Re: Who benefits from anti depressants?

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

There is abundant evidence that depression is a medical condition,

not a choice. Adoption studies have shown that adoptees having a

biological parent who suffered from depression are far more likely to

suffer from depression than adoptees without such a history. If

depression is a choice, why is it that people with family histories

of depression suffer more from depression. Did this subgroup of

people just wake up and *choose* this while other groups of people

did not?

Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

person chose them. Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

quantify.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

There is abundant evidence that depression is a medical condition,

not a choice. Adoption studies have shown that adoptees having a

biological parent who suffered from depression are far more likely to

suffer from depression than adoptees without such a history. If

depression is a choice, why is it that people with family histories

of depression suffer more from depression. Did this subgroup of

people just wake up and *choose* this while other groups of people

did not?

Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

person chose them. Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

quantify.

[Guest guest]

Interesting post. The word that keeps coming to mind is

" micromanagement. " I think of AA as emotional micromanagement. The

underlying philosophy of AA is that people are not to be trusted--

they must be under constant group scrutiny in order to behave in an

ethical way.

I question Tommy's idea that depression is a choice. The word choice

implies a level of emotional awareness --> control that few people

achieve. I do think that our bodies shut down when we are under too

much pressure-- there is an autonomic or somatic response manifested

as depression or physical illness. It's a way of pulling our

resources, strength, etc. inward and nurturing ourselves, instead of

trying to be superman or superwoman.

Recently on public radio I heard a discussion of sentencing juvenile

offenders as adults. One thing they said is that the brains of

adolescents are not able to grasp the concept of cause and effect.

It's easy to say, after the fact, " well you should have considered the

consequences before you decided to drive drunk. " But I remember when I

was young, I seldom chose to drink. It was there, it was fun, and one

of our catch phrases was " the obvious choice. "

It's possible that the majority of people could learn to be

emotionally aware, but not the way our society is currently

structured. I think this is where 's response to Kayleigh comes

in, and again the word " micromanagement " comes to mind.

I agree that work is important to self-esteem. I don't know if anyone

has read Weber's " The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, "

but this book offers a definition of work that explains the almost

spiritual importance of work in a capitalist/ free market economy,

based on the Calvinist belief that financial success in life =

spiritual success after death. I'm not saying it's any kind of

objective truth, but the idea kind of sings to me, it fits intuitively

into my frame of reference.

I think that, in a society geared toward helping individuals to be

emotionally aware, the individual defines what work and productivity

mean to them, and this definition changes over the course of a

person's life experience. In other words, the bottom line ceases to be

strictly financial gain. Things such as a low rate of suicide and

infant mortality, and low rates of addiction and other

self-destructive behaviors, are of equal if not greater importance

than $$$.

I hope this made at least a little sense to someone other than me

judith

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

[Guest guest]

Interesting post. The word that keeps coming to mind is

" micromanagement. " I think of AA as emotional micromanagement. The

underlying philosophy of AA is that people are not to be trusted--

they must be under constant group scrutiny in order to behave in an

ethical way.

I question Tommy's idea that depression is a choice. The word choice

implies a level of emotional awareness --> control that few people

achieve. I do think that our bodies shut down when we are under too

much pressure-- there is an autonomic or somatic response manifested

as depression or physical illness. It's a way of pulling our

resources, strength, etc. inward and nurturing ourselves, instead of

trying to be superman or superwoman.

Recently on public radio I heard a discussion of sentencing juvenile

offenders as adults. One thing they said is that the brains of

adolescents are not able to grasp the concept of cause and effect.

It's easy to say, after the fact, " well you should have considered the

consequences before you decided to drive drunk. " But I remember when I

was young, I seldom chose to drink. It was there, it was fun, and one

of our catch phrases was " the obvious choice. "

It's possible that the majority of people could learn to be

emotionally aware, but not the way our society is currently

structured. I think this is where 's response to Kayleigh comes

in, and again the word " micromanagement " comes to mind.

I agree that work is important to self-esteem. I don't know if anyone

has read Weber's " The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, "

but this book offers a definition of work that explains the almost

spiritual importance of work in a capitalist/ free market economy,

based on the Calvinist belief that financial success in life =

spiritual success after death. I'm not saying it's any kind of

objective truth, but the idea kind of sings to me, it fits intuitively

into my frame of reference.

I think that, in a society geared toward helping individuals to be

emotionally aware, the individual defines what work and productivity

mean to them, and this definition changes over the course of a

person's life experience. In other words, the bottom line ceases to be

strictly financial gain. Things such as a low rate of suicide and

infant mortality, and low rates of addiction and other

self-destructive behaviors, are of equal if not greater importance

than $$$.

I hope this made at least a little sense to someone other than me

judith

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

[Guest guest]

Interesting post. The word that keeps coming to mind is

" micromanagement. " I think of AA as emotional micromanagement. The

underlying philosophy of AA is that people are not to be trusted--

they must be under constant group scrutiny in order to behave in an

ethical way.

