mental illness

[Guest guest]

Dixie:

I know I'm being challenging here, and I'm not trying to attack your

point of view, but I am extremely curious about your response to the

following:

Would you feel the same way if the schizophrenic broke into your home,

raped you, beat you and left you disfigured for life?

How about if that happened to your child?

Apple

> I've got to tear myself away, as I need to shower and get ready for a

> PetsMart adoption day--wish me luck, as I have 5 dogs here i need to place.

>

>

> But it was an interesting contrast--I read the emails that came through on

> this list overnight, and then I turned to some of my dog rescue emails,

> where I found emails about 2 different cases involving mentally ill people

> who had neglected/abused dogs. Some of these dogs are going to have to be

> put down, as they have been abused all their lives and are quite aggressive

> (5 adult Danes--an aggressive Dane is a dangerous dog. They attacked the

> rescuers who came to get them.)

>

> I believe in enforcing laws regarding animal cruelty. Yet I also think it's

> wrong to put someone in jail or prison when they are mentally ill, when

> they abuse themselves and anything in their path. I have heard of a number

> of cases of dogs that come from schizophrenics; these people, unable to

> care for themselves, are definitely not able to care for a dog.

>

> So it's not just a matter of leaving it up to the individual whether or not

> to medicate. Individuals have to be held accountable for their actions, but

> schizos are not in control of their actions. I believe it is cruel to hold

> them to the same legal standard that we hold mentally " well " adults to.

>

> Dixie

> Central Texas Corgi and Great Dane Rescue

> A'89, SF'90, ng

>

> Her life was okay. Sometimes she wished she were sleeping with the right

> man instead of with her dog, but she never felt she was sleeping with the

> wrong dog. - Change of Life by Judith Collas

[Guest guest]

Dixie:

I know I'm being challenging here, and I'm not trying to attack your

point of view, but I am extremely curious about your response to the

following:

Would you feel the same way if the schizophrenic broke into your home,

raped you, beat you and left you disfigured for life?

How about if that happened to your child?

Apple

> I've got to tear myself away, as I need to shower and get ready for a

> PetsMart adoption day--wish me luck, as I have 5 dogs here i need to place.

>

>

> But it was an interesting contrast--I read the emails that came through on

> this list overnight, and then I turned to some of my dog rescue emails,

> where I found emails about 2 different cases involving mentally ill people

> who had neglected/abused dogs. Some of these dogs are going to have to be

> put down, as they have been abused all their lives and are quite aggressive

> (5 adult Danes--an aggressive Dane is a dangerous dog. They attacked the

> rescuers who came to get them.)

>

> I believe in enforcing laws regarding animal cruelty. Yet I also think it's

> wrong to put someone in jail or prison when they are mentally ill, when

> they abuse themselves and anything in their path. I have heard of a number

> of cases of dogs that come from schizophrenics; these people, unable to

> care for themselves, are definitely not able to care for a dog.

>

> So it's not just a matter of leaving it up to the individual whether or not

> to medicate. Individuals have to be held accountable for their actions, but

> schizos are not in control of their actions. I believe it is cruel to hold

> them to the same legal standard that we hold mentally " well " adults to.

>

> Dixie

> Central Texas Corgi and Great Dane Rescue

> A'89, SF'90, ng

>

> Her life was okay. Sometimes she wished she were sleeping with the right

> man instead of with her dog, but she never felt she was sleeping with the

> wrong dog. - Change of Life by Judith Collas

[Guest guest]

Dixie:

I know I'm being challenging here, and I'm not trying to attack your

point of view, but I am extremely curious about your response to the

following:

Would you feel the same way if the schizophrenic broke into your home,

raped you, beat you and left you disfigured for life?

How about if that happened to your child?

Apple

> I've got to tear myself away, as I need to shower and get ready for a

> PetsMart adoption day--wish me luck, as I have 5 dogs here i need to place.

