Investigators stunned by child dismemberment

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Prince Nauj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32171926/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This is so wrong and disturbing

Symmetric Chaos
The police had no right to violate her privacy. Parents should have the right to raise their children however they wish.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Prince Nauj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32171926/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This is so wrong and disturbing

pr1983



no shit.

Selphie
Originally posted by Prince Nauj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32171926/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This is so wrong and disturbing

Oh man, that is quite graphic. Poor baby.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Prince Nauj
This is so wrong and disturbing


Yes.

occultdestroyer
Seems like the mother is insane.
She should be locked up in an asylum immediately.

Robtard
Never understood the nonsense of not passing capital punishment (in places where it already exist) because someone is crazy. The way I see, if you're going to execute a murderer, why not start with the insane murderers first? Just silly.

The likely outcome: Courts will find her not guilty (of murder charges) and she'll spend several years in the loony bin, after a spell, she'll "find Jesus" and be released.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
Never understood the nonsense of not passing capital punishment (in places where it already exist) because someone is crazy. The way I see, if you're going to execute a murderer, why not start with the insane murderers first? Just silly.

People feel uncomfortable about execution in the first place. The idea of executing someone who doesn't necessarily understand what they did wrong is even more uncomfortable. Though that doesn't really apply in this case.

Originally posted by Robtard
The likely outcome: Courts will find her not guilty (of murder charges) and she'll spend several years in the loony bin, after a spell, she'll "find Jesus" and be realised.

The Devil made her kill the baby. It must have been Jesus who said "slash your throat".

Robtard
Nonsense, ignorance is no excuse. If I run a stop-sign because I'm in a new area and I simply missed it due to ignorance; not criminal intent, I'm still getting a ****ing ticket for $202.00 (yes, I'm bitter right now).

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Nonsense, ignorance is no excuse. If I run a stop-sign because I'm in a new area and I simply missed it due to ignorance; not criminal intent, I'm still getting a ****ing ticket for $202.00 (yes, I'm bitter right now).

I have some excellent advice on that: stop at stops signs.


They look like this:

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/stop_sign.png









I know. I'm very helpful. You're welcome.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
Nonsense, ignorance is no excuse. If I run a stop-sign because I'm in a new area and I simply missed it due to ignorance; not criminal intent, I'm still getting a ****ing ticket for $202.00 (yes, I'm bitter right now).

Who said anything about an excuse? You asked "why not start with the insane murderers first?"


Also, why are people overlooking this flagrant violation of personal rights? She was on private property when this happened.

Robtard
You said people feel uncomfortable executing people who weren't aware that their act of murder was wrong, thereby excusing them of the murder charge because of said stipulation, ignorance. I said that was nonsense, because ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law.

Private property doesn't excuse you of ignoring all laws. Though I think if she travelled into international waters, she might have an angle in eating her baby, maybe.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
You said people feel uncomfortable executing people who weren't aware that their act of murder was wrong, thereby excusing them of the murder charge because of said stipulation, ignorance. I said that was nonsense, because ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law.

First of all why not?
Secondly I'm giving you a line of reasoning, not saying it's a good one.

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
First of all why not?
Secondly I'm giving you a line of reasoning, not saying it's a good one.

Because that is the law, it doesn't excuse ignorance.

Well then, why didn't you say it was shit, were in agreement.

Lord Lucien
I believe it's called playing Devil's Advocate. But careful, he may kill you and eat your brain.



sad

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I believe it's called playing Devil's Advocate. But careful, he may kill you and eat your brain.



sad

The dead baby?

Sado22
a mother eating her own chld...?

what the phuck is this world coming to?

Captain REX
Wow... that's seriously unpleasant.

I think the fact that she committed extremely sadistic murder and cannibalism on private property means shit-all, Chaos. That's like saying I could go in the living room right now and shoot my family, but it'd be okay because it's private property...

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Sado22
a mother eating her own chld...?

what the phuck is this world coming to?

Coming to...?

It just a big "welcome to how f**ked this ball gets" for the previously uninitiated, maybe.

Now if there is was a 'god'...why didnt the c**t show up and stop this women from doing this...?

If Robtards right and she gets out on Jesus one, the sickening irony that shed be released for exchanging one symptom of mental issues for another will not be lost on people..

Bardock42
Originally posted by Prince Nauj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32171926/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This is so wrong and disturbing


And so it begins...,



ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Robtard
Never understood the nonsense of not passing capital punishment (in places where it already exist) because someone is crazy. The way I see, if you're going to execute a murderer, why not start with the insane murderers first? Just silly.

The likely outcome: Courts will find her not guilty (of murder charges) and she'll spend several years in the loony bin, after a spell, she'll "find Jesus" and be released.

emathy isnt ur strong point is it?

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
And so it begins...,



ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I play way too much Left 4 Dead

occultdestroyer
Originally posted by Bardock42
And so it begins...,



ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
2012 man

lord xyz
The worse thing, is you can't tell her family any dead baby jokes.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Captain REX
Wow... that's seriously unpleasant.

I think the fact that she committed extremely sadistic murder and cannibalism on private property means shit-all, Chaos. That's like saying I could go in the living room right now and shoot my family, but it'd be okay because it's private property...