I question Tommy's idea that depression is a choice. The word choice

implies a level of emotional awareness --> control that few people

achieve. I do think that our bodies shut down when we are under too

much pressure-- there is an autonomic or somatic response manifested

as depression or physical illness. It's a way of pulling our

resources, strength, etc. inward and nurturing ourselves, instead of

trying to be superman or superwoman.

Recently on public radio I heard a discussion of sentencing juvenile

offenders as adults. One thing they said is that the brains of

adolescents are not able to grasp the concept of cause and effect.

It's easy to say, after the fact, " well you should have considered the

consequences before you decided to drive drunk. " But I remember when I

was young, I seldom chose to drink. It was there, it was fun, and one

of our catch phrases was " the obvious choice. "

It's possible that the majority of people could learn to be

emotionally aware, but not the way our society is currently

structured. I think this is where 's response to Kayleigh comes

in, and again the word " micromanagement " comes to mind.

I agree that work is important to self-esteem. I don't know if anyone

has read Weber's " The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, "

but this book offers a definition of work that explains the almost

spiritual importance of work in a capitalist/ free market economy,

based on the Calvinist belief that financial success in life =

spiritual success after death. I'm not saying it's any kind of

objective truth, but the idea kind of sings to me, it fits intuitively

into my frame of reference.

I think that, in a society geared toward helping individuals to be

emotionally aware, the individual defines what work and productivity

mean to them, and this definition changes over the course of a

person's life experience. In other words, the bottom line ceases to be

strictly financial gain. Things such as a low rate of suicide and

infant mortality, and low rates of addiction and other

self-destructive behaviors, are of equal if not greater importance

than $$$.

I hope this made at least a little sense to someone other than me

judith

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

[Guest guest]

>

> Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

> differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

> the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

> etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

> neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

>

> In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

> There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

> neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

>

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

But it is not a black-and-white, either/or situation. Personal choices can

affect " neuroanatomy " and " biochemistry " at least as much as vice-versa. Have

you ever read " Feeling Good " by Dr. Burns? He does not exclude the

judicious use of anti-depressants in his practice, but has found through years

of personal experience that if a very severely depressed person who has been

disinclined to do anything other than spend the day in bed, can force themselves

to get up and out and do something simple like browse a bookstore or even just

walk for a while, the depressive symptoms lift -- and yes, the measurable

physiological signs of depression will begin to alter noticeably. These changes

occur in the absence of any antidepressant use -- they are absolutely

attributable to physically getting out and DOING something, and psychologically

feeling a sense of purpose and accomplishment if even on a very small scale.

More sustained changes and improvements occur with an expanded sense of purpose

and cessation of a sense of " powerlessness " . Dr. Burns therefore utilizes these

and other cognitive-behavioral methods as a standard, with very good results,

and only prescribes antidepressants in the relatively few cases where CBT is not

effective, and even then only for a short term while continuing CBT.

> Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

> acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

> diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

> person chose them. Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

> states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

> quantify.

Well, a person may have an inborn pre-disposition to obesity, but can

nevertheless make choices that will prevent it. People can do all sorts of

things despite severely adverse conditions and states. Pre-disposition (or

present physiology) is not the same as pre-destination. There are always

choices to be made.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

> differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

> the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

> etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

> neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

>

> In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

> There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

> neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

>

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

But it is not a black-and-white, either/or situation. Personal choices can

affect " neuroanatomy " and " biochemistry " at least as much as vice-versa. Have

you ever read " Feeling Good " by Dr. Burns? He does not exclude the

judicious use of anti-depressants in his practice, but has found through years

of personal experience that if a very severely depressed person who has been

disinclined to do anything other than spend the day in bed, can force themselves

to get up and out and do something simple like browse a bookstore or even just

walk for a while, the depressive symptoms lift -- and yes, the measurable

physiological signs of depression will begin to alter noticeably. These changes

occur in the absence of any antidepressant use -- they are absolutely

attributable to physically getting out and DOING something, and psychologically

feeling a sense of purpose and accomplishment if even on a very small scale.

More sustained changes and improvements occur with an expanded sense of purpose

and cessation of a sense of " powerlessness " . Dr. Burns therefore utilizes these

and other cognitive-behavioral methods as a standard, with very good results,

and only prescribes antidepressants in the relatively few cases where CBT is not

effective, and even then only for a short term while continuing CBT.

> Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

> acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

> diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

> person chose them. Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

> states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

> quantify.

Well, a person may have an inborn pre-disposition to obesity, but can

nevertheless make choices that will prevent it. People can do all sorts of

things despite severely adverse conditions and states. Pre-disposition (or

present physiology) is not the same as pre-destination. There are always

choices to be made.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

> differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

> the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

> etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

> neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

>

> In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

> There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

> neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

>

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

But it is not a black-and-white, either/or situation. Personal choices can

affect " neuroanatomy " and " biochemistry " at least as much as vice-versa. Have

you ever read " Feeling Good " by Dr. Burns? He does not exclude the

judicious use of anti-depressants in his practice, but has found through years

of personal experience that if a very severely depressed person who has been

disinclined to do anything other than spend the day in bed, can force themselves

to get up and out and do something simple like browse a bookstore or even just

walk for a while, the depressive symptoms lift -- and yes, the measurable

physiological signs of depression will begin to alter noticeably. These changes

occur in the absence of any antidepressant use -- they are absolutely

attributable to physically getting out and DOING something, and psychologically

feeling a sense of purpose and accomplishment if even on a very small scale.