>

>

> But it was an interesting contrast--I read the emails that came through on

> this list overnight, and then I turned to some of my dog rescue emails,

> where I found emails about 2 different cases involving mentally ill people

> who had neglected/abused dogs. Some of these dogs are going to have to be

> put down, as they have been abused all their lives and are quite aggressive

> (5 adult Danes--an aggressive Dane is a dangerous dog. They attacked the

> rescuers who came to get them.)

>

> I believe in enforcing laws regarding animal cruelty. Yet I also think it's

> wrong to put someone in jail or prison when they are mentally ill, when

> they abuse themselves and anything in their path. I have heard of a number

> of cases of dogs that come from schizophrenics; these people, unable to

> care for themselves, are definitely not able to care for a dog.

>

> So it's not just a matter of leaving it up to the individual whether or not

> to medicate. Individuals have to be held accountable for their actions, but

> schizos are not in control of their actions. I believe it is cruel to hold

> them to the same legal standard that we hold mentally " well " adults to.

>

> Dixie

> Central Texas Corgi and Great Dane Rescue

> A'89, SF'90, ng

>

> Her life was okay. Sometimes she wished she were sleeping with the right

> man instead of with her dog, but she never felt she was sleeping with the

> wrong dog. - Change of Life by Judith Collas

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2001 7:09:20 PM Central Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

> If by coercion you

> mean forced medication, it is not done in the US, unless the person has

> been commited to an institution for commiting a violent crime.

There are other examples of forced meds. Here in Tennessee, meds can be

forced if a person id declared medically incompetent. It doesn't happen

often, but it happens.

~~~eric

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing. (Edmund Burke)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2001 7:09:20 PM Central Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

> If by coercion you

> mean forced medication, it is not done in the US, unless the person has

> been commited to an institution for commiting a violent crime.

There are other examples of forced meds. Here in Tennessee, meds can be

forced if a person id declared medically incompetent. It doesn't happen

often, but it happens.

~~~eric

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing. (Edmund Burke)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2001 7:09:20 PM Central Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

> If by coercion you

> mean forced medication, it is not done in the US, unless the person has

> been commited to an institution for commiting a violent crime.

