the use of a
methaphor, thus only words, not actual findings or facts.
------------------
The second link: my "Speech at the protest rally against the WFMH on the
22nd of July 2001 in Vancouver" and I explain why in my views

/*Our struggle is a political struggle.*/

It is not a medical struggle,
It is a political struggle,

It is not an economic struggle against a drug industry
It is a political struggle,

It is not a psychological struggle
It is a political struggle

It is not a struggle for better social workers or better doctors.
It is a political struggle

It is necessary to emphasize that it is a political struggle because if
we misunderstand the nature of the struggle, we are likely to attack the
wrong enemy, using inadequate means, attracting hypocrite allies and we
would be unable to make true progress.
The nature of our struggle is easy to explain. The core of the problem
is that the violence which a coercive psychiatry can use against us is
legalized by the state. Therefore the state creates special "Mental
Health Laws" and the UN blessed this obnoxious laws with a resolution of
the general assembly.
As laws are the result of a political consent of the ruling majority or,
in less democratic states, of a ruling class of oppressors, we can
overcome the core of the psychiatric violence only by changing the laws.
That means we have to persuade the majorities in the parliaments to
abolish the Mental Health Acts. The strongest argument on our side is
the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which proclaims
inalienable rights to ALL human beings. One example is article 18
"Freedom of Thought", which is exactly what is denied to us by
psychiatry, which tries to restrain and channel unusual views by
arbitrary incarceration, applying torture like four point restrain and
forced drugging, the other cruelties and fraud.

In face of such a huge and overwhelming front of powers, state power,
public relations power and the desire of a majority to strengthen
themselves by oppressing a minority, how could we dare to wage such a
struggle?
Just as David could win with a little slingshot against Goliath, we also
have to hit the monster exactly on the right spot. This is a pleading
for analyses before action, as we are a desperately small group of
active "survivors" and do not have millions of obvious supporters behind
us as did Martin Luther King, for example.
And it is a pleading for an understanding that only political means can
bring us progress. We have to use the right words appropriately and
create publicity for our actions with our own means, because the media
are seldom on our side. We have to go public with our protest, make
public our victories and be persistent in our aims and creative in our
means. On the long run that will build a lobby in the parliament, so
let’s keep our member of parliaments informed about our moves. Be nice
to our allies who support us and never underestimate the power of our
enemy, his fear of losing power, his fear of losing money, jobs and
influence over those he victimized. Therefore he will try to disorganize
us, will try to buy out and corrupt those among us who are ambivalent
and he will use discrimination and in his alliance with the state power
he will be able to use many more dirty tricks. He will offer careers and
allow a minority position in his apparatus, but we do have to be aware
of the fact that any true "reform" is only possible if the system has
fulfilled the one and only demand, namely: the abolition of all mental
health acts. Please never get blinded by the deceptive rhetoric of
so-called reforms, which do not first fulfill this demand and by allies
who do not actively support the political struggle for the fulfillment
of our inalienable human rights.

Now to the hopeful perspectives:
Of course psychiatry is vulnerable. It is even a very brittle system, as
it claims to be a science and dealing with "illness", as if this were an
objective fact. This is the weak point where we can hit the Goliath. If,
anywhere in the world, it is possible to legally refute the claim by
psychiatry that it is a science by using a loophole which denies a
psychiatrist the right to incarcerate someone, then the system is
fundamentally broke!
In other words, if someone could deny with legal means a psychiatrist
the possibility to diagnose him or her who disagrees with this slander,
then there would be living proof - not only in a book or on a web site -
that there is no such thing as an "objective mental illness" and we
could achieve this just by saying “No!”. ...

rene talbot

I look at the web site suggested by Hagai www.iaapa.org.il and I read some parts
of René Talbot papers. He recalls having said at the US custom that he never
suffered from mental illness because it doesn't exists. Here are some thoughts
on that.

The main problems with psychiatry are the so-called "treatments", some are often
beneficial, more advantages than inconvenient i.e. drugs. All, to some extent,
are in a relationship of power between the patient and the psychiatrist.

In order to stop or at least alter this relation of domination of the
psychiatrist over the patient through "treatments", Szasz points out rightly
that there cannot be treatment if there is no illness (though illness may exist
without known treatment). Then, in order to get rid of psychiatric treatments
Szasz, in a purely strategic way, asserts that there is no such thing as mental
illness.

But, nevertheless Szasz strategic claim, mental illness exists. It is a fact
observation. No matter what we call it: mental disorder, bad habit, disapproved
behavior or incompetence.

Another goal of Szasz in stating that mental illness doesn't exist is about
stigmatization. A person called mentally ill or mentally disordered is smeared
in some ways. So eradicating mental illness in Szasz views would eradicate this
bad effect on his reputation.

