Loved the movie Inception, really was fascinating, creative, and entertaining. But, what if the concept really has merit in actual life? I think it does, minus the sci-fi component of tapping into people’s dreams, but, you can tap into people’s hopes and fears, true? And, maybe the premise is really moreso “hear the lie enough and it becomes the truth”, but aren’t the propagandists at hand really trying to incept ideas that control, dissuade, and manipulate?
Take the current Sequester issue as example. Depending on which side you as a citizen might identify or plainly support outright, the basic two sides in this debate claim that either cutting 2+% of the current budget really will not do much harm to the country, or, numerous aspects of society will be severely disrupted and perhaps even be irrevocably ruined. However, I advise readers to remember, the beauty of life is that there are often more than two sides to a conflict or difference of opinion, in fact often the real truth and reality is between the two poles, but I digress.
Hmm, who seems to be louder and more outrageous in the claims about our federal budget? Often, but not always, those who seem to be at risk to lose more, and that is the Democrats in this example, in my opinion. The point of this post is not outright political though, just trying to seed the thought that when there is a dispute in a legitimate matter, often the side who makes the most outrageous, emotional, and at the end most threatening claims really has the most to lose, and what exactly is getting lost? It is usually control and /or perpetual agenda, period!
Which brings me to the main point of this post. I recently commented at another blog following a post there that had a brief clip of David Healy’s latest tirade about the detriments of medications, and what I found to be at least a subtle sell of his site Rxisk.org. Which, in theory, is a nice way of collecting hopefully valid and accurate vignettes of when medication use has problems. But, is that the agenda here? You watch the whole video (which I have come to do prior to this post), and decide:
I don’t get Dr Healy’s point with his spot. He misses a premise, or perhaps just wants to gloss over it shrewdly, that precedes whatever medication could possibly stimulate as anxiety or agitation, disinhibition, or cause psychotic processes. Medications do not create the concept of violence. And that is fairly much fact. Responsible clinicians know that. No, what he is blurring in an agenda I perceive as misleading is that in truth people have hostile and negative intentions PRIOR to going on meds, and that is what is being missed in the eval, either intentionally withheld by the patient or not efficiently obtained by the evaluator.
Yeah, people can then debate in the end commission or omission have the same end point. Unfortunately, you as the provider can only treat what you know. Even if you ask a person if they harbor homicidal or suicidal thoughts and/or intents, if the patient tells you “no” and you as clinician have no reliable collateral contact to disagree, well, can you honestly and accurately tell a patient he/she is lying?
Which brings me to my next point, that I have discussed occasionally here (HA), what do you do with antisocial personality disorder in treatment forums? You don’t medicate them, that is for sure, unless there are true, quantifiable Axis 1 comorbid disorder(s) that have a reliable history of response to mental health care interventions. For those who do, sometimes effectively treating the Axis 1 may make you regret later releasing the full force of the Axis 2 pathology being masked or dampened by the Axis 1 symptoms. And frankly, if you have been practicing for some period of time, don’t you have some instinct, countertransference reaction, or pick up on some inconsistencies in the evaluation process that relates a characterological feature at hand? So, do the use of medications create violence, or perhaps just release it, or for some sizeable population, just validate it?!
I don’t think Dr Healy is doing a great service here by trying to implicate meds as the cause of school shootings, in his opinion 90% of the time!? Oh, and I do equally take issue with his premise that in general up to 20% of people on medications have anxiety/agitation reactions. Maybe 20% or more have reactions if started on a high dose or titrated too quickly, and who often does make that mistake these days, I doubt mostly psychiatrists. No, again people need to pay attention to who are the primary prescribers of antidepressants these days, and even antipsychotics of late, and that are NONpsychiatrists. Yet these arguments seem to always perculate at mental health sites, run by mental health providers or patients, read by the same group, and the venom for blood is targeted to whom, these nonpsychiatric providers? Don’t think so!
So, to tie in the Inception concept beginning to this post, what exactly is the agenda of the “antipsychiatry lobby”? Perhaps to seed the thought by incessant, hostile, and vindictive writings that ALL psychiatry is a risk to society, that ALL medications have no value or place in care, and ALL mental health interventions are doing people a great disservice. Hmm, sense a trend here with ALL or NOTHING attitudes, usually held by a more predictive population of dissenters?
People ask me why I take on these commenters. Well, I believe in a few adages that apply to my challenges to the usual suspects at various sites: “hear the lie enough and it becomes truth” as I noted above, “evil thrives when good men (& women) lie silent”, and, one I recently relearned literally in my travels, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.
I have said this before, starting at Philip Dawdy’s site “Furious Seasons” a few years ago (which is now defunct) and on and on since, I think I understand and honestly respect that some writers have legitimate issues with their own poor care experiences, while learning of ongoing lack of insight or real empathy for patient care as exhibited by some really lousy and insensitive clinicians, psychiatrists and other providers in mental health care as primary examples. That said, I will continue to challenge extremist zealotry either by honest and fair debate, or by harsh rebuttal, which I am guilty of doing, but see little recourse with some who have no interest in honest and fair debate.
I see the agenda of antipsychiatry as just trying to incept the notion that medication, and mental health care in general, is bad, dangerous, and needs eliminated. No, not acceptable to me as a legit cause. Bringing light to bad care and frank profiting solely for the sake of income, yeah, totally agree it should be exposed, and these days prosecuted. But, I think some people on the net should throw down their room sized brushes and pick up some six inch wide ones instead, and choose some different colors than black and white.
Makes for not only a prettier room, but one to sit in and talk genuinely as well.