More sustained changes and improvements occur with an expanded sense of purpose

and cessation of a sense of " powerlessness " . Dr. Burns therefore utilizes these

and other cognitive-behavioral methods as a standard, with very good results,

and only prescribes antidepressants in the relatively few cases where CBT is not

effective, and even then only for a short term while continuing CBT.

> Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

> acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

> diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

> person chose them. Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

> states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

> quantify.

Well, a person may have an inborn pre-disposition to obesity, but can

nevertheless make choices that will prevent it. People can do all sorts of

things despite severely adverse conditions and states. Pre-disposition (or

present physiology) is not the same as pre-destination. There are always

choices to be made.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

jessicaramer@... wrote:

> wrote:

> > >

> > > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > > >

> > > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

> mean

> > > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > > depression/sadness.

> > > >

> > > > Tommy

>

> There is abundant evidence that depression is a medical condition,

> not a choice. Adoption studies have shown that adoptees having a

> biological parent who suffered from depression are far more likely to

> suffer from depression than adoptees without such a history. If

> depression is a choice, why is it that people with family histories

> of depression suffer more from depression. Did this subgroup of

> people just wake up and *choose* this while other groups of people

> did not?

>

> Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

> differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

> the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

> etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

> neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

>

> In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

> There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

> neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

>

> Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

> acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

> diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

> person chose them.

It is also acknowledged that people who are genetically predisposed to any

of the conditions you note above can make choices that lead to the expression of

these conditions which might otherwise remain dormant.

> Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

> states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

> quantify.

I think we might benefit from distinguishing between physiological brain

disorders and " mental illness " which encompasses so much more. In fact, if are

to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the DSM-IV, pretty much

everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of course from my cynical view point

that is the purpose of the whole DSM exercise.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

jessicaramer@... wrote:

> wrote:

> > >

> > > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > > >

> > > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

> mean

> > > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > > depression/sadness.

> > > >

> > > > Tommy

>

> There is abundant evidence that depression is a medical condition,

> not a choice. Adoption studies have shown that adoptees having a

> biological parent who suffered from depression are far more likely to

> suffer from depression than adoptees without such a history. If

> depression is a choice, why is it that people with family histories

> of depression suffer more from depression. Did this subgroup of

> people just wake up and *choose* this while other groups of people

> did not?

>

> Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

> differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

> the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

> etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

> neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

>

> In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

> There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

> neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

>

> Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

> acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

> diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

> person chose them.

It is also acknowledged that people who are genetically predisposed to any

of the conditions you note above can make choices that lead to the expression of

these conditions which might otherwise remain dormant.

> Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

> states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

> quantify.

I think we might benefit from distinguishing between physiological brain

disorders and " mental illness " which encompasses so much more. In fact, if are

to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the DSM-IV, pretty much

everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of course from my cynical view point

that is the purpose of the whole DSM exercise.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

jessicaramer@... wrote:

> wrote:

> > >

> > > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > > >

> > > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

> mean

> > > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > > depression/sadness.

> > > >

> > > > Tommy

>

> There is abundant evidence that depression is a medical condition,

> not a choice. Adoption studies have shown that adoptees having a

> biological parent who suffered from depression are far more likely to

> suffer from depression than adoptees without such a history. If

> depression is a choice, why is it that people with family histories

> of depression suffer more from depression. Did this subgroup of

> people just wake up and *choose* this while other groups of people

> did not?

>

> Advanced scientific techniques have found distinct neurological

> differences in the brains of people with depression: differences in

> the cingulate gyrus, fewer glial cells in certain parts of the brain,

> etc. Anti-depressant medications apparently work by stimulating

> neural connections in parts of the brain implicated in depression.

>

> In my opinion, we must give up the ghost in the machine view of life.

> There is no disembodied self that " chooses " independently of genes,

> neuroanatomy, biochemistry, social circumstances, etc.

>

> Mental states are just as rooted in physiology as physical ones. We

> acknowledge that heredity plays a role in cancer, heart disease,

> diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. We don't usually say a

> person chose them.

It is also acknowledged that people who are genetically predisposed to any

of the conditions you note above can make choices that lead to the expression of

these conditions which might otherwise remain dormant.

> Why can't we acknowledge the same for mental

> states--which in my view are just physical states that are harder to

> quantify.

I think we might benefit from distinguishing between physiological brain

disorders and " mental illness " which encompasses so much more. In fact, if are

to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the DSM-IV, pretty much

everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of course from my cynical view point

that is the purpose of the whole DSM exercise.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

> In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the

>DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

>course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the whole

>DSM exercise.