I affirm that mental illness is real but this stand doesn't mean that overdue
coercion is allowed. There is the problem of dangerousness, though it may often
be overblown, is a fact. In this case, temporary coercion is allowed. There are
situations, too, that are less severe i.e. behavior that may affect the
reputation of a person. It is important to act in this case as well. But if a
person is known to be odd or misfit without dangerousness, there is no point in
coercing him.

Concerning stigmatization, Szasz underline the fact (Insanity the idea…) that,
since Freud on, everybody is potentially mentally ill or at least neurotic. In
this case, as the norm is 50% plus 1, it is then normal not to be normal. The
same is valid with DSM. Every new edition adds new disorders and then a new
slice of society is involved: for example, schizophrenia affects 1% of the
population, bipolarity 1%, autism 1% (in order to avoid a fastidious research, I
write 1% everywhere, though, of course there are variations). Again, down the
road, with all the disorders described in the DSM, soon, if it is not the case
now, more than 50% plus 1% of the population will be diagnosed with mental
disorders. Therefore, we don't have to fear to be stigmatized becoming closer
and closer to the majority, if it is not already the case.

This is why I don't see the point in asserting, against evidence, that mental
illness doesn't exist though a counter power must take action, monitor and limit
the power of psychiatrists.

Michel

every thing has its own right time
sometime it is useful to conduct a learned discussion on the origins of
psychiatry's methods, its origins and various metamorphosis through the last 2
centuries

can we forget that each metamorphosis caused in its time enormous suffering to
people?


Hagai



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: mirah@...
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:24:07 +0100
Subject: Re: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Re: was it easier for hasan to murder
because a psyciatrist?





Hagai, I agree with your philosophy, but disagree with your politics.

The vast majority of people aren't interested in psychiatry's futile
search for the "defective" organ. They are interested in psychiatry's
contribution to turning perceived misfits into model citizens and
keeping our streets safe. We might get somewhere when we illustrate that
psychiatry in fact does the opposite.

Mira




_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on
Facebook.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-\
network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_2:092009

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

Hagai, I agree with your philosophy, but disagree with your politics.

The vast majority of people aren't interested in psychiatry's futile
search for the "defective" organ. They are interested in psychiatry's
contribution to turning perceived misfits into model citizens and
keeping our streets safe. We might get somewhere when we illustrate that
psychiatry in fact does the opposite.

Mira

Mira writes:
"we can accomplish little if anything by dredging up psychiatry's past sins. On
the contrary, that will only elicit the response that it has changed, improved."

not necessarily if you want to prove pattern of behaviour: for example in the
subject under discussion (-female genital mutilation) it is useful to show that
in the 19th century british psychiatrists advocated and performed this kind of
torture and that it was the just one step in psychiatry ever continuing search
after the "defective" organ where the "diseased" mind is located, in the 20th
century the location spiraled to the brain



Hagai Aviel/Chairperson Israeli Association Against Psychiatric Assault
www.iaapa.org.il for 'International Association Against Psychiatric Assault'
see: iaapa.ch









To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: mirah@...
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:55:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Re: was it easier for hasan to murder
because a psyciatrist?





sangchenyeshe wrote:

> According to Jessica Williams, author of '50 Facts that Should Change
> the World', "Two million girls and women are subjected to female
> genital mutilation each year." Obviously, all of these mutilations
> aren't perpetrated by psychiatrists

*None* of these operations are perpetrated by psychiatrists. Today's
practicing psychiatrists have never even heard of such treatments. The
history of their profession is not a required course and it is probably
not even available as an elective.

I am dedicated to fighting psychiatry, but I do believe that we can
accomplish little if anything by dredging up psychiatry's past sins. On
the contrary, that will only elicit the response that it has changed,
improved.

I.m.o. we need to confront psychiatry with arguments that everybody can
see for himself are true, such as that psychiatry doesn't turn anybody
into capable, competent, and productive persons, and that the people who
heal are the ones who have *escaped* psychiatry, not stayed in it.

Mira




_________________________________________________________________
Keep your friends updated—even when you’re not signed in.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-\
network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_5:092010

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

sangchenyeshe wrote:

>  According to Jessica Williams, author of '50 Facts that Should Change
>  the World', "Two million girls and women are subjected to female
>  genital mutilation each year." Obviously, all of these mutilations
>  aren't perpetrated by psychiatrists

*None* of these operations are perpetrated by psychiatrists. Today's
practicing psychiatrists have never even heard of such treatments. The
history of their profession is not a required course and it is probably
not even available as an elective.