There are other examples of forced meds. Here in Tennessee, meds can be

forced if a person id declared medically incompetent. It doesn't happen

often, but it happens.

~~~eric

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing. (Edmund Burke)

[Guest guest]

>>Currently in this country, a person cannot be forced to

>>take medication. Consequently, we have a lot of mentally ill people

>>commiting crimes who would likely not commit those crimes if they

>were >on

>>meds.

>

>If by this country you mean the US, this is absurd. Coercion is

>commonplace, both inpatient and outpatient.

Um, wrong. No, no one can be made to take medications. People can be

committed to psychiatric institutions, but they cannot be forced to take

medications against their will. And no outpatient can be forced to take

medications.

That you advocate for

>coercion and are unaware of this fact seems strange.

Yeah, well, I've encountered a heck of alot of people who needed medication

but could not be forced to take it. Consequently, they are often out on the

street. I have experience in the shelter/welfare system (actually, with

battered women's shelters) and some experience with the legal system. Where

do you get your information that coercion is commonplace?

The Psychiatry

>lobby tells us that their

> " mentally-ill " are no more prone to violence than the general

>population.

When they're taking their meds, probably not. But we all know

schizophrenics can turn violent. Alzheimers patients tend to be quite

violent.

While concepts like mental-illness, as defined by

>psychiatry, are meaningless for analysis,

What do you mean by th is and why do you say these concepts are

meaningless? Of course you can analyze schizophrenia, depression, bipolar

disorder, etc. Just refer to a psychiatric journal to see it done.

The popular notion of hordes

>of violent people who would be just fine if they only took there meds

>is folklore.

And of course our jails are full of these folklorish people.

How do you explain people who are violent until they are put on the proper

meds, at which point they become non-violent?

What about the daughter of a friend of my mom's, who had a malfunction of

the (thyroid?? hypothalmus?) gland. She was violent, she was very much not

herself, she was cruel. The malfunction was corrected with medication

(hormones/thyroid/something) at which point she returned to her old self.

Is that just folklore?

What about the people who are moody and violent when they're depressed, but

when they're on antidepressants, are no l onger moody and violent? Is that

just folklore?

What about the women in the battered womens shelter I worked at who had

mentally ill husbands/boyfriends, who were fine when they were on their

meds, but became violent and abusive when they didn't take their meds? Are

you saying these men didn't exist, or that the women were lying?

What about the women in the battered women's shelter who were irritable and

violent when they didn't take their meds, but were as cooperative and sweet

as can be when they were on their meds? Did they not exist? Are you saying

I imagined that?

>For an interesting paradigm shift, try substituting the word witch or

>homosexual for shizophrenic and mentally-ill in your last few posts,

>ie., witches can't be trusted with animals. The historical parallels

>are striking.

What's your point? That homosexuality was, until very recently, labeled a

mental illness? That mentally ill people were accused of being witches?

Well, no sheeeet.

I don't see where you have made any valid claims here. If by coercion you

mean forced medication, it is not done in the US, unless the person has

been commited to an institution for commiting a violent crime. Concepts

like mental illness are analyzable, just as concepts such as physical

illness are. (I talked to someone who lost her husband when he was 28. He

kept complaining of stomach pain. he was told it was stress and given

relaxation tapes. Finally she took him to the ER in the middle of the

night. He died of colon cancer a few weeks later. Did the fact that the

doctors missed the cancer mean it did not exist?) People who have radically

different personalities and levels of violence due to mental illness and

the lack of medication are commonplace, and if you don't know of any, I

invite you to spend some time at your local MHMR. And I fail to see your

point in the last paragraph.

[Guest guest]

>>Currently in this country, a person cannot be forced to

>>take medication. Consequently, we have a lot of mentally ill people

>>commiting crimes who would likely not commit those crimes if they

>were >on

>>meds.

>

>If by this country you mean the US, this is absurd. Coercion is

>commonplace, both inpatient and outpatient.

Um, wrong. No, no one can be made to take medications. People can be

committed to psychiatric institutions, but they cannot be forced to take

medications against their will. And no outpatient can be forced to take

medications.

That you advocate for

>coercion and are unaware of this fact seems strange.

Yeah, well, I've encountered a heck of alot of people who needed medication

but could not be forced to take it. Consequently, they are often out on the

street. I have experience in the shelter/welfare system (actually, with