This is commentary, not a reply.

In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general dxes

should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

life-functioning. In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone could be

considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

medicine a conspiracy?

Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some of

the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a powerful

argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing without

the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding me:

" America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally different

from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in steppist

or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or medicted,

poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be unable

to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of most

American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely tame

as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw in

ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally, themselves

problems that they might benefit from having help for.

[Guest guest]

> In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the

>DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

>course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the whole

>DSM exercise.

This is commentary, not a reply.

In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general dxes

should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

life-functioning. In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone could be

considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

medicine a conspiracy?

Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some of

the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a powerful

argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing without

the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding me:

" America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally different

from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in steppist

or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or medicted,

poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be unable

to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of most

American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely tame

as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw in

ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally, themselves

problems that they might benefit from having help for.

[Guest guest]

I believe that antidepressants benefit the individual, first and

foremost. But we are talking about insurance, hence benefits that

accrue to other policy holders when patients are treated.

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

[Guest guest]

I believe that antidepressants benefit the individual, first and

foremost. But we are talking about insurance, hence benefits that

accrue to other policy holders when patients are treated.

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

[Guest guest]

I believe that antidepressants benefit the individual, first and

foremost. But we are talking about insurance, hence benefits that

accrue to other policy holders when patients are treated.

> >

> > > " Addiction is a Choice "

> > >

> > > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > > depression/sadness.

> > >

> > > Tommy

[Guest guest]

j_stillwater@... wrote:

> Interesting post. The word that keeps coming to mind is

> " micromanagement. " I think of AA as emotional micromanagement. The

> underlying philosophy of AA is that people are not to be trusted--

> they must be under constant group scrutiny in order to behave in an

> ethical way.

<snip>

> I think that, in a society geared toward helping individuals to be

> emotionally aware, the individual defines what work and productivity

> mean to them, and this definition changes over the course of a

> person's life experience. In other words, the bottom line ceases to be

> strictly financial gain. Things such as a low rate of suicide and

> infant mortality, and low rates of addiction and other

> self-destructive behaviors, are of equal if not greater importance

> than $$$.

>

> I hope this made at least a little sense to someone other than me

It made a great deal of sense to me, I believe it helps define a noteworthy,

yet subtle aspect of XA's success. Carl Marx touches peripherally on this idea

when he talks about the alienation of the worker in an industrial society. Marx

postulates that the fragmentation of the production process results in the

fragmentation of a workers self image. It is conceptually more difficult to see

part of who we are reflected in the right front fender of a tractor, no mater

how many we have installed. The Luddites rebellion of the early 19th century

also arose from peoples desire to not have their role as producers redefined

from the outside.

While hoping not to become to esoteric here, I will say that XA thrives in

our industrial and post industrial societies because we have been softened for

the blow. Because our value as a " productive members of society " is so

forcefully defined from outside ourselves, we are accustomed to denying any

values about our productive selves that come from within. In fact, like the

gurus of XA, If the process has completely succeeded, we will have internalized

and accepted these values regardless of whether they serve our individual needs.

The emotional " micro management " of XA is indeed aimed at completely

subsuming the self definition of our individual lives. Within this doctrine of

self amelioration, self trust is never possible. Subservience to the group

through capitulation to the Steps, Traditions, Gurus, Sponsors, and a " Higher

Power " is a requirement if our " spiritual awakening " is to be delivered onto

us. Even if " Jails, Institutions, and death " were the only alternative, I would

gladly choose them.

Within XA, the individual cannot be trusted to not drink/use, the individual

cannot be trusted to think for themselves, the individual cannot be trusted to

control their own life, the individual cannot be trusted, period.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

j_stillwater@... wrote:

> Interesting post. The word that keeps coming to mind is

> " micromanagement. " I think of AA as emotional micromanagement. The

> underlying philosophy of AA is that people are not to be trusted--

> they must be under constant group scrutiny in order to behave in an

> ethical way.

<snip>

> I think that, in a society geared toward helping individuals to be

> emotionally aware, the individual defines what work and productivity

> mean to them, and this definition changes over the course of a

> person's life experience. In other words, the bottom line ceases to be

> strictly financial gain. Things such as a low rate of suicide and

> infant mortality, and low rates of addiction and other

> self-destructive behaviors, are of equal if not greater importance

> than $$$.

>

> I hope this made at least a little sense to someone other than me

It made a great deal of sense to me, I believe it helps define a noteworthy,

yet subtle aspect of XA's success. Carl Marx touches peripherally on this idea

when he talks about the alienation of the worker in an industrial society. Marx

postulates that the fragmentation of the production process results in the

fragmentation of a workers self image. It is conceptually more difficult to see

part of who we are reflected in the right front fender of a tractor, no mater

how many we have installed. The Luddites rebellion of the early 19th century

also arose from peoples desire to not have their role as producers redefined

from the outside.