I am dedicated to fighting psychiatry, but I do believe that we can
accomplish little if anything by dredging up psychiatry's past sins. On
the contrary, that will only elicit the response that it has changed,
improved.

I.m.o. we need to confront psychiatry with arguments that everybody can
see for himself are true, such as that psychiatry doesn't turn anybody
into capable, competent, and productive persons, and that the people who
heal are the ones who have *escaped* psychiatry, not stayed in it.

Mira

Martin Kessler wrote:

>  You can not arrest a police officer.

You're right, I overlooked the word policeman. Sorry.

You can not arrest a police officer.  You can only perform a citizen's arrest on
another citizen as an emergency measure.

Martin



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: mirah@...
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:27:00 +0100
Subject: Re: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] SZASZ VS. ELLIS





Martin Kessler wrote:

> You or I can not give a policeman a ticket
> or diagnose and commit a psychiatrist unless of course you are a
> psychiatrist or a policeman.

Actually, there is such a thing as a citizen's arrest. But not a
citizen's diagnosis. That would be practicing medicine without a license.




_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9690331&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL\
_WIN_evergreen:112009

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

--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@... wrote:
>
> Female circumcision? What has that to do with psychiatry?
>

In 'Sex by Prescription' Dr. Szasz explains:

'The treatment of masturbation by means of surgery reached its apogee, as might
be expected, when the patient had "only" a clitoris.  According to the
conventional wisdom of the late nineteenth century, "it was irrelevant to a
woman's feelings whether she had sex organs or not."  While (male) doctors could
never quite convince themselves or the public that the proper treatment for male
masturbation was penectomy, they did convince themselves and at least some women
that the proper treatment for female masturbation was clitoridectomy.  The
credit for this discovery belongs to Isaac Baker Brown, a prominent London
surgeon who later became the president of the Medical Society of London.  He
introduced the operation of clitoridectomy around 1858, because he believed that
masturbation caused hysteria, epilepsy, and convulsive diseases....

'Since masturbation was principally a male disease, the fury of
anti-masturbatory surgery was vented mainly on men.  For women there awaited
sexual operations undreamt of in medically less advanced times.  The most
important--because it was the most widely practiced--of these procedures was the
removal of both normal ovaries, known eponymically as "Battey's operation," so
named after Robert Battey, the American surgeon who developed it in 1872....'

According to Jessica Williams, author of '50 Facts that Should Change the
World', "Two million girls and women are subjected to female genital mutilation
each year."  Obviously, all of these mutilations aren't perpetrated by
psychiatrists, but you're fooling yourself if you think the practices mentioned
by Szasz have been abandoned.

D Waters wrote:

>  Pies asserted that it is the judge, in most cases,
>  who decided on the committment of a client.

By law, it is always the judge. But the judge, considering himself
incompetent to judge "medical" matters, bases his decision on the
recommendation of the psychiatrist. So each ascribes the decision to the
other.

Mira

Martin Kessler wrote:

>  You or I can not give a policeman a ticket
>  or diagnose and commit a psychiatrist unless of course you are a
>  psychiatrist or a policeman.

Actually, there is such a thing as a citizen's arrest. But not a
citizen's diagnosis. That would be practicing medicine without a license.

True. Regardless of whether labelling is harmful or not, Ellis asserted that
labels do exist if a person consistently demonstrates a certain behavior. Pies
asserted that it is the judge, in most cases, who decided on the committment of
a client.

D




________________________________
From: Martin Kessler <titaniummdk@...>
To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 7:57:48 PM
Subject: RE: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] SZASZ VS. ELLIS


The reason Thomas Szasz has a problem with psychiatrists "lableling" human
behavior with the stymatizing lables is who is in power.  Psychiatrists have the
power to label/diagnose and have an individual commited and a policeman has the
power to arrest an individual and charge them with a crime.  You or I can not
give a policeman a ticket or diagnose and commit a psychiatrist unless of course
you are a psychiatrist or a policeman.



Martin



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: cubyanks@...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:30 -0800
Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] SZASZ VS. ELLIS

 



    my poiint was that in the Szasz vs. AL Ellis debate that the latter asserted
that Tom was stigmatizing psychiatrists based on a REPEATED pattern of behavior
that they engage in toward their clients. Why then is it not acceptable to give
"mental patients" a label if they show a repeated pattern of behavior even if
the label damages them in some way?

Sincerely,

Darren

________________________________
From: "mirah@..." <mirah@...>
To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:48:51 AM
Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] folie à plusieurs, was: A few questions about
the Fort Hood rampage

 
michel.latulippe wrote:

> I wonder if it would be possible to label him psychotic/insane if he
> were part of a team.