battered women's shelters) and some experience with the legal system. Where

do you get your information that coercion is commonplace?

The Psychiatry

>lobby tells us that their

> " mentally-ill " are no more prone to violence than the general

>population.

When they're taking their meds, probably not. But we all know

schizophrenics can turn violent. Alzheimers patients tend to be quite

violent.

While concepts like mental-illness, as defined by

>psychiatry, are meaningless for analysis,

What do you mean by th is and why do you say these concepts are

meaningless? Of course you can analyze schizophrenia, depression, bipolar

disorder, etc. Just refer to a psychiatric journal to see it done.

The popular notion of hordes

>of violent people who would be just fine if they only took there meds

>is folklore.

And of course our jails are full of these folklorish people.

How do you explain people who are violent until they are put on the proper

meds, at which point they become non-violent?

What about the daughter of a friend of my mom's, who had a malfunction of

the (thyroid?? hypothalmus?) gland. She was violent, she was very much not

herself, she was cruel. The malfunction was corrected with medication

(hormones/thyroid/something) at which point she returned to her old self.

Is that just folklore?

What about the people who are moody and violent when they're depressed, but

when they're on antidepressants, are no l onger moody and violent? Is that

just folklore?

What about the women in the battered womens shelter I worked at who had

mentally ill husbands/boyfriends, who were fine when they were on their

meds, but became violent and abusive when they didn't take their meds? Are

you saying these men didn't exist, or that the women were lying?

What about the women in the battered women's shelter who were irritable and

violent when they didn't take their meds, but were as cooperative and sweet

as can be when they were on their meds? Did they not exist? Are you saying

I imagined that?

>For an interesting paradigm shift, try substituting the word witch or

>homosexual for shizophrenic and mentally-ill in your last few posts,

>ie., witches can't be trusted with animals. The historical parallels

>are striking.

What's your point? That homosexuality was, until very recently, labeled a

mental illness? That mentally ill people were accused of being witches?

Well, no sheeeet.

I don't see where you have made any valid claims here. If by coercion you

mean forced medication, it is not done in the US, unless the person has

been commited to an institution for commiting a violent crime. Concepts

like mental illness are analyzable, just as concepts such as physical

illness are. (I talked to someone who lost her husband when he was 28. He

kept complaining of stomach pain. he was told it was stress and given

relaxation tapes. Finally she took him to the ER in the middle of the

night. He died of colon cancer a few weeks later. Did the fact that the

doctors missed the cancer mean it did not exist?) People who have radically

different personalities and levels of violence due to mental illness and

the lack of medication are commonplace, and if you don't know of any, I

invite you to spend some time at your local MHMR. And I fail to see your

point in the last paragraph.

[Guest guest]

>>Currently in this country, a person cannot be forced to

>>take medication. Consequently, we have a lot of mentally ill people

>>commiting crimes who would likely not commit those crimes if they

>were >on

>>meds.

>

>If by this country you mean the US, this is absurd. Coercion is

>commonplace, both inpatient and outpatient.

Um, wrong. No, no one can be made to take medications. People can be

committed to psychiatric institutions, but they cannot be forced to take

medications against their will. And no outpatient can be forced to take

medications.

That you advocate for

>coercion and are unaware of this fact seems strange.

Yeah, well, I've encountered a heck of alot of people who needed medication

but could not be forced to take it. Consequently, they are often out on the

street. I have experience in the shelter/welfare system (actually, with

battered women's shelters) and some experience with the legal system. Where

do you get your information that coercion is commonplace?

The Psychiatry

>lobby tells us that their

> " mentally-ill " are no more prone to violence than the general

>population.

When they're taking their meds, probably not. But we all know

schizophrenics can turn violent. Alzheimers patients tend to be quite

violent.

While concepts like mental-illness, as defined by

>psychiatry, are meaningless for analysis,

What do you mean by th is and why do you say these concepts are

meaningless? Of course you can analyze schizophrenia, depression, bipolar

disorder, etc. Just refer to a psychiatric journal to see it done.

The popular notion of hordes

>of violent people who would be just fine if they only took there meds

>is folklore.

And of course our jails are full of these folklorish people.

How do you explain people who are violent until they are put on the proper

meds, at which point they become non-violent?

What about the daughter of a friend of my mom's, who had a malfunction of

the (thyroid?? hypothalmus?) gland. She was violent, she was very much not