While hoping not to become to esoteric here, I will say that XA thrives in

our industrial and post industrial societies because we have been softened for

the blow. Because our value as a " productive members of society " is so

forcefully defined from outside ourselves, we are accustomed to denying any

values about our productive selves that come from within. In fact, like the

gurus of XA, If the process has completely succeeded, we will have internalized

and accepted these values regardless of whether they serve our individual needs.

The emotional " micro management " of XA is indeed aimed at completely

subsuming the self definition of our individual lives. Within this doctrine of

self amelioration, self trust is never possible. Subservience to the group

through capitulation to the Steps, Traditions, Gurus, Sponsors, and a " Higher

Power " is a requirement if our " spiritual awakening " is to be delivered onto

us. Even if " Jails, Institutions, and death " were the only alternative, I would

gladly choose them.

Within XA, the individual cannot be trusted to not drink/use, the individual

cannot be trusted to think for themselves, the individual cannot be trusted to

control their own life, the individual cannot be trusted, period.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

j_stillwater@... wrote:

> Interesting post. The word that keeps coming to mind is

> " micromanagement. " I think of AA as emotional micromanagement. The

> underlying philosophy of AA is that people are not to be trusted--

> they must be under constant group scrutiny in order to behave in an

> ethical way.

<snip>

> I think that, in a society geared toward helping individuals to be

> emotionally aware, the individual defines what work and productivity

> mean to them, and this definition changes over the course of a

> person's life experience. In other words, the bottom line ceases to be

> strictly financial gain. Things such as a low rate of suicide and

> infant mortality, and low rates of addiction and other

> self-destructive behaviors, are of equal if not greater importance

> than $$$.

>

> I hope this made at least a little sense to someone other than me

It made a great deal of sense to me, I believe it helps define a noteworthy,

yet subtle aspect of XA's success. Carl Marx touches peripherally on this idea

when he talks about the alienation of the worker in an industrial society. Marx

postulates that the fragmentation of the production process results in the

fragmentation of a workers self image. It is conceptually more difficult to see

part of who we are reflected in the right front fender of a tractor, no mater

how many we have installed. The Luddites rebellion of the early 19th century

also arose from peoples desire to not have their role as producers redefined

from the outside.

While hoping not to become to esoteric here, I will say that XA thrives in

our industrial and post industrial societies because we have been softened for

the blow. Because our value as a " productive members of society " is so

forcefully defined from outside ourselves, we are accustomed to denying any

values about our productive selves that come from within. In fact, like the

gurus of XA, If the process has completely succeeded, we will have internalized

and accepted these values regardless of whether they serve our individual needs.

The emotional " micro management " of XA is indeed aimed at completely

subsuming the self definition of our individual lives. Within this doctrine of

self amelioration, self trust is never possible. Subservience to the group

through capitulation to the Steps, Traditions, Gurus, Sponsors, and a " Higher

Power " is a requirement if our " spiritual awakening " is to be delivered onto

us. Even if " Jails, Institutions, and death " were the only alternative, I would

gladly choose them.

Within XA, the individual cannot be trusted to not drink/use, the individual

cannot be trusted to think for themselves, the individual cannot be trusted to

control their own life, the individual cannot be trusted, period.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

>

> > In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the

> >DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

> >course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the whole

> >DSM exercise.

>

> This is commentary, not a reply.

Though I search mightily for the " commentary " icon on my Netscape toolbar, I

cannot find it, perhaps you use a different email application?

> In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general dxes

> should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

> or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

> life-functioning.

" I see " , said the blind man to the deaf mute. Just who gets to decide what

constitutes " significant impairment... yada, yada, yada " . Please tell me what

evidence you have that Psychiatry is a science, not just the expression of an

ideology based on myth and arbitrary values. Values which are not necessarily

in the best interest of the " patient " .

> In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

> decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

> conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone could be

> considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

> decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

> medicine a conspiracy?

Your analogy fails to recognize that, while tooth decay is a physically

quantifiable phenomenon, mental illness is not. A more appropriate analogy

might be found in the Dental industry's marketing of products to whiten our

teeth. Why should we have white teeth? Because the makers of teeth whitening

products spend great amounts of money marketing " white teeth " propaganda?

BTW, I do not claim that the DSM is a product of conspiracy, but rather a

more subtle culmination of self serving ignorance and constitutional

dishonesty. " Now get out there and make some sales boys " (that's a joke)

> Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some of

> the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a powerful

> argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

> reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing without

> the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

> over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

>

> It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding me:

> " America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally different

> from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in steppist

> or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or medicted,

> poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be unable

> to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of most

> American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely tame

> as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

> developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw in

> ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

> particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally, themselves

> problems that they might benefit from having help for.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

>

> > In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the

> >DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

> >course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the whole

> >DSM exercise.

>

> This is commentary, not a reply.

Though I search mightily for the " commentary " icon on my Netscape toolbar, I

cannot find it, perhaps you use a different email application?

> In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general dxes

> should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

> or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

> life-functioning.

" I see " , said the blind man to the deaf mute. Just who gets to decide what

constitutes " significant impairment... yada, yada, yada " . Please tell me what

evidence you have that Psychiatry is a science, not just the expression of an

ideology based on myth and arbitrary values. Values which are not necessarily

in the best interest of the " patient " .

