I read this and is exactly what i feel aboyut "psychiatry",, even here...

you think homosexuality is a medical error or a moral error?.
if you think is a moral error you dont need psychiatry for your arguments.

>I will say however, that I found the psych ward system in NSW to be pretty good.
i think the psych ward is an intrinsically violent and ilegitimate place to put someone in.
but im curious, why you think is pretty good?.

>you think homosexuality is a medical error or a moral error?.
I think trannies need to be genocided ASAP. if a book does not support this conclusion then, by reductio ad absurdum, it must be retarded AND stupid AND wrong.

psychiatry is a tool of the state. i think he kind of explains how it came about for powerful family to justify taking estates away heirs that didn't go along with politics. like a proto-Foucault that did a little too much speed but hes got good bits and bits where he kind of talks about ghosts in your bones

Have you read John Taylor Gatto on Education? Equally eye opening.

CBT is very different approach, very different treatment besides other treatments.
I mean, it feels like joke here, but can you think of double-blind at CBT in order to find validity of it?

isn't this dude a batman villain?

>When you see the word "society" look ahead and to the right, psychiatry is in a window with its scope on you. Sex addiction rarely breaks laws so it can't be punished, and there's no God so the immorality of it is debatable, i.e. inconsequential. It must be a disease, that way other people don't want to catch it. All psychiatric treatment of constructed syndromes isn't about cure but about regression to the mean, where mean= cubicle drone. In other words, the point of offering Priapos treatment isn't that the patient gets better-- no one cares about him-- but that everyone else watching understands what he did is deeply whacked, so don't get any ideas.
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/03/shame_is_the_desired_outcome.html

>i think he kind of explains how it came about for powerful family to justify taking estates away heirs that didn't go along with politics.
Haven't read the book, can you summarize this?

>this thread

Attached: 1555362786049.jpg (233x233, 57K)

>be mentally I'll
>don't want to believe I'm mentally ill
>psychiatry is totally bullshit guys, everyone is wrong, I'm right

except why *wouldn't* you want to be mentally ill? Mental illness is literally encouraged by upper middle bourgeoise society these days, it's the newest vogue. Just look at the new Burger King menu.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
>Szasz consistently paid attention to the power of language in the establishment and maintenance of the social order, both in small interpersonal and in wider social, economic, and/or political spheres:

>The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?... [the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed.[12]:85

>To Szasz, disease can only mean something people "have", while behavior is what people "do". Diseases are "malfunctions of the human body, of the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain" while "no behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. That's not what diseases are.

>If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviors that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state", designating someone as, for example, "insane" or as a "drug addict".

>In Ceremonial Chemistry (1973), he argued that the same persecution that targeted witches, Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals now targets "drug addicts" and "insane" people. Szasz argued that all these categories of people were taken as scapegoats of the community in ritual ceremonies. To underscore this continuation of religion through medicine, he even takes as example obesity: instead of concentrating on junk food (ill-nutrition), physicians denounced hypernutrition. According to Szasz, despite their scientific appearance, the diets imposed were a moral substitute to the former fasts, and the social injunction not to be overweight is to be considered as a moral order, not as a scientific advice as it claims to be. As with those thought bad (insane people), and those who took the wrong drugs (drug addicts), medicine created a category for those who had the wrong weight (obesity).

>In an analogy to birth control, Szasz argued that individuals should be able to choose when to die without interference from medicine or the state, just as they are able to choose when to conceive without outside interference. He considered suicide to be among the most fundamental rights, but he opposed state-sanctioned euthanasia. In his 2006 book about Virginia Woolf he stated that she put an end to her life by a conscious and deliberate act, her suicide being an expression of her freedom of choice.[16][17]

>Drug addiction is not a "disease" to be cured through legal drugs but a social habit. Szasz also argues in favor of a free market for drugs. He criticized the war on drugs, arguing that using drugs is in fact a victimless crime. Prohibition itself constituted the crime. He argued that the war on drugs leads states to do things that would have never been considered half a century before, such as prohibiting a person from ingesting certain substances or interfering in other countries to impede the production of certain plants, e.g. coca eradication plans, or the campaigns against opium; both are traditional plants opposed by the Western world. Although Szasz was skeptical about the merits of psychotropic medications, he favored the repeal of drug prohibition.[18]

>Szasz also drew analogies between the persecution of the drug-using minority and the persecution of Jewish and homosexual minorities.

>The Nazis spoke of having a "Jewish problem". We now speak of having a drug-abuse problem. Actually, "Jewish problem" was the name the Germans gave to their persecution of the Jews; "drug-abuse problem" is the name we give to the persecution of people who use certain drugs.[12]:64

>The "Therapeutic State" is a phrase coined by Szasz in 1963.[20] The collaboration between psychiatry and government leads to what Szasz calls the therapeutic state, a system in which disapproved actions, thoughts, and emotions are repressed ("cured") through pseudomedical interventions.[21][22]:17 Thus suicide, unconventional religious beliefs, racial bigotry, unhappiness, anxiety, shyness, sexual promiscuity, shoplifting, gambling, overeating, smoking, and illegal drug use are all considered symptoms or illnesses that need to be cured.[22]:17 When faced with demands for measures to curtail smoking in public, binge-drinking, gambling or obesity, ministers say that "we must guard against charges of nanny statism."[23] The "nanny state" has turned into the "therapeutic state" where nanny has given way to counselor.[23] Nanny just told people what to do; counselors also tell them what to think and what to feel.[23] The "nanny state" was punitive, austere, and authoritarian, the therapeutic state is touchy-feely, supportive – and even more authoritarian.[23]