herself, she was cruel. The malfunction was corrected with medication

(hormones/thyroid/something) at which point she returned to her old self.

Is that just folklore?

What about the people who are moody and violent when they're depressed, but

when they're on antidepressants, are no l onger moody and violent? Is that

just folklore?

What about the women in the battered womens shelter I worked at who had

mentally ill husbands/boyfriends, who were fine when they were on their

meds, but became violent and abusive when they didn't take their meds? Are

you saying these men didn't exist, or that the women were lying?

What about the women in the battered women's shelter who were irritable and

violent when they didn't take their meds, but were as cooperative and sweet

as can be when they were on their meds? Did they not exist? Are you saying

I imagined that?

>For an interesting paradigm shift, try substituting the word witch or

>homosexual for shizophrenic and mentally-ill in your last few posts,

>ie., witches can't be trusted with animals. The historical parallels

>are striking.

What's your point? That homosexuality was, until very recently, labeled a

mental illness? That mentally ill people were accused of being witches?

Well, no sheeeet.

I don't see where you have made any valid claims here. If by coercion you

mean forced medication, it is not done in the US, unless the person has

been commited to an institution for commiting a violent crime. Concepts

like mental illness are analyzable, just as concepts such as physical

illness are. (I talked to someone who lost her husband when he was 28. He

kept complaining of stomach pain. he was told it was stress and given

relaxation tapes. Finally she took him to the ER in the middle of the

night. He died of colon cancer a few weeks later. Did the fact that the

doctors missed the cancer mean it did not exist?) People who have radically

different personalities and levels of violence due to mental illness and

the lack of medication are commonplace, and if you don't know of any, I

invite you to spend some time at your local MHMR. And I fail to see your

point in the last paragraph.

[Guest guest]

> " What also remains unmentioned in debates on drug legalization

>is that all loyal liberal-despotic psychiatrists

whoa, whoa, whoa---where is this coming from? One psychiatrist I know quite

well is an ardent libertarian. I think you cheapen your argument by name

calling, especially when psychiatrists are not all liberal or despotic, any

more than all policemen are corrupt and violent.

--Grinspoon among

>them--believe in forcing some of the most toxic drugs in our

>pharmacopoeia down the throats of the most helpless people in the

>country, rationalizing coercive drugging as the 'drug treatment of

>psychotics.'

Hmmm. Well, my dad took some pretty toxic medications, but it wasn't for

mental illness. It's because he had a heart transplant. Without them, he

would have died--just as mentally ill people die without their medications.

I'm on Niaspan for high cholesterol. It's pretty toxic--can really damage

the liver. It's far more dangerous than the Prozac I take.

What " coercive drugging " is Szasz referring to?

[Guest guest]

> " What also remains unmentioned in debates on drug legalization

>is that all loyal liberal-despotic psychiatrists

whoa, whoa, whoa---where is this coming from? One psychiatrist I know quite

well is an ardent libertarian. I think you cheapen your argument by name

calling, especially when psychiatrists are not all liberal or despotic, any

more than all policemen are corrupt and violent.

--Grinspoon among

>them--believe in forcing some of the most toxic drugs in our

>pharmacopoeia down the throats of the most helpless people in the

>country, rationalizing coercive drugging as the 'drug treatment of

>psychotics.'

Hmmm. Well, my dad took some pretty toxic medications, but it wasn't for

mental illness. It's because he had a heart transplant. Without them, he

would have died--just as mentally ill people die without their medications.

I'm on Niaspan for high cholesterol. It's pretty toxic--can really damage

the liver. It's far more dangerous than the Prozac I take.

What " coercive drugging " is Szasz referring to?

[Guest guest]

> " What also remains unmentioned in debates on drug legalization

>is that all loyal liberal-despotic psychiatrists

whoa, whoa, whoa---where is this coming from? One psychiatrist I know quite

well is an ardent libertarian. I think you cheapen your argument by name

calling, especially when psychiatrists are not all liberal or despotic, any

more than all policemen are corrupt and violent.

--Grinspoon among

>them--believe in forcing some of the most toxic drugs in our

>pharmacopoeia down the throats of the most helpless people in the

>country, rationalizing coercive drugging as the 'drug treatment of

>psychotics.'

Hmmm. Well, my dad took some pretty toxic medications, but it wasn't for

mental illness. It's because he had a heart transplant. Without them, he

would have died--just as mentally ill people die without their medications.

I'm on Niaspan for high cholesterol. It's pretty toxic--can really damage

the liver. It's far more dangerous than the Prozac I take.

What " coercive drugging " is Szasz referring to?