> In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

> decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

> conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone could be

> considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

> decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

> medicine a conspiracy?

Your analogy fails to recognize that, while tooth decay is a physically

quantifiable phenomenon, mental illness is not. A more appropriate analogy

might be found in the Dental industry's marketing of products to whiten our

teeth. Why should we have white teeth? Because the makers of teeth whitening

products spend great amounts of money marketing " white teeth " propaganda?

BTW, I do not claim that the DSM is a product of conspiracy, but rather a

more subtle culmination of self serving ignorance and constitutional

dishonesty. " Now get out there and make some sales boys " (that's a joke)

> Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some of

> the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a powerful

> argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

> reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing without

> the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

> over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

>

> It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding me:

> " America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally different

> from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in steppist

> or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or medicted,

> poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be unable

> to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of most

> American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely tame

> as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

> developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw in

> ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

> particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally, themselves

> problems that they might benefit from having help for.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

>

> > In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in the

> >DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

> >course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the whole

> >DSM exercise.

>

> This is commentary, not a reply.

Though I search mightily for the " commentary " icon on my Netscape toolbar, I

cannot find it, perhaps you use a different email application?

> In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general dxes

> should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

> or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

> life-functioning.

" I see " , said the blind man to the deaf mute. Just who gets to decide what

constitutes " significant impairment... yada, yada, yada " . Please tell me what

evidence you have that Psychiatry is a science, not just the expression of an

ideology based on myth and arbitrary values. Values which are not necessarily

in the best interest of the " patient " .

> In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

> decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

> conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone could be

> considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

> decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

> medicine a conspiracy?

Your analogy fails to recognize that, while tooth decay is a physically

quantifiable phenomenon, mental illness is not. A more appropriate analogy

might be found in the Dental industry's marketing of products to whiten our

teeth. Why should we have white teeth? Because the makers of teeth whitening

products spend great amounts of money marketing " white teeth " propaganda?

BTW, I do not claim that the DSM is a product of conspiracy, but rather a

more subtle culmination of self serving ignorance and constitutional

dishonesty. " Now get out there and make some sales boys " (that's a joke)

> Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some of

> the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a powerful

> argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

> reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing without

> the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

> over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

>

> It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding me:

> " America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally different

> from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in steppist

> or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or medicted,

> poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be unable

> to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of most

> American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely tame

> as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

> developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw in

> ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

> particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally, themselves

> problems that they might benefit from having help for.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

This is not a reply, except in the facilest of email senses, in that

the person who wrote the text upon which I am commenting is not

personally addressed. In addition, I am indiferent to any questions

or comments that might have been directed to me, my comments are

restricted to those aspects of the original post that I wish to

comment on.

In fact very many psycholiogical disorders have biological substrates

that are quite strongly established; there is a detectable problem

just like a tooth cavity is detectable. In most cases, a

neurotransmitter imbalance is implicated, but there are many other

biological factors that also appear to be involved and more iare

being detectd all the time. The dextramethasone suppression test

(DST) for example is a reliable biological test for depression. The

main reason why diagnosis of depression and other psychological

disorders are *not* dxed in this fashion is that, apart from the

difficulty and expense, they probably achieve no greater diagnostic

reliabiliy than simple observation, so there is no point. In any case,

to insist on a biological test is absurd. One could dx neurological

damage from congenital syphilis pretty well when no-one could ever see

a syphilis spirochete nor the neurons that were ravaged by them, and

all that was known about the cause was that the mother must have been

exposed to syphilis while she was pregnant. It is ridiculous to

insist that what determines whether something is a disorder by the

quality of our technology to detect a biological substrate, and not

whether the person is not visibly impaired or suffering, so that

congenital suffering was not a disorder before the age of microscopy

and suddenly became one after it was invented. As for who decides wha

t is impairment and suffering, then like other disorders, to a large

extent it is the sufferer themselves, although they may frequently be

unaware of exactly what is wrong, just as ppl can be ignorant of what

strictly physical disorder they suffer from - and make unwise choices

as to what is best for their health. Those who dont believe they are

ill or are mistaken as to the actual problem that they have, well if

they meet community standards of behavior then they're free to

continue in sad ignorance and refuse suitble treatment just as they

can for anything else. However, those who break community standards

of behavior, may as a humanitarian response be treated medically

rather than as a criminal, imo. However, the treatment must actually

have suffucuent empirical evidence for efficacy, which coerced 12-step

does not.

> > > In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in

the

> > >DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

> > >course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the

whole

> > >DSM exercise.

> >

> > This is commentary, not a reply.

>

> Though I search mightily for the " commentary " icon on my

Netscape toolbar, I

> cannot find it, perhaps you use a different email application?

>

> > In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general

dxes

> > should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

> > or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

> > life-functioning.