>According to Szasz, "the therapeutic state swallows up everything human on the seemingly rational ground that nothing falls outside the province of health and medicine, just as the theological state had swallowed up everything human on the perfectly rational ground that nothing falls outside the province of God and religion."[24]:515 Faced with the problem of "madness", Western individualism proved to be ill-prepared to defend the rights of the individual: modern man has no more right to be a madman than medieval man had a right to be a heretic because if once people agree that they have identified the one true God, or Good, it brings about that they have to guard members and nonmembers of the group from the temptation to worship false gods or goods.[24]:496 A secularization of God and the medicalization of good resulted in the post-Enlightenment version of this view: once people agree that they have identified the one true reason, it brings about that they have to guard against the temptation to worship unreason – that is, madness.[24]:496

>Civil libertarians warn that the marriage of the state with psychiatry could have catastrophic consequences for civilization.[25] In the same vein as the separation of church and state, Szasz believes that a solid wall must exist between psychiatry and the state.[24]

you cant criticize psychiatry or you are confirmed crazy.
>ironic enough this is the general state of psychiatry since always.

>everyone is wrong,
only psychiatrysts are wrong. the people dont give a fuck and dont really know the little basis they have to say the things they said. people believe in psychiatry. they dont read the psychiatry manuals. (psychiatrists are terrifiyng in his relaxed indictment of human behaviour like a law...i honestly think people only believe in psychiatry because they dont read a single psychiatry book and believe in science like a kind hearted father... and believe pyschiatry is science, of course...) psychiatry in the science project it was an error. and not because science is perfect and shiny but because the science have prestige in this society and time and millions of people suffer based in this trust psychiatry dont achieve by itself. is a parasite of the science trusters in rockets and space. psychiatrists should be nothing more than therapys with not power and legitimization... dealing with the same people and with the same distance than gurus, esoterics, or whatever random notion of the human soul and mind teaching on you ...

essay or book you recommend?
Achievements of psychiatry:
lobotomizing people
electroshocking people
putting people on medicaments that are short term, but people become dependent on it (all antidpressiva were designed as short term intervention)
People in the medieval times had bigger success rates force fasting epileptics than psychiatrists now have. The concept of demons and possessions atleast did not take the whole self worth from a human. Psychiatry is bullshit and if you take antidepressants you deserve your faith.
SSRI should work instantly if they would work in their understood mechanistic but they take a long time, psychiatrists have no fucking idea what they are doing. The map is not the territory

Attached: 1532483543547.jpg (902x887, 74K)

Just quit my SSRI last week. Been on it for about a year, didn't how with my depression at all. Now everyone I know is coming out of the woodwork in concern for me, none of whom have ever had any interaction with the psychiatric system. I've been on these drugs for almost half my life now and they've done more damage than whatever problem they were prescribed to solve. It's all so tiring. I know better than to trust any "expert" now

Attached: PoliteUnrealisticBassethound-mobile.jpg (640x272, 26K)

Psychiatry seems to me a necessary consequence of materialism and state power.

The courts need experts to clarify legal status in cases involving custody, addiction and intent of the criminal generally. For this it also needs mental institutions, prisons, homeless shelters etc.

Seeing physiological causes for psychological problems is nothing but the logical result of materialism.

This is a remarkably complicated subject, and the extent to which psychiatry goes unquestioned says a great deal about its role in providing experts who dictate normative behavior generally.

Psychology is total bullshit. I talked about philosophy of death with 3 other people. These fuckers narced on me to my school psychologists. I explained that I was NOT suicidal. I just THINK about death. Then, these psychologists forced me to attend their sessions. I refused. They actually got school security to forcibly restrain me. They gave me a choice of hospitalization or bending to their will. I chose to be hospitalized, and it only took talking with doctor for 5 minutes to get the hell out of there.

Psychologists and psychiatrists should not have any power.

but what doctor?. they send you to a "normal" hospital or a psych hospital?

normal hospital

The fact that we don't entirely understand how they work in no way implies they don't. And they actually do work instantly, though not in the way we would like them to - they initially make you more energetic and more capable of making decisions, but you still feel like shit (there's actually a higher chance of attempting suicide in the beginning of treatment). They do help a lot of people after a few weeks or months though, which leads us to believe they elevate the mood by altering the receptor density in synaptic membrane, which takes time. This isn't obscure knowledge and i must assume that you're either trolling or didn't spend any time actually learning about the topic before bashing it on the internet.

Obviously there always will be a group of people they won't help, as with nearly all drugs.

>altering the receptor density in synaptic membrane, which takes time.
Isn't this usually referred to as addiction?

>They do help a lot of people after a few weeks or months though,
im sure if buddhist retirement was implanting like a scientific treatment, people like you would say the same. my point: everything you try to help, help a lot of people because the mind is cyciclal and changeable in itself. some join a cult, others dont join the cult, that make the cult good?. they say in the past lobotomizing people and electroshocking them help a lot of people too. dont forget it. swallow in pills to people is not different.

Attached: 1504753291662.png (1600x900, 476K)

Yes, psychiatry is a method of state control and power, that's pretty obvious, but he doesn't go far enough and indict the institution of psychology itself. it's also ironic he uses homosexual persecution as an example when the APA and the WHO decide homosexuality and gender dysphoria are mental illnesses and then change their minds under death threats and idpol pressure.