[Guest guest]

And , here is some more " everyone " for you:

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/

[Guest guest]

" that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the

propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and

tyrannical "

Jefferson

[Guest guest]

" that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the

propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and

tyrannical "

Jefferson

[Guest guest]

> Individuals have to be held accountable for their

actions, but

> schizos are not in control of their actions. I believe it is cruel

to hold

> them to the same legal standard that we hold mentally " well " adults

to.

apart from the use of " schizo " I agree completely.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Individuals have to be held accountable for their

actions, but

> schizos are not in control of their actions. I believe it is cruel

to hold

> them to the same legal standard that we hold mentally " well " adults

to.

apart from the use of " schizo " I agree completely.

P.

[Guest guest]

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment

" ...the campaign to make us appear dangerous, unpredictable and

violent is in full swing. It is a battle being fought not just in the

United States, but all over the world.

We are seeing a world-wide demonization of people based on

psychiatric disability that harkens back to the days of the eugenic

movement. Its tools are IOC, mental health courts, and involuntary

commitment statutes that go far beyond the " dangerous to self and

others " standard that held sway in the past. Coupled with a decrease

in funding for services that really work, increases in forced

treatment may, if unchecked, return us to back wards and life long

misery. "

http://home.kscable.com/madpride/news/IOC/index.htm

Jim

[Guest guest]

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment

" ...the campaign to make us appear dangerous, unpredictable and

violent is in full swing. It is a battle being fought not just in the

United States, but all over the world.

We are seeing a world-wide demonization of people based on

psychiatric disability that harkens back to the days of the eugenic

movement. Its tools are IOC, mental health courts, and involuntary

commitment statutes that go far beyond the " dangerous to self and

others " standard that held sway in the past. Coupled with a decrease

in funding for services that really work, increases in forced

treatment may, if unchecked, return us to back wards and life long

misery. "

http://home.kscable.com/madpride/news/IOC/index.htm

Jim

[Guest guest]

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment

" ...the campaign to make us appear dangerous, unpredictable and

violent is in full swing. It is a battle being fought not just in the

United States, but all over the world.

We are seeing a world-wide demonization of people based on

psychiatric disability that harkens back to the days of the eugenic

movement. Its tools are IOC, mental health courts, and involuntary

commitment statutes that go far beyond the " dangerous to self and

others " standard that held sway in the past. Coupled with a decrease

in funding for services that really work, increases in forced

treatment may, if unchecked, return us to back wards and life long

misery. "

http://home.kscable.com/madpride/news/IOC/index.htm

Jim

[Guest guest]

> And , here is some more " everyone " for you:

> http://www.antipsychiatry.org/

ROFL... As for the government conspiracy accusation, you don't have

to be paranoid to be alarmed about what Dixie's friends are up to:

This incredible program, more aptly known as the " Racist Violence

Initiative, " was put forth by Frederick Goodwin, director of the

National Institute of Mental Health (NINH). This initiative includes

ongoing research " into the supposed biological basis of inner-city

violence and includes proposals for biomedical social control. Our

U.S. government asks " Are Black People Genetically Violent? " and

plans a psychiatric screening program which would lead to mass

drugging of innocent inner-city children, the vast majority of whom

are young people of color. The National Science Foundation, the

Centers for Disease Control, and the Justice Department are all

involved. Elaborate pseudoscientific language, and much of the

federal government's effort, goes into obfuscating and/or directly

denying this initiative's clearly racist intent.

Meanwhile, " research " has begun in Chicago.

http://www.wildestcolts.com/mentalhealth/enforcer.html

Jim

[Guest guest]

> Im not going to spend a lot of time with you on this, , but

when

> you say things like " Mental illness has a physical cauuse. I think

> everyone knows that. Or they should. " then your narrowmindedness

has

> reached a point beyond description. Especially considering that

> Szasz has a significant following. Szasz doesn't " know " what

> you " think " he should know. I don't " know " what you " think " I

should

> know. So just write your congressman and ask for more of my tax

> dollars for propagation of your fantasies so that one day we will

> all " know " what you " think " we should " know " .

>

> Tommy

>

> P.S. Still waiting for that X-ray of the mind.

Oh, they do have pictures! Didn't you know? They don't prove