DUDE!



He's being sarcastic. He's mocking the overzealous southern Republicans OR libertarians.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Robtard
Never understood the nonsense of not passing capital punishment (in places where it already exist) because someone is crazy. The way I see, if you're going to execute a murderer, why not start with the insane murderers first? Just silly.

The likely outcome: Courts will find her not guilty (of murder charges) and she'll spend several years in the loony bin, after a spell, she'll "find Jesus" and be released. That last sentence made this quote for the win.

lil bitchiness
This woman is mentally ill. The more likely outcome will be that she will be found not guilty, locked in an asylum, drugged and medicated every 3 hours for the rest of her life, till she no longer is able to chew food on her own and possibly raped by one of the male nurses ( a very common occurrence in mental institutions in cases where patients are either severely brain damaged, or severely medicated.)

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Captain REX
Wow... that's seriously unpleasant.

I think the fact that she committed extremely sadistic murder and cannibalism on private property means shit-all, Chaos. That's like saying I could go in the living room right now and shoot my family, but it'd be okay because it's private property...

I might have been poking fun at Libertarian/Objectivist philosophy.

Obviously she needs help. At the point, considering she's shown remorse for her actions I doubt anyone would deny that she needs either psychiatric attention (except Scientologists) or life in prison/execution.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This woman is mentally ill. The more likely outcome will be that she will be found not guilty, locked in an asylum, drugged and medicated every 3 hours for the rest of her life, till she no longer is able to chew food on her own and possibly raped by one of the male nurses ( a very common occurrence in mental institutions in cases where patients are either severely brain damaged, or severely medicated.)

On the other hand she ate her kid, that's probably the more merciful outcome available to her.

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
emathy isnt ur strong point is it?

Oh no, my heart goes out to that little baby that probably suffered to the point where I can't imagine, sir.

Robtard
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This woman is mentally ill. The more likely outcome will be that she will be found not guilty, locked in an asylum, drugged and medicated every 3 hours for the rest of her life, till she no longer is able to chew food on her own and possibly raped by one of the male nurses ( a very common occurrence in mental institutions in cases where patients are either severely brain damaged, or severely medicated.)

Like I said, might as well just execute her, considering it's Texas as they have capital there.

Curious how it's known that rape is a common occurrence to brain-damaged/medicated patients? I can picture it happening, I just don;t see how it's tracked so it's "known."

BackFire
As someone who writes horror stories I often get asked where I got ideas from.

This story simply cements what I've said before, and will say again. Look no further than the news and the real word to find the most heinous and horrific ideas imaginable. Unfortunately, they aren't just ideas.

WhoopeeDee
Originally posted by Prince Nauj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32171926/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This is so wrong and disturbing

I'll be the one to say it. Call me captain obvious....

This isn't the first time something like this have happen.

Just another example of the horrors of cannibalism. The lowest of the low (unless survival and that other stuff that just opens a whole new can of gibberish arguments) sickening.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Curious how it's known that rape is a common occurrence to brain-damaged/medicated patients? I can picture it happening, I just don;t see how it's tracked so it's "known."

reports by the victims, people coming forward, etc.

There is the flip-side however. In the case of facilitated communication, many autistic children were "found" to have been sexually abused by their parents/caregivers, but were unable to express it until their communication was facilitated (basically a facilitator would move the child's hand to letters to spell words).

After serious investigation, it was found that rather than the accusations being accurate, they were the fabrication of the facilitator, and the child was no better able to communicate with facilitation than without. It was not the malevolence of the facilitator, but something called the "ideo-motor effect", meaning that even subconscious thoughts can affect your behaviour in unconscious ways. Pendulums and Ouija boards work in a similar fashion, when not outright fraud.

Similarly, when private investigators were sent as patients to professional counciling (can't remember what credentials were used), most were, after one sitting, thought to have suffered physical parental abuse. There is a sort of human instinct to suppose and report these things.

That being said, Institutions were terrible places. They closed them down largely in Canada in the 80s because of these types of reports and other serious abuses. My feeling is that it is both under-reported and often mis-reported, though, you are right, it is almost impossible to know in real numbers. Same with priest abuses and stuff of the like.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Robtard
Like I said, might as well just execute her, considering it's Texas as they have capital there.

Curious how it's known that rape is a common occurrence to brain-damaged/medicated patients? I can picture it happening, I just don;t see how it's tracked so it's "known."

This is well documented. And if you read literature concerning 'Toxic Psychology' this will be most obvious.

The ones which are proven are the ones who go through abortion more than once in a mental institution.
Female patients who are heavily medicated frequently report 'flashbacks' or 'memories' of having sex while in institution. Many of them are just too drugged out of their brains to know what the hell happened.
This is difficult to prove, as they are all diagnosed with mental disorder, and therefore impossible to tell who is telling a lie and who is telling the truth.