>but he doesn't go far enough and indict the institution of psychology itself.
here OP. you hit the nail. its my only problem with him. i dont know why he is a psychologyst and a defender of some abstract "good psychology" after all.

>Yes, psychiatry is a method of state control and power, that's pretty obvious
i wish it was obvious. really. ( i dont doubt for you it is...) but millions of people believe is a good hearted science based in knowledge.

>it's also ironic he uses homosexual persecution as an example
now i dont understand you. he knows that. his main thesis is that psychiatry is a mirror of the moral of society. not a science.

It works better than placebo though. Electroconvulsive treatment also works better than placebo, please stop with the ignorance.

Not necessarily - it is a similar mechanism that induces tolerance to some drugs, which leads some people to take more of said drug in order to induce a similiar effect. Some addictive drugs have no dose-dependent tolerance though and they still can be dangerous. Furthermore, there's the difference between psychological (eg. cocaine) and physiological (eg. opioids) addiction, and as you can see through the examples neither is intrinsically "better" or easier to fight.

TL;DR addiction is actually very complex. I wish it'd be this easy.

And if you meant that as a criticism of antidepressants - well, you can treat it as such, but then again it applies to a lot of pharmacology. Is a person taking heart medication (like beta-blockers) "addicted" to them because he needs to take them constantly in order to lenghten his life? And is that a bad thing? It's true that pharmacology offers us mostly symptomatical and rarely causal treatment, but it helps tremendously and has been generally a great improvement of patients' quality of life.

And finally, it's not like you need to take antidepressants forever. There's usually remissions, you stop taking the drug, and depression might be back in a matter of months, years, or not at all. In that sense, you can actually say it's better that some drugs that you have to take for the test of your life.

As the other user said, it works a lot better that placebo, which is the criteria for all therapy. If "buddhist retirement" helped people better than pills, then I would recommended it to everyone.
Electroconvulsive therapy done right also works, although it has been misused and is pretty horrific if done poorly. That's true of any medical procedure though. Besides, it's only considered when pharmacological treatment is ineffective and most people react to trycyclic antidepressants if not so SSRI/SARI.
Lobotomy was obviously a poorly researched mistake, but saying "modern psychiatry bad because lobotomy bad" is an obvious fallacy.

...and if that wasn't clear: you don't have to increase the dose of an antidepressant after a few months for it to work. To the contrary - that's when you can start lowering it and eventually stop taking them entirely, because they did what they were supposed to and the effect will likely last for a relatively prolonged period of time.

>is psychiatry an error?
yes

Can psychology apologists defend this: in about 100 years of psychology, they have not procedure any actually effective treatment for any condition. All signs point to that the mental illnesses are made up by practioners and are not actually real.

Imo, they should not have any power until they figure something reliable out. Let's be honest though, behavioral neuroscience will BTFO psych fields.

There could be some fringe benefits like being able to get a disabled parking permit when you don't really need it but by and large pretending to be mentally or emotionally deficient will carry more suffering than relief

>Electroconvulsive treatment also works better than placebo,
that was entirely my point. you two say placebo when i dont say placebo in any place. i say buddhist retirement because im pretty sure people in a cult feel better than outside a cult, and if they dont feel better in a particular cult he can try it and try it till he get his best suitable cult, (see best suitable pill...)
psychiatry have their own procedure and their own answers to their own problems.
what is the problem they are treating?, what exactly is?. you think depression is an empirical concept?, you really think it?. the problem with psychiatry is that they made treatment to something that dont exist. is only a social control indictment.
people feel sad and want to die, well, and what?. people see colors and see gods and see demons ... yes, and what?. what exactly is the ground of legitimacy of somebody to say them they should not feel that?.

depression is a moral, imaginary and blend of concepts, a manufactured concept. same with schizophrenia. you are saying mental problems are not a political and moral statement but a sciencific and a confirmed disease, and i deny that.
you can say happiness is a disease and you are saying the exact same. you can make "cure" to happiness and im sure you can achieve it with pills or lobotomy or electroshcok or in a buddhist retire, happiness and depression are not, still, a disease.
the fact that you two think electroconvulsive and swallow in pills to people is good if is efective is the entire concept of blind psychiatrists and his blind sheep in action.

psychiatry is treating what they are inventing. its like priest "experimenting" with treatmens to redeem people and then saying they prove christianity is right because they truly redeem people because in a brain map they feel christinanity again. (see: sane) never understanding the problem is that they think they should redeem people in first place. it was just like that.
like other user say. they are a consequence of materialism. the materialism of the mind is a philosophical problem with no results.

well, fuck, this is a fucking mess, sorry. a "sane" person probably think this is a total stupidness.
in few words: the mind is unknowable from outside and unjudgable from outside. and that should be the pattern. everyone should have ALWAYS the right to say who he is. the people who judge people are an arm of control or power.
they should not have the prestige of science only to control random social problems. and i say this because they fuck more people with their machinations if they have the science seal of approve, not because i give a fliyng fuck about science.