anything, of course, other than malpractice, but they do make for

colorful exibits in a malpractice lawsuit. :-)

I don't think we will ever make real progress on these issues as long

as psychiatry is a branch of the state. Scientific inquiry usually

takes a back seat when powerful political forces that have a vested

interest in the outcome hold the purse strings. Instead of studying

the crippling, iatrogenic diseases caused by neuroleptic drugs, we

pump money into futile efforts to prove that the Emporer is wearing

clothes. I found this interesting--J:

Other efforts to prove a biological basis for so-called schizophrenia

have involved brain-scans of pairs of identical twins when only one

is a supposed schizophrenic. They do indeed show the so-called

schizophrenic has brain damage his identical twin lacks. The flaw in

these studies is the so-called schizophrenic has inevitably been

given brain-damaging drugs called neuroleptics as a so-called

treatment for his so-called schizophrenia. It is these brain-

damaging drugs, not so-called schizophrenia, that have caused the

brain damage. Anyone " treated " with these drugs will have such brain

damage. Damaging the brains of people eccentric, obnoxious,

imaginative, or mentally disabled enough to be called schizophrenic

with drugs (erroneously) believed to have antischizophrenic

properties is one of the saddest and most indefensible consequences

of today's widespread belief in the myth of schizophrenia....

U.S. TO USE PSYCHIATRIC PRISONS FOR OFFENDERS

In a landmark decision on June 23, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that states can lock up criminals in mental health

institutions, even after they have served their prison time. Although

the ruling is ostensibly aimed at sex offenders, the case sets an

enormous precedent affecting all who might find themselves the target

of the criminal justice system.

The five to four decision upheld a Kansas statute that permits

the state to confine sex offenders in mental hospitals indefinitely,

even after they have finished serving their entire prison sentence,

and even if they are not mentally ill. The law's premise is that

society must be protected from dangerous sex offenders and locking

them up before they commit a crime is the best way to do it. Kansas

argued that if sex offenders do not fit the higher classification

of " mentally ill " , they still possess a " mental abnormality " and

a " personality disorder " and should be confined to a mental hospital.

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/articles/psych_hosp4offenders.htm

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/rights_idx.html

[Guest guest]

> Im not going to spend a lot of time with you on this, , but

when

> you say things like " Mental illness has a physical cauuse. I think

> everyone knows that. Or they should. " then your narrowmindedness

has

> reached a point beyond description. Especially considering that

> Szasz has a significant following. Szasz doesn't " know " what

> you " think " he should know. I don't " know " what you " think " I

should

> know. So just write your congressman and ask for more of my tax

> dollars for propagation of your fantasies so that one day we will

> all " know " what you " think " we should " know " .

>

> Tommy

>

> P.S. Still waiting for that X-ray of the mind.

Oh, they do have pictures! Didn't you know? They don't prove

anything, of course, other than malpractice, but they do make for

colorful exibits in a malpractice lawsuit. :-)

I don't think we will ever make real progress on these issues as long

as psychiatry is a branch of the state. Scientific inquiry usually

takes a back seat when powerful political forces that have a vested

interest in the outcome hold the purse strings. Instead of studying

the crippling, iatrogenic diseases caused by neuroleptic drugs, we

pump money into futile efforts to prove that the Emporer is wearing

clothes. I found this interesting--J:

Other efforts to prove a biological basis for so-called schizophrenia

have involved brain-scans of pairs of identical twins when only one

is a supposed schizophrenic. They do indeed show the so-called

schizophrenic has brain damage his identical twin lacks. The flaw in

these studies is the so-called schizophrenic has inevitably been

given brain-damaging drugs called neuroleptics as a so-called

treatment for his so-called schizophrenia. It is these brain-

damaging drugs, not so-called schizophrenia, that have caused the

brain damage. Anyone " treated " with these drugs will have such brain

damage. Damaging the brains of people eccentric, obnoxious,

imaginative, or mentally disabled enough to be called schizophrenic

with drugs (erroneously) believed to have antischizophrenic

properties is one of the saddest and most indefensible consequences

of today's widespread belief in the myth of schizophrenia....

U.S. TO USE PSYCHIATRIC PRISONS FOR OFFENDERS

In a landmark decision on June 23, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that states can lock up criminals in mental health

institutions, even after they have served their prison time. Although

the ruling is ostensibly aimed at sex offenders, the case sets an

enormous precedent affecting all who might find themselves the target

