I know, I know, regular readers here will ask me “why do you read and participate at sites that end up being annoying and wasting your time?!” Well, perhaps a bit of a glutton for punishment could be one explanation, but, I read at some blogs to see if fairness and reason will pervade, however, some sites not only attract extremism and lack of moderation, I think they encourage it, if at least not calling out the zealots for their complete lack of ability to show some respect to not generalize with comments like this, from an “Anonymous”:
“So let’s be candid. The only reason every single psychiatrist that I know justifies involuntary psychiatric incarcerations is because their existence goes hand in hand with the the flow of money to psychiatry and psychiatrists. Without coercion (which implictly means that the opinion of psychiatrists is legally binding in many cases), government would not invest a single dime in organized psychiatry or psychiatrists. So while many psychiatrists make a living without receiving public money directly or indirectly, it is the fact that psychiatry functions as a tool of government sanctioned “social control” that makes psychiatry relevant in society.
We live in a “theocracy”, in which the Bible or the Khoran have been replaced by the DSM, as far as the US government is concerned. This is not an exaggeration since the DSM is explicitly mentioned in state “mental health” laws as to who can be at the receiving end of involuntary psychiatric incarcerations and other abusive forms of coercive psychiatry.
So indeed, I believe that only individuals who are “seriously disturbed mentally speaking” would want to be part of such profession. Every interaction that I have with a psychiatrist, including the ones in this thread, reaffirms my belief.”
Oh, where is this coming from, my bad, here is the link to the blog post and the ensuing thread that I contributed to in several comments:
You have to read the whole thing to understand what crowd was attracted to the thread, but, I think the author of the post is trying to make sense of why there is a pervasive population out there who is just outraged that psychiatry has the gall to have to involuntarily hospitalize people. People who are a danger to themselves or others, or are so incompetent to care for themselves that the status quo will be a hellacious status woe for both the patient and those around such individual, they need something that eventually will be seen as a sanctuary.
Although I don’t really understand Dr Miller’s thought of trying to empower or encourage the patient involuntarily hospitalized by having some type of ceremony or celebration when the patient is discharged.
This is what Dr Miller wrote in the blog piece: “So would it help when people left a psychiatric hospital feeling badly, violated perhaps, and certainly shamed because this is something we hear over and over even if the patient did nothing shameful at all, if we listened, acknowledged how difficult it can be to get treatment and participate in it, to let people know what a tremendous job they’ve done in getting through such a difficult time (even if it wasn’t all graceful)? Would it help to have a celebration when someone was discharged –even if just pizza or cake or something a little healthier, but to bring in family and print up a certificate to be read aloud and not make this all about shame?”
I think the same “Anonymous” quoted above wrote in the last comment dated today before Dinah signed off on her contributions there this as an endpoint?: “With all due respect, with your license to practice psychiatry, you are dangerous to the well being of other people. As long as you don’t see this, you will remain tone deaf to the issue of involuntary psychiatric incarcerations.”
Again, I encourage readers who are not already participating there to read the whole thing, and pay attention to the detractors of involuntary commitment who lump all of psychiatry as villains and violators of rights akin to countries of dictators and tyrants. Which is why I end up commenting when I come across these threads of hostility and venom that takes the term “overgeneralizing” to new lows.
But, I wish I could attempt to direct this post to something more productive and positive in regards to hospitalizing people of impaired insight and judgment. I really don’t think this post can go that path, but, I want reasonable and fair readers to ponder this: forgetting those 5-10% who are legitimately being victimized by some outside person or force that is using psychiatric care as a punishment, those approximate 90% of people who are genuinely in need of some support and sympathy, what are alternatives to care or intervention?
As I tried to note at the thread, is it just incarceration or burial that impaired individuals have to turn to for hope and faith? Or, are we as psychiatrists trying to make the proverbial lemonade from the lemons that bring in these people who are hurting, or ready to hurt others without care or regard to consequences?
These alleged advocates for appropriate alleged alternative interventions that should never consider involuntary care, well, read between the lines to their vitriol. I am sure that some have been mistreated in their inpatient experiences, but, to extrapolate that every one else in similar circumstances have the exact same outcomes is just characterological in premise until proven otherwise.
As I said in the thread, who are the most outraged and offended people who leave care from an involuntary admit status? Yeah, I have seen them in my travels, and often one of a basic three categories: the entrenched Axis 2 disorder without any ability to step back and discriminate who cares and who is careless; the entrenched addict (often with at least addiction added personality disruptions) who won’t accept recovery is any option to their future; and, while this one with some hope for intervention, the entrenched hostile psychotic who’s paranoia and distrust of all of society will not be altered by inpatient care options unfortunately jaded by the involuntary process in the first place.