Attached: pam.gif (500x386, 300K)

Mental illness is fashion. Suffering is surplus enjoyment. The depressed person will tell people, oh I hate this, this is suffering, you can't understand. My mental illness is real, it is not a joke, do not romanticise it. Yet this itself is a romanticisation. The depressed goes through the motions of "seeking help" - psychiatry, SSRIs, none of which help them, all of which the depressed *knows* on some level, cannot help them, but which serves nonetheless to legitimise the existence of their "illness" - even if only to themselves, in private. They refuse to acknowledge their illness is in fact, itself a fantasy, because to acknowledge this fact would be to destroy what gives them their identity. To truly move beyond mental illness is not to "cure" it, but to recognise it as fantasy, and to move through the fantasy by recognising it is in fact a manifestation of your own excesses.

>I mentioned to a girl getting her PhD in psychology if she thought CBT was a bit vague.
>I mentioned to if she thought

What was the point of this grammar pendatry?

this is your opinion, its fine you have an opinion about the reasons of depression. now imagine you have the power to say people should acknowledge depression is a fantasy, and they should get whatever treatment to achieve the selfawareness that depression is a fantasy. now you have a total, strict and totalitarian perspective of the mind and depression. this is psychiatry. depression is a psychiatrists concept. depression is an abstract and vague term. people ara sad, people identify with his sadness, deal with it. the same with whatever feeling.

I think we agree

ok ok. cool. my fault, i guess. im too self absorved with my antipsychiatric trance.

Reminder

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/

In principle psychiatry is fine. Where it fails is how some methods have been applied & how some psychiatrists impose their own ideas into their work. Also, the fact that psychiatry has had a lot of stumbling blocks in terms of silly ideas has also hampered it.

Antipsychotic pills are the lobotomy of our time.

That´s because they have been looking the wrong way - seems now a days that immunological issues are at the bottom. But that has been discarded in favor of looking at neurotransmitters.

>depression is a pysiological disease.
why the people is so retarded?.

Well, I wouldn't say that depression is a disease but it is physiological.

I am starting my psychiatry residency in 2 weeks.

Psychiatry is just as evidence based as every other field of medicine. The only difference is the brain is more complicated and we are way behind. It is true that their is no actual valid proof of any mental disorder. It is true that we do not know how the medications we use work. We do know our treatments are seen to prevent relapse and prevent suicide. Current research and meds are fine tuning things further in our knowledge and treatment.

It is the final frontier of medicine. Give it some time.

thinking depression is physiological is phisiological.

>and prevent suicide.
why do you want to prevent suicide?, do you think that is one of the goals of psychiatry?.

>The only difference is the brain is more complicated
no, the only difference is the brain dont have personality and no identity and no autoidentity.
you are categorizing people most intimate parts and you cant achieve an understanding of the mind categorizing it. psychiatry is a scam, they invent it to control people, not to understand people, please stop that nonsense. you only lie to yourself, and then to your poor patients.
what exactly is the goal of psychiatry?. have you read any thomas szasz work?.

you understand this
>is just as evidence based as every other field of medicine.
is a contradiction of this?.
>It is true that their is no actual valid proof of any mental disorder.
you only believe in psychiatry like people believe in heaven or in the apocalypse. "some day will happen".

>?.
>?.

Attached: m r d.jpg (1018x716, 106K)

His entire argument is premised upon psychoanalytic rather than biological psychiatry. It is irrelevant. Schizophrenia has a genetic-biological basis.

Materialism is not a disease user. It's a sign of an actually undamaged brain.

Just because we have not found proof yet, does not mean it does not exist.

The treatments we use work as based on clinical trials. This is evidence based. We just do not know exactly how they work yet.

The goal is to treat mental illness. This is done by helping patients achieve remission of their illness and preventing relapse.

We can put people and their mental illness because people are actually not all that unique. There are patterns of personalities and behavior that makes it possible to predict which treatments will be more likely effective than others.

you dont read him. dont lie.

im not saying materialism is a disease.
im saying is stupid saying a feeling is physiological. i mean. if you cant understand the difference between mind and the physical, then, dont even care to talk about nothing. if you say depression is physiological you are saying you cant have depression cause you are sad or because you think life is shit or because you think life makes no sense, or because your dog die, dont care, is a physiological feeling. to you, the mind not exist.
to you, is physiological, that is the thinking of a brick. if you think because your thinking or emotions can be seen in a brain map, then the brain map is your emotions, then you are full of shit. you are basically saying your thoughts dont care in the end. if you think like that, the thinking itself is invalidated.

respond first. people dont commiting suicide is a psychiatry goal?.

you understand this
>>It is true that their is no actual valid proof of any mental disorder.
is not the same that sayin "the treatment we use work". is not the same saying the treatment work than saying you cant have proof that a mental disorder exist in first place... work for what?, you invent the disease, is too easy the treatment work to a fluctuating "everything you want".

>because people are actually not all that unique
to me this is something a cartoonish villain could say. im probably a fag, but chill my spine people who supposedly care about peoples mind, think like that.

>which treatments will be more likely effective than others.
treatments to what?. what is a mental disease?. some user say depression is not a mental disease. it is or not?. you go to choke pills to people anyway.

>if you say depression is physiological you are saying you cant have depression cause you are sad or because you think life is shit or because you think life makes no sense, or because your dog die
this syllogism is beyond my level of funkiness

>?.
>?.
>?.

Attached: h q d.jpg (467x320, 54K)

Yes, preventing suicide from severe depression is a goal of psychiatry

why?. you are depersonalizing the depressed if you say it is because he have a disease. if you are severe depressed you dont have the right to commit suicide?.

then why you say depression is physiological, what exactly you want to say?.

You are not wrong, but your point does not matter. We developed a classification system of mental illness based on common patterns symptoms. We then created treatments in forms of medications and therapy to treat these "made up" patterns of symptoms.