of the criminal justice system.

The five to four decision upheld a Kansas statute that permits

the state to confine sex offenders in mental hospitals indefinitely,

even after they have finished serving their entire prison sentence,

and even if they are not mentally ill. The law's premise is that

society must be protected from dangerous sex offenders and locking

them up before they commit a crime is the best way to do it. Kansas

argued that if sex offenders do not fit the higher classification

of " mentally ill " , they still possess a " mental abnormality " and

a " personality disorder " and should be confined to a mental hospital.

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/articles/psych_hosp4offenders.htm

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/rights_idx.html

[Guest guest]

> Im not going to spend a lot of time with you on this, , but

when

> you say things like " Mental illness has a physical cauuse. I think

> everyone knows that. Or they should. " then your narrowmindedness

has

> reached a point beyond description. Especially considering that

> Szasz has a significant following. Szasz doesn't " know " what

> you " think " he should know. I don't " know " what you " think " I

should

> know. So just write your congressman and ask for more of my tax

> dollars for propagation of your fantasies so that one day we will

> all " know " what you " think " we should " know " .

>

> Tommy

>

> P.S. Still waiting for that X-ray of the mind.

Oh, they do have pictures! Didn't you know? They don't prove

anything, of course, other than malpractice, but they do make for

colorful exibits in a malpractice lawsuit. :-)

I don't think we will ever make real progress on these issues as long

as psychiatry is a branch of the state. Scientific inquiry usually

takes a back seat when powerful political forces that have a vested

interest in the outcome hold the purse strings. Instead of studying

the crippling, iatrogenic diseases caused by neuroleptic drugs, we

pump money into futile efforts to prove that the Emporer is wearing

clothes. I found this interesting--J:

Other efforts to prove a biological basis for so-called schizophrenia

have involved brain-scans of pairs of identical twins when only one

is a supposed schizophrenic. They do indeed show the so-called

schizophrenic has brain damage his identical twin lacks. The flaw in

these studies is the so-called schizophrenic has inevitably been

given brain-damaging drugs called neuroleptics as a so-called

treatment for his so-called schizophrenia. It is these brain-

damaging drugs, not so-called schizophrenia, that have caused the

brain damage. Anyone " treated " with these drugs will have such brain

damage. Damaging the brains of people eccentric, obnoxious,

imaginative, or mentally disabled enough to be called schizophrenic

with drugs (erroneously) believed to have antischizophrenic

properties is one of the saddest and most indefensible consequences

of today's widespread belief in the myth of schizophrenia....

U.S. TO USE PSYCHIATRIC PRISONS FOR OFFENDERS

In a landmark decision on June 23, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that states can lock up criminals in mental health

institutions, even after they have served their prison time. Although

the ruling is ostensibly aimed at sex offenders, the case sets an

enormous precedent affecting all who might find themselves the target

of the criminal justice system.

The five to four decision upheld a Kansas statute that permits

the state to confine sex offenders in mental hospitals indefinitely,

even after they have finished serving their entire prison sentence,

and even if they are not mentally ill. The law's premise is that

society must be protected from dangerous sex offenders and locking

them up before they commit a crime is the best way to do it. Kansas

argued that if sex offenders do not fit the higher classification

of " mentally ill " , they still possess a " mental abnormality " and

a " personality disorder " and should be confined to a mental hospital.

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/articles/psych_hosp4offenders.htm

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/rights_idx.html

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/01 3:11:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,

perkinstommy@... writes:

<< > certainly agree thhast mental illness has a physiological origin;

studies

> have shown that without doubt.

Studies have shown no such thing at all. Studies have shown that

neuropathology exists. Studies have not shown that mental illness

exists. If evidence exists that there is pathology in the brain,

then why is this not considered a brain disease rather mental

disease. Can you provide me with a link that shows what the mind

looks like on X-ray, .

Tommy

Tommy, the more flagrant, drastic problems such as psychosis are considered

brain disorders. Hence pharmacology. Mood disorders, too, may be termed

brain disorders--or lack of levels of neurotransmitters in the brain that

affect mood. No problem. It isn't that people want to make up a system to

term you a nut psychologically. The brain is everything and we are still

discovering so much that is neurophysiopsychological. It has nothing to do

with your CHARACTER. Piper