>

> " I see " , said the blind man to the deaf mute. Just who gets to

decide what

> constitutes " significant impairment... yada, yada, yada " . Please

tell me what

> evidence you have that Psychiatry is a science, not just the

expression of an

> ideology based on myth and arbitrary values. Values which are not

necessarily

> in the best interest of the " patient " .

>

> > In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

> > decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

> > conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone

could be

> > considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

> > decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

> > medicine a conspiracy?

>

> Your analogy fails to recognize that, while tooth decay is a

physically

> quantifiable phenomenon, mental illness is not. A more appropriate

analogy

> might be found in the Dental industry's marketing of products to

whiten our

> teeth. Why should we have white teeth? Because the makers of teeth

whitening

> products spend great amounts of money marketing " white teeth "

propaganda?

> BTW, I do not claim that the DSM is a product of conspiracy, but

rather a

> more subtle culmination of self serving ignorance and constitutional

> dishonesty. " Now get out there and make some sales boys " (that's a

joke)

>

> > Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some

of

> > the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a

powerful

> > argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

> > reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing

without

> > the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

> > over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

> >

> > It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding

me:

> > " America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally

different

> > from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in

steppist

> > or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or

medicted,

> > poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be

unable

> > to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of

most

> > American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely

tame

> > as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

> > developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw

in

> > ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

> > particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally,

themselves

> > problems that they might benefit from having help for.

>

> Peace,

>

[Guest guest]

This is not a reply, except in the facilest of email senses, in that

the person who wrote the text upon which I am commenting is not

personally addressed. In addition, I am indiferent to any questions

or comments that might have been directed to me, my comments are

restricted to those aspects of the original post that I wish to

comment on.

In fact very many psycholiogical disorders have biological substrates

that are quite strongly established; there is a detectable problem

just like a tooth cavity is detectable. In most cases, a

neurotransmitter imbalance is implicated, but there are many other

biological factors that also appear to be involved and more iare

being detectd all the time. The dextramethasone suppression test

(DST) for example is a reliable biological test for depression. The

main reason why diagnosis of depression and other psychological

disorders are *not* dxed in this fashion is that, apart from the

difficulty and expense, they probably achieve no greater diagnostic

reliabiliy than simple observation, so there is no point. In any case,

to insist on a biological test is absurd. One could dx neurological

damage from congenital syphilis pretty well when no-one could ever see

a syphilis spirochete nor the neurons that were ravaged by them, and

all that was known about the cause was that the mother must have been

exposed to syphilis while she was pregnant. It is ridiculous to

insist that what determines whether something is a disorder by the

quality of our technology to detect a biological substrate, and not

whether the person is not visibly impaired or suffering, so that

congenital suffering was not a disorder before the age of microscopy

and suddenly became one after it was invented. As for who decides wha

t is impairment and suffering, then like other disorders, to a large

extent it is the sufferer themselves, although they may frequently be

unaware of exactly what is wrong, just as ppl can be ignorant of what

strictly physical disorder they suffer from - and make unwise choices

as to what is best for their health. Those who dont believe they are

ill or are mistaken as to the actual problem that they have, well if

they meet community standards of behavior then they're free to

continue in sad ignorance and refuse suitble treatment just as they

can for anything else. However, those who break community standards

of behavior, may as a humanitarian response be treated medically

rather than as a criminal, imo. However, the treatment must actually

have suffucuent empirical evidence for efficacy, which coerced 12-step

does not.

> > > In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in

the

> > >DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

> > >course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the

whole

> > >DSM exercise.

> >

> > This is commentary, not a reply.

>

> Though I search mightily for the " commentary " icon on my

Netscape toolbar, I

> cannot find it, perhaps you use a different email application?

>

> > In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general

dxes

> > should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

> > or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

> > life-functioning.

>

> " I see " , said the blind man to the deaf mute. Just who gets to

decide what

> constitutes " significant impairment... yada, yada, yada " . Please

tell me what

> evidence you have that Psychiatry is a science, not just the

expression of an

> ideology based on myth and arbitrary values. Values which are not

necessarily

> in the best interest of the " patient " .

>

> > In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

> > decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

> > conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone

could be

> > considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

> > decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

> > medicine a conspiracy?

>

> Your analogy fails to recognize that, while tooth decay is a

physically

> quantifiable phenomenon, mental illness is not. A more appropriate

analogy

> might be found in the Dental industry's marketing of products to

whiten our

> teeth. Why should we have white teeth? Because the makers of teeth

whitening

> products spend great amounts of money marketing " white teeth "

propaganda?

> BTW, I do not claim that the DSM is a product of conspiracy, but

rather a

> more subtle culmination of self serving ignorance and constitutional

> dishonesty. " Now get out there and make some sales boys " (that's a

joke)

>

> > Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some

of

> > the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a

powerful

> > argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

> > reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing

without

> > the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

> > over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

> >

> > It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding

me:

> > " America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally

different

> > from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in

steppist

> > or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or

medicted,

> > poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be

unable

> > to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of

most

> > American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely

tame

> > as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

> > developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw

in

> > ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

> > particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally,

themselves

> > problems that they might benefit from having help for.