What does it matter? More patients have relief of symptoms through psychiatric treatment than without. I invite you to spend some time in the ward and watch patient's who have taken themselves off their meds come in because they just got finished smearing their shit all over the walls of a hotel lobby and can not even talk coherently and then witness the change that takes place over the next week when they are placed back on medication. It is something pretty great. Clearly we are headed in the right direction.

>then why you say
I no say

Easy. They are in a state where they can not think logically. It is my duty to protect them from themselves. I will gladly strip them of all their rights and freedom to lock them in a ward for weeks. They will usually thank me later. Many suicidal patients turn things around and live a happy life.

then, by your point, suicide should not exist. why only save to the severe depressed?. they probably thank you later?. im sure some others ending kill themselves.
>I will gladly strip them of all their rights and freedom to lock them in a ward for weeks.
psychiatry in a nutshell.

you made up symtpons to choke on pills to people so they dont shit all over the walls of an hotel lobby.
again, psychiatry in a nutshell. now we understand us. what is the point of disguise this control of the antisocial people like a science?.

I would like to continue this discussion, but I can't really find your counterargument in this post. Your English is not the best

>so they dont shit all over the walls of an hotel lobby
>CLEAN IT UP WAGIE I'M FIGHTING SOCIETY HERE

yes. im sorry. i hope you understand it.
if you admit you dont have proof of any mental disorder. why saying giving pills to people who shit in hotel lobbys is a science?.

>The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRls). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.

take your pills

Attached: peterson cry.jpg (255x176, 8K)

We have evidence of mental disorder, but no definitive proof. Just as we have no definitive proof of gravity or time. It is a theory. It does not mean they are not real. Why do we treat with pills? Because more often than not, the patient functions better with them and lessens the burden of disease.

without pills > spends all day not bathing, rambling about the mothership is going to drop a bomb on America, walking through the streets and harassing society

with pills > calm, pleasant, takes care of himself, does not throw shit at people

im tired enough of this materialists bricks for a brigade of proud leftist saying depression is a result of the injustices of the world.
not to say, much of them still believe historic materialism is a science. so we end in the same materialistic loop.

how many are a brigade?.

>you didn't read him
Where's the lie?

the psychiatrists pov is some 50´s advertisement poster.
>calm, pleasant
this is really cynic for your part if you really work in a psych or something. (if you dont understand it: they are like fucking zombies too much of the times...)
the fact that mental disorders tend to be because of some antisocial or socially inconvenient behaviour, dont make you think you are more a jailer than a doctor?.

Agree, but it's even worse than that. There is no due process. They can detain anyone against their will for any reason.

>actually adhd, schizphrenia and so on were good in caveman society
yeah well we live in modern society now, take your meds

Attached: böre.jpg (780x467, 48K)

thomas szazs is against the schizophrenia like a term. not like a psychoanalitic term. his thesis is that is a made up concept of psychiatry to give sense and utility to psychiatry.

Well then what is your solution? They can not function in society. It is medication or send them off to jail for life.

How about you take in all the schizophrenic patents and let them live in your house.

i agree. i dont care. send them to jail if they make something bad. if psychiatry is a housing for the antisocial, then say it, say it with all your heart and at the top of your lungs. the problem is the pretension and seriousness and dissimulation and arrogance only to hide a fucking ridiculous social nursing. just dont go saying your jailing science is based in real knowledge of the mind.

Detaining and castrating the only authentically spiritual people of our age is shameful and backwards.

It is not simply antisocial behavior. It is a progressive disease. Read up on the latest research in psychiatry. We are doing great things.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry

they have a brain disorder. There is nothing spiritual or enlightening about them. They are actually quite boring to talk to to be honest

That's your subjective experience yes.

Yes! Well done on regulating people into becoming conventional and acceptable customers! :)

They are coming to me for treatment. I give them the best modern medicine has to offer

No, you propagandize and forcibly detain people into receiving your treatment.

what is your experience?

>It is not simply antisocial behavior
you are only lying to yourself.
you agree you are basically a jailer more than a doctor?. or you really put too much in the doctor roleplay just to admit here in Yea Forums in an anonymous board you are more a jailer pill giver to the social inconvenient?.

No that is a small percentage. Most realize they are suffering and come to me for relief

I am treating an illness. Where is the confusion here?

>spiritual or enlightening about them.
there is something spiritual in first place from a psychiatry pov?.

i thought we agree is not an illness but a made up illness because they are socially inconvenient. but i suppose i dont understand well. for you, is still a sympton of a pure illness when someone shit in a hotel lobby or someone want to suicide. the fact that you cant understand psychiatry is a social arm of power is pretty dissapointing.

We never agreed on that.

yes when somebody shits in a hotel lobby, can no longer take care of them self, has hallucinations and has no interest in living anymore because their brain is not working properly we call that mental illness. It is not just one symptom. We have found treatments that work for the majority of patients in treating this illness so we give them access to these treatments. What is your problem with this?

You are on some conspiracy theory kick about psychiatry just being a tool to lock up socially unacceptable people. What would be the purpose? We already have jails for socially unacceptable people.

Also, schizophrenia is not just slapped onto every person that walks in with unusual behavior. It is a very specific diagnosis. Please watch this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7oEn8DmR8

>has no interest in living anymore because their brain is not working properly
somebody who want to die can have a brain working properly?.