Oh, certainly! One accusation against psychiatry that would be totally
unfair is that it is shy of labels. This one even appears in the DSM.
See here:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

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




                       
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9690331&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL\
_WIN_evergreen:112009

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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






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

sangchenyeshe wrote:

>  I wonder if it was easier for the Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Malik
>  Hasan, to commit murder as it is already customary for members of his
>  profession to commit "soul murder" in the forms of unauthorized and
>  undocumented lobotomy, chemical castration, "female circumcision"
>  etc.?

Female circumcision? What has that to do with psychiatry?

I've heard of many mass shootings, but this is the first one by a
psychiatrist I've heard of (not counting Radovan Karadžić, who, like
hitler and stalin, probably did no killing with his own hands).

If there is a connection between this act and psychiatry, I find it more
likely that it would be prescription drugs. They would be readily
available to Hasan. Here in the Netherlands I know several cases of
physicians becoming addicted to drugs which they prescribe to
themselves. Not that any of them have committed mass shootings. They
don't have access to guns here anyway.

We do have several cases in our courts of murders committed allegedly
under the influence of antidepressants:  women who killed their own
children whom they love dearly. I know that Dr. Szasz's position is that
pills cannot make a person commit murder. In Hasan's case, one might
suspect a political motive. But what on earth can make a mother turn on
her own child? In each of these cases the murder came as a total
surprise, there were never any signs of violent tendencies before.

Mira

--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@... wrote:

Mira wrote:

> What if we change the definition to a figure with four angles?
>
> The definition of, say, schizophrenia, has changed a zillion times over,
> including with every new publication of the DSM. Furthermore, many
> psychiatrists openly state that they don't use the DSM definition.
> Imagine a geometrist stating that he doesn't use the standard definition
> of triangle.
>
There are thoughts, words and the objects in its reality. A definition in order
to be good must fit the reality of the object. This is why we are not allowed to
give whatever definition to whatever objects, e.g. the definition of a square to
the object triangle.
In the DSM, they are no definitions or so of mental disorders. There are instead
descriptions, i.e. description of schizophrenia, of autism. Just check the
number of times the word "feature" comes out.


> Here is the real difference between your views and mine. I do not
> believe that gov't can solve social problems or protect from personal
> misfortune, and I do not believe that it should try because every
> attempt to do so violates somebody's freedom. Freedom is the core value
> of libertarianism.

The freedom of one is the restriction of it over others. Society is a whole with
parts. There is the government, entrepreneurs businesses, unions, media,
psychiatrists and advocacy groups for the defense of "mental patients".  All of
them have their utility. Though inside the whole, they are tensions, it is not
static. Sometimes there is a tendency to the left, sometimes to the right. Right
now, in most countries, it is to the right. Psychiatrists are gaining more and
more credibility e.g. we can judge that by the content of movies from "One flew
over the cuckoo's nest" 1975 to "Girl, interrupted" 1999 or K-PAX. Psychiatrists
have their utility. They can be pretty nasty and friendly as well. But, their
power must to be counter balanced by advocacy groups to protect "mental
patients" (In my opinion, these ones are too weak compare to the strength of
psychiatrists.) Society, to me, is a matter of dynamic balance between its
parts.
>
> >  Consent rests on deliberation.
>
> Why deliberation? I'm about to rob, rape, assault, kidnap, kill, or drug
> you. You don't want that. What is there to deliberate about?

Deliberation goes with choice. When there is no possibility of choice, there is
no room for deliberation.

Michel

The reason Thomas Szasz has a problem with psychiatrists "lableling" human
behavior with the stymatizing lables is who is in power.  Psychiatrists have the
power to label/diagnose and have an individual commited and a policeman has the
power to arrest an individual and charge them with a crime.  You or I can not
give a policeman a ticket or diagnose and commit a psychiatrist unless of course
you are a psychiatrist or a policeman.



Martin



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: cubyanks@...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:30 -0800
Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] SZASZ VS. ELLIS





     my poiint was that in the Szasz vs. AL Ellis debate that the latter asserted
that Tom was stigmatizing psychiatrists based on a REPEATED pattern of behavior
that they engage in toward their clients. Why then is it not acceptable to give
"mental patients" a label if they show a repeated pattern of behavior even if
the label damages them in some way?

Sincerely,

Darren

________________________________
From: "mirah@..." <mirah@...>
To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:48:51 AM
Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] folie à plusieurs, was: A few questions about
the Fort Hood rampage


michel.latulippe wrote:

> I wonder if it would be possible to label him psychotic/insane if he
> were part of a team.

Oh, certainly! One accusation against psychiatry that would be totally
unfair is that it is shy of labels. This one even appears in the DSM.
See here:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

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





_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9690331&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL\
_WIN_evergreen:112009

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