>

> Peace,

>

[Guest guest]

This is not a reply, except in the facilest of email senses, in that

the person who wrote the text upon which I am commenting is not

personally addressed. In addition, I am indiferent to any questions

or comments that might have been directed to me, my comments are

restricted to those aspects of the original post that I wish to

comment on.

In fact very many psycholiogical disorders have biological substrates

that are quite strongly established; there is a detectable problem

just like a tooth cavity is detectable. In most cases, a

neurotransmitter imbalance is implicated, but there are many other

biological factors that also appear to be involved and more iare

being detectd all the time. The dextramethasone suppression test

(DST) for example is a reliable biological test for depression. The

main reason why diagnosis of depression and other psychological

disorders are *not* dxed in this fashion is that, apart from the

difficulty and expense, they probably achieve no greater diagnostic

reliabiliy than simple observation, so there is no point. In any case,

to insist on a biological test is absurd. One could dx neurological

damage from congenital syphilis pretty well when no-one could ever see

a syphilis spirochete nor the neurons that were ravaged by them, and

all that was known about the cause was that the mother must have been

exposed to syphilis while she was pregnant. It is ridiculous to

insist that what determines whether something is a disorder by the

quality of our technology to detect a biological substrate, and not

whether the person is not visibly impaired or suffering, so that

congenital suffering was not a disorder before the age of microscopy

and suddenly became one after it was invented. As for who decides wha

t is impairment and suffering, then like other disorders, to a large

extent it is the sufferer themselves, although they may frequently be

unaware of exactly what is wrong, just as ppl can be ignorant of what

strictly physical disorder they suffer from - and make unwise choices

as to what is best for their health. Those who dont believe they are

ill or are mistaken as to the actual problem that they have, well if

they meet community standards of behavior then they're free to

continue in sad ignorance and refuse suitble treatment just as they

can for anything else. However, those who break community standards

of behavior, may as a humanitarian response be treated medically

rather than as a criminal, imo. However, the treatment must actually

have suffucuent empirical evidence for efficacy, which coerced 12-step

does not.

> > > In fact, if are to believe the diagnostic standards expressed in

the

> > >DSM-IV, pretty much everyone can be diagnosed mentally ill. Of

> > >course from my cynical view point that is the purpose of the

whole

> > >DSM exercise.

> >

> > This is commentary, not a reply.

>

> Though I search mightily for the " commentary " icon on my

Netscape toolbar, I

> cannot find it, perhaps you use a different email application?

>

> > In fact, it is advised in the DSM introduction that in general

dxes

> > should only be made if the consition causes significant impairment

> > or distress in social, vocational, or other significant area of

> > life-functioning.

>

> " I see " , said the blind man to the deaf mute. Just who gets to

decide what

> constitutes " significant impairment... yada, yada, yada " . Please

tell me what

> evidence you have that Psychiatry is a science, not just the

expression of an

> ideology based on myth and arbitrary values. Values which are not

necessarily

> in the best interest of the " patient " .

>

> > In addition, some 98% of Westerners have some tooth

> > decay. Does this mean tooth decay is something invented by a

> > conspiracy of dentists? At any one time pretty much everyone

could be

> > considered to suffer from some physical problem or other, if tooth

> > decay, shortsight, etc. are all included, does this make general

> > medicine a conspiracy?

>

> Your analogy fails to recognize that, while tooth decay is a

physically

> quantifiable phenomenon, mental illness is not. A more appropriate

analogy

> might be found in the Dental industry's marketing of products to

whiten our

> teeth. Why should we have white teeth? Because the makers of teeth

whitening

> products spend great amounts of money marketing " white teeth "

propaganda?

> BTW, I do not claim that the DSM is a product of conspiracy, but

rather a

> more subtle culmination of self serving ignorance and constitutional

> dishonesty. " Now get out there and make some sales boys " (that's a

joke)

>

> > Having said that, I must admit to being pretty embarassed by some

of

> > the posts that have appeared on this thread which do make a

powerful

> > argument that American psychiatry is out of hand. A site from a

> > reputable American psychiaric institution provided DIY dxing

without

> > the proviso in the introduction - I am also concerned about

> > over-prescribing of Ritalin and other things.

> >

> > It is gradually dawning on me what a friend used to keep reminding

me:

> > " America is a foreign country " . It's culture(s) is totally

different

> > from mine. At the same time as rich kids find themselves in

steppist

> > or similar boot camps where they may be brainwashed and/or

medicted,

> > poor folks may have no adequate mental health provision and be

unable

> > to adfford meds when prescribed them. Given the " hard sell " of

most

> > American advertising, the site I referred to above was extremely

tame

> > as far as drumming up custom is concerned; probably most ppl have

> > developed such a thick skin by now that that site would not draw

in

> > ppl without a significant problem, unless they happen to be

> > particularly anxious or having low self-esteem generally,

themselves

> > problems that they might benefit from having help for.

>

> Peace,

>