Attached: vVkoPPU.gif (250x250, 992K)

>We already have jails for socially unacceptable people.
we already have apples, why we need oranges?.
psychiatry is an arm of the same social control. control of the mind. the police and penal system is control of "actions". saying roughly.

Yes. Totally different situation

when is different?. how can you know? when you can have the right to stop it?

The reason for suicide such as being diagnosed with a terminal illness. However, I am bound by law to stop it in all circumstances.

so you have to stop every suicide ideation?. you think this is because science say suicide is bad or because a social morality?

>very specific diagnosis
I was diagnosed with it, only to be later diagnosed with an anxiety disorder a month later.

>laws
>science
Fact-Value distinction. Pick one.

How can science say suicide is bad? It’s a social issue. I have to stop it because most people change their mind. 100% of the survivors who jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge regretted their decision immediately

Shitty psychiatrist

you have a severe cognitive dissociation. your kind are NOT HELPING people. the only ethical action that you can do is to advocate to abolish the power that psychiatry/psychology have in the society.

I follow laws that I don’t agree with

How am I not helping people?

>It’s a social issue.
why are you the responsible of a social and personal issue not avalated by science?.

im gonna ignore the fallacy of "i made it because people change their mind". and i recommend you do the same.

Imagine if you became so depressed tomorrow that you decided to kill yourself. Wouldn’t you want someone to stop you? I would.

mirroring arbitrary social inconveniences to deliberately medicate and adjust people is helping them??? how about actually standing up for them?

i don't have any problem with people receiving your bullshit """treatment""" if they go up to you. the problem is that you will forcibly detain people who DON'T WANT your help.

my point is why are you, a psychiatrist, the responsible for that?.

A less dramatic version of this happened to me in 9th grade. Had to go to ER and talk to a doctor who was basically like 'why the fuck are you here youre fine'. The school usually just suspended me when I acted out but that time they reacted differently for whatever reason.

Our laws provide two reasons to justify taking away someone’s rights. The first is to protect the citizenry from harm “(police powers”) and the second is to protect the individual from harming himself “parens patriae”. When the state invokes its police powers, it usually results in someone being arrested for breaking the law. On the other hand, parens patriae powers are used to help those who can’t help themselves. It is the justification for protecting children from abusive parents; individuals with developmental disabilities; the elderly with alzheimers. Invocation of parens patriae results in care and treatment, not incarceration. Almost all state laws involving commitment evolve from these basis. When someone is actively trying to shoot someone, there is no doubt that the state can detain that person to protect society. When someone is trying to shoot their own self, there is also no doubt that the state can detain the person.

I’m responsible for that as a physician. It’s in my vows. If I don’t act to save a life, I can lose my liscance and be sued by the family of the person who killed themself

No, you're not a physician. You're a psychiatrist who peddle pseudoscience.
Then call cops. You have no authority and should not have any authority to detain people.

you are saying you have to stop if somebody have a suicide ideation not in your role of psychiatrist, but in your role of phisician?.
a psychiatrist how should act in the same situation?.

I am a physician specializing in psychiatry. Psychiatrists went to the same medical school as all the other specialties. It’s not a pseudoscience, it’s an evidence based specialty. Read JAMA psychiatry and tell me how it’s a pseudoscience.

Are you kidding? The cops come and bring these people to me. I do have authority by law.

The same way. Also as a psychiatrist if I am driving along the highway and see someone in a car accident bleeding out, I am required by law to pull over and assist.

Does the medicalization of morality answer Neitchzes quest for morality beyond good and evil?

Just because it has evidence, doesn't mean that it actually procure any replicable and predictable results.

Tell me more about how your SSRI project is going. Or is it inflammation now? Or maybe it's just you projecting on your patients?

ok. so it was unnecesary make the remark of "as a physician" because you have to act the same as a psychiatrist. anyway.
well. then, you recognize a moral statement with no back up in science like the suicide have to be repressed by psychiatrists?.
my point is: psychiatrists dont say suicide ideation is a disease but at the same time they are the responsible for them. why?.

Every single one of these treatments have consistently produced replicable and predictable results.

It sounds like you are bitter because you had a bad experience with a psychiatrist. I apologize for that. Their are some shitty doctors out there. I assure you we are here to help those in need. There is no conspiracy here.

No, they have not lol. If you actually read the papers, then youd know that the pills are worthless.

Don't apogloize. Stop being a power tripping cunt and make sure that your colleagues can't exercise the power.

Doctors are responsible for many things outside the scope of medicine including social issues, suicide, providing access to food and housing, sexual and physical abuse. Why? The law mandates it. If I ignore these issues or do not document that I investigated them I get sued and/or put in jail

I have read them. There is not one pill on the market that is worthless or it would not have passed clinical trials.

why you deny psychiatry is part of social control if you literally say the law told you to repress suicidal people without any investigation supporting it?.

the most of impact of SSRI comes from placebo effect lmaooo

denial. you should prescribe some of these drugs for yourself.

Who said there is no investigation? I perform a complete history and gain collateral information from friends and family. I weigh in social factors for suicide. I conduct a full investigation. If I determine they are at high risk of suicide, they stay. If they are at low risk and want to leave, I have no power to hold them. If they stay, they are seen in 24 hours by another psychiatrist for a second opinion. They are also entitled to present before a judge to appeal the decision

no investigation supporting suicide is a product of a disease.
basically you are "investigating" driving by a moral quest, not to cure a disease. so a psychiatrist should not be the one doing it.