If not said by the same anonymous commenter already quoted above, I am just baffled how these folks want us, psychiatrists, to be involuntarily hospitalized to know their pain and traumas, but, none of them to my knowledge have taken me up on my rebuttal: how about trying to be a psychiatrist for a few days and taking on the responsibilities of having to care for people who seem to have few if anyone in their lives to provide the needed stability, sympathy, and support that could prevent the need for involuntary care. (here is how I originally worded it in comment at the thread: “You want us to walk in your shoes and be involuntarily hospitalized, why don’t you seek out a way to be a psychiatrist for a few days or week and see what is on our shoulders?! Easy to be critical, but not so easy to take responsibility for other peoples’ lives, eh?”)
I’ll share my most likely reason they won’t reply, and it is harsh and abrupt, but, so are their comments in the first place: their struggles to be appropriately supportive, sympathetic, and stable are very apparent in their comments at blog sites that are trying to open these caring and encouraging doors for consideration and access.
Dinah will never say that, nor should she if she can’t call these folks on their repetitive, pervasive efforts to demean and disrupt. But, I can and do because the anonymity of the Internet allows this crap to go on without challenge by those who are preyed on by the extremists and zealots out to bash psychiatry into oblivion.
Frankly, I don’t think this arrogant or presumptuous, but take this ending however it fits your narrative: I write what I post and comment on at other sites to allow the Drs of other sites to eventually depend on the likes of me to take the heat by these extremist zealot detractors who only think a dead psychiatry is a good one.
So, to my colleagues who continue to hope that reason and negotiation will prevail, good luck with that premise. Even if it isn’t an antisocial population behind much that is going on here at the Net, it certainly is not a moderate, negotiable group much of the time, and to let them go unchallenged with some harsh rebuttal, well, review history when overtolerance seems to rule.
Thank you for reading this bit of a rant, but, hopefully it provides a perspective to allow the reasonable and objective readers to pause and reflect where the dialogue of debating care options should travel hereon…
Hope it provides a bit of a smile or laugh!
Addendum March 3rd: as written in the thread here today by Cat Lover:
“It seems to me that you [Dr H] often heap vitriol onto people criticizing psychiatry (overgeneralizing) just as bad as they heap vitriol onto psychiatry. Why? Been treated like crap by too many of them, probably is why. Well, I was treated like crap by some mental health providers. I try hard not to generalize.”
Yeah, but so many in the antipsychiatry legion write these far reaching overgeneralizations that ALL psychiatry is guilty and complicit of wrongs and demonizations simply because of being a psychiatrist, and then those like you, maybe not Cat Lover personally, say NOTHING to distance or deride the over generalizations. So, being silent is being complicit, and that is said about us when not voicing the legitimate attacks on the antisocial psychiatrists out there, so why the hypocrisy?!
Plus, let’s be beyond candid, let’s be brutally honest and bold, people like me really are threatening to the antipsychiatry lobby because I don’t tout the “party line” of we as professionals have to be held to this faux standard we have to be kind and fair while being attacked mercilessly. Gee, like what the Islamic lobby is demanding as ISIS and Iran try to destroy free thought and independence?!
Well, I find that the endless attack without exceptions is rigid and inflexible zealotry that does not deserve kindness nor compassionate understanding once it is more than obvious there is no negotiation, there is no honest and fair debate, just the bold exclamations of, how did the comment from March 1 from “anonymous” comment here at the thread say it ? :
“My value system is aligned with the first proposition while clearly, all psychiatrists who support coercive psychiatry (in my own experience 99.999% of psychiatrists) align themselves with the second, which is why they are psychiatrists in the first place!”
This anonymous commenter is not an exception to the rhetoric, just the most recent of the pervasive ones who write this way whenever they can get away with it. So, to the Cat Lover dissenters of psychiatry, your silence and lack of challenge only validates it with those who are using you, the alleged more moderate dissenters, as full allies to the extremist mission.
Ironic that when I write a post about antipsychiatry, the views jump logarithmically in number, and when the spotlight fades, so do the mob.
Onto the next torch and pitchfork rally for these folks, eh?
Sorry to Cat Lover, respect and kindness is earned, not demanded, and certainly not used as a vise to minimize the clout of our rebuttals. You want a one sided shout down, go back to Shrink Rap, 1boringoldman, and the other overtolerant folks who think they are having discussions, not veiled rants interpreted as being possibly therapeutic by such blog authors.
And I am never nasty at moment one, that just gets lost in the skewed narrative of the zealot. But, to Cat Lover, thank you for being more engaging and respectful.
Note how Anonymous is now going after BYH who was being supportive to the point about possible benefits of involuntary admissions. Can’t have people support the psychiatrists, what the hell next, meds might actually help some people!?!?