Yes SSRIs are the weakest medications of psychiatry and have very modest effects for most people but can put anxiety and depression in complete remission for some. All the antipsych communities love to point at them and ignore the real psychiatric drugs such as lithium, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants that dramatically change lives for the better and have beautiful supporting data

But my investigation does find support that suicide is a product of disease. Regardless even if a patient had suicidal ideation independent of disease, I am still responsible by law

One of the larger groups of societal misfits represented disproportionately on Yea Forums, along with the trannies and autists, are the schizophrenics. /sci/ is in much worse shape because of them but I don't mind them making threads, as long as they don't overdo it, you shouldn't care much about the weird stuff they think. Just the OP should tell you this isn't a thread for serious discussion.

Why do antipsych people who did take these drugs now advocate so vigorously to not take these drugs?

inb4 they're crazy XD

Why do patients come into my office with tears of joy because the medication I prescribed gave them their life back?

thomas szasz is an schizophrenic or a social misfit?.

>Szasz
Hmmm....
dc.fandom.com/wiki/Victor_Zsasz_(New_Earth)

because they are on drugs maybe

theres also the fact that people usually go to psychiatrists when they are at their lowest points, sometimes by force sometimes not, it is possible a lot of them just feel better after some time on their own.

It's not that it really matters to me though, even if you do make people feel better, it does sort of disgust me the idea that psychiatrists think it's okay to lock people up and force them on drugs just because they will feel better. It's not okay to feel misery?

Yes, this is why we conduct clinical trials and perform studies to see if the medication is causing the effect vs placebo or time.

You have not felt the misery they are going through. Not even close

Look hypocrite. You claim that you're helping people to relieve their suffering and so on. Then, you have a bunch of people who are saying that you are causing the suffering. You deny and deny it. You point to a subset of the results which is positive and ignore the negative results.

Psycharicity in a nutshell.

Who is ignoring the negative results? Adverse reactions of medications are well known. That’s why they are only given if the risk to be Ofer ratio is in the patents favor, then they are monitored closely for any negative effect and taken off immediately if they are reacting badly to it

respect for the patience you’ve shown in the thread, you will make a great psychiatrist if that is what you choose. It does seem as though the stigma towards psychiatry is lessening within other medical specialties and the general population (maybe not yet in Yea Forums’s demographics). As a med student interested in the specialty, I’m hoping things will progress even further in the coming years. Exciting times

There can be no doubt that psychiatry has room for improvement. Perhaps more than any other area of medicine are there philosophical complications involved in the practice. In terms of psychopharmacology brute force techniques such as flooding the synaptic clefts with neurotransmitter agonists or antagonists are a low-fi method for altering mental states. The complexity of the brain prohibits more advanced therapies. It's not clear if this approach "cures" any disease, any more than taking caffeine cures tiredness. The long term health of the brain is determined by experience, genetics, and other difficult to control influences.

The notion that there is a "pill for every ill" itself expresses an ideology. That for one, psychological and personal funks are necessarily medical concerns. Secondly the idea that by medicalizing these issues there is a defensive evasion of the question of the overall culture that produced the self-divided subject in the first place. The patient is expected to take their pills and get back to work, with the overall societal structure safe from implication.When clearly the most prolific cause of mental disorders is the society itself, its constraints, expectations, demands, and pressures.

Some mental illness are strictly brain disorders. The brain like any organ can be diseased. Others however are a kind of situational "cramp", a relational confusion caused by one's inability to thrive in one's circumstances and surroundings.

The logic of the pharmaceutical industry is to go about devising medications for every possible illness, and if there is no illness, to invent one out of the vaguest appearance of symptomatology. Basic social and psychological disturbances caused not by illness, but by cultural distortions and pressures, are defensively treated by the complex as part of a reactionary maneuver to shore up the continued viability of the status quo.

>Who is ignoring the negative results?
you basically are saying there is no negative effect because psychiatry monitored the negative inmediately.
probably in the future we will see new psychiatrists saying pills were an error compared to whatever therapy in vogue of the time.

but youre not studying the person who doesnt go to you at all who you never heard about and ke[t it to themselves.

And a) I dont know how you would know how miserable I've felt or how miserable anyone has felt really, unless you are them, and b) it doesn't really matter because being the most miserable person in the world doesn't give you a morale right to take away their rights

Why do women with BPD keep posting on my board?

As a legit diagnosed schizo, I can understand why the germans gassed people like me. I'm truly useless to society and I want to kms, yet my family has vowed to support me even if I stay useless the rest of my life. So my family bribes me with food and shelter to prevent me from kms.

Do you think that it's fair for you that the society is preventing you from kysing?

Suicide pills should be made legal and available to the public, it would save millions on costs to keep the useless sods of society who want to die anyway alive. All these people going "suicide is bad" should know how it is being unable to work, dependant on family, not being able to make meaningful relationships with peers my age nor women of any kind. For some as me, a painless, efficient way of suicide is the humane way.

Why not fake your death

>Szasz maintained throughout his career that he was not anti-psychiatry but was rather anti-coercive psychiatry. He was a staunch opponent of civil commitment and involuntary psychiatric treatment but believed in, and practiced, psychiatry and psychotherapy between consenting adults.
>Schizo on Yea Forums claims no mental illness exist
Don't be disingenuous.

what are you saying, that Szasz didn't say that mental illness was a myth?

You haven't read much history have you bud

If he said that mental illness is a myth then he's a moron, and I invite you to go to a psychiatric hospital near you and visit the schizophrenia floor if you think any differently.

Read just about any single page from any one of his books.

He doesn't say these people don't have problems btw. Just not a medical problem. Or if it is a medical problem, then it's not a mental illness. Like neurosyphillis. Neurosyphillis was speculated about by psychotherapists for years as coming from trauma or anything. As soon as they discovered there was an ACTUAL disease it was taken out of their hands. And of course, if it turned out that schizophrenia had an actual medical element to it, say a brain worm, it would be taken out of their hands.

As it happens though, mental and illness are not in the same category. Illness and health have always been in the material until psychology co-opted it. What you are talking about are personal problems in the vein of physical. It's like trying to view a software problem as a hardware problem.

Attached: 706525.jpg (259x400, 18K)

he said schizophrenia is a made up and vague term.
first: go and read him.
second: he dont say there are no people who shit in the floor or scream or talk incomprehensible in loop about his mother being the devil. but you have to be conscious they are in the psychiatric hospital precisely because they talk incomprehensible, shit on the floor and talk about his mother is the devil. not because psychiatrists know why they are saying or feeling any of this things.

Can we have some moment and Can we define what "disease" is in a first place?
What is the definition of disease?

actually true post

Attached: EF846842-27FD-4D4D-9B0F-0E078F8033C3.jpg (687x960, 235K)

I can’t build muscle man

Why should he have to fake his death so that he can kill himself for real?

Attached: 1555013181672.png (831x799, 329K)

>i think the psych ward is an intrinsically violent and ilegitimate place to put someone in.
Ah, yes, let's drive the loonies to the street!

it had grey areas, psychology exploited those grey areas to insert whatever it wanted and it's all fucked now. healthy/unhealthy are coming to just mean good/bad, and a doctors are coming to mean just some sort of implementers of pseudoscientific utilitarianism. If some persons behavior can be described as sort of pervasively and chronically bad, that makes it a disease now. It was clear before though, it was physiological.

A flat tire is an auto problem, driving too fast isn't. But they don't view the body like a car for the mind anymore. On some level they treat the body as master to the brain rather than the other way around. But of course the body can't really make decisions, so it's other outside people making decisions against your mind on behalf of your body.

they have the same rights as you and me.

Take magic mushrooms. They'll show you that you can be happy again. You'll find out the rest.

You don't understand. One day you will be the loony as well.

Liar. In any state if you are taken in to the hospital for mental illness they legally have to hold you three days. You're full of shit.

you could just put them in jail without calling it medicine. It would be the honest way of doing it.

I don't think putting psychiatrist in this topic can be helpful at all. It is just like claiming flaw of goods of market to the cashier doing his job. The type of debate topic he faced are transcend his field. Like asking "does infinity exists in real world" to mathematician, the question such as "what is the definition of disease", "how do you solve an active placebo", "what are your position specifically when illness is not defined but you treat with psychiatry?", or "if you gave the pill then when is he cured and when he doesn't need to take his medication?" cannot help much to that guy.

You've probably never met someone who harms themselves or others on a regular basis.

Drugs, knifes and blood, social pathologies, complete delusions.

OK put him in a jail with a straitjacket. Don't bother with the bullshit.

I might be wrong but isn't psychological "problems" just chemical imbalances? The drugs just reverse or counter-act the imbalances. I would consider it a physcial cure to a physical problem.

happiness is as much of an imbalance as depression or anything. It's arbitrarily picking out some aspects of the self and attributing it to chemistry, but not applying this thoroughly. Your whole self has a correlative chemical side.

Psychiatry has largely stopped using the term chemical imbalance anyways because it was clear there wasn't really a balance in the first place.

>you have hallucinations?
>lol just get your shit together dude

i live in a squat full of schizophrenics and random problematic people. complete delusions, drugs, knifes, suicide, and blood.
i stay in a psychiatric hospital for weeks. i assure you the psychiatric hospital was way more violent and restrictive and, in general, less respectful and more "psychopathic" than whatever random place. this is only my personal experience. but open my eyes.
all is an hypocrisy. they dont care about people. for them, they are only loonies.
remember me the nietzsche´s quote "the coldest of all cold monsters".
anyway, like its well said in this thread, you dont need the medicine excuse to restrict this behaviour.

not what he says really. I mean he talks a lot more about what he doesn't believe in than what he does, and in part that's because these things are personal, and so have to be dealt with on a bit of a case by case basis, but if you wanted to know more positively what he does advocate, I think when you dig deep enough he starts to become existentialist. He cites Shakespeare a lot as the best psychologist because, while all the plays deal with problems that would today be classified as mental illnesses, Shakespeare is able to deconstruct any concept of madness and show how the characters madness does make sense from their perspective. This includes delusions.

Only valid comment in this thread
t. Someone who had psychosis

that comment was very factually wrong. His arguments are about categories and definitions.

>In any STATE
>Implying there is anything in that fucking post that says he is American
>Implying you know the legal protocols of other countries

BURN IN HELL FAGGOT

This is an American website, so unless otherwise specified it’s reasonable to assume a poster is American.

i am american, but i did not lie in the story so idc what you think. im glad that the doctor defied the protocol then.

He said it was a normal hospital/doctor before, not psychiatric

I've come to the theory that PhDs are the ultimate simpletons. You have to be so one tracked and devoid of context and broader understanding to become an expert at a particular atomized niche of knowledge that you are effectively an idiot.