It is KNOWN that patients mirror each other's behaviour - hence medication (one goes psycho-active, the rest may follow) and hence impossibility of proving that if one claims something like that happen, then another one, than another one, this sort of thing gets ignored/accepted/covered up.
Who is going to pay for all those rape tests? Hospital won't. And neither will anyones tax money.
It's difficult to prove rape in every day cases, let ALONE those in mental institution, where victims are drugged - vaginal tearing is so infrequent.

It's not like its difficult. Old people at institutions who are supposed to be looked after, are frequently physically, mentally and sometimes sexually abused.
Again, providing a proof for something like this is extreamly difficult . The ones who have been caught (and many have), were so, because they were not careful enough when the children of the elderly came to visit.

There is an extreamly low visiting ratio for people who are institutionalized. Not only that, but those who are on frequent medication, particulary those diagnosed with some kind of psychosis (as this woman will be - she hurt the child, AND herself, therefore she WILL be medicated and restrained as she will be considered danger to herself and others).
She will sleep strapped to bed (as many patients are) and she will be medicated to control her psychotic urges or whatever.

Few years back, a colleague of my boyfriends father (who is a psychiatrist in a mental institution) was accused of sexual abuse - the reason they knew is that the girl became pregnant - 4th time around!
While he was investigated, he was allowed to continue working at the same hospital.
Really, who is going to care anyway? Society certainly does not.

They are drugged and medicated because thats the easiest way - they are deemed as there is no helping them and therefore noone will even try. Apart from drugging people, there is no known cure for psychosis - hence the arguments of Toxic Psychology camp who argue psychiatry and psychology should move, as a science, in a direction which relies less on drugs.
Again, putting this into practice will take years - if ever. I personally don't believe psychology or psychiatry will move in this direction for a very long time - in fact, I rather thing they'll start killing them off, rather than taking measure beyond drugging them.

I wrote a paper about this in one of my MA classes.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They are drugged and medicated because thats the easiest way - they are deemed as there is no helping them and therefore noone will even try. Apart from drugging people, there is no known cure for psychosis - hence the arguments of Toxic Psychology camp who argue psychiatry and psychology should move, as a science, in a direction which relies less on drugs.
Again, putting this into practice will take years - if ever. I personally don't believe psychology or psychiatry will move in this direction for a very long time - in fact, I rather thing they'll start killing them off, rather than taking measure beyond drugging them.

First of all if there's no help for psychosis than drugs what possible help would stopping medication be? (other than producing more psychotic people). Secondly there's a lot more money to be made in treatment than execution so the idea of "murder rather than study" strikes me as absurdly reactionary.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
First of all if there's no help for psychosis than drugs what possible help would stopping medication be? (other than producing more psychotic people). Secondly there's a lot more money to be made in treatment than execution so the idea of "murder rather than study" strikes me as absurdly reactionary.

You know, people who have no elementary knowledge of psychology or psychiatry asking questions in tone such as you're asking, are extreamly frustrating.
Why don't you read up on it first, instead of being cocky.

Firstly, psychiatry deals with treatment as well as prevention of mental disorders. The whole point of it is to try and TREAT the mental disorders not suppress them.
What psychiatric hospitals do (as well as psychiatrists, which hand out antidepressins and other drugs like candy) is to just medicate people and hope that the drugs will do their job without them actually DOING anything.

So, if you bothered to research anything, you'd know that drugs are in cases necessary, but what the 'Toxic Psychiatry' tells us is that drugs are the MAIN part of any mental disorder ''treatment'', starting from depression through to all types of sociopathy, right through to psychosis and schizophrenia.

Anyone who has ever suffered from clinical depression has been on some kind of drugs at some point. They in turn become addicted to the drugs (mentally, and sometimes physically) and therefore any hope of actual treatment is being diminished.

My kid is hyperactive - here's some pills
I'm stay at home wife - here's some pills
I'm depressed - here's some pills
He's psychotic...for some reason - here's some pills
This patient is suffering from extreme paranoia - Here's some pills
etc...

These drugs have huge psychotic effects on whomever is taking it - and those in mental institution are NO exception. The sad truth is, that any side effects which are being experienced by the drugs are attributed to their original disorder and in many cases doses have been increased.
Mass handing out of drugs, involuntary treatment, have all contributed to the unsuccesfull 'treatment' of patients inside and outside of mental institutions.

Now, if you really bother knowing about it (instead of just trying to be a smartass), here are good reading suggestions -

- Medication Madness, by Peter Breggin, M.D
- Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry:
Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex
- The Antidepressant Fact Book:
What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa and Luvox
- Toxic Psychiatry

And 1908294876 million other academic papers and books.
It explains nicely what psychiatry/psychology should actually be and how it was supposed to treat people.

Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.

The types of drugs they give to patients in mental institutions are probably on ''trial bases''. It would not for a second surprise me.

Here's an example - Strattera was an unsuccessful antidepressin that did not get approved, and that as an alternative got marketed as a medication for ADHD, in USA. Enough said.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, people who have no elementary knowledge of psychology or psychiatry asking questions in tone such as you're asking, are extreamly frustrating.
Why don't you read up on it first, instead of being cocky.

Pointing out egregious flaws in your presentation is not cocky.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Firstly, psychiatry deals with treatment as well as prevention of mental disorders. The whole point of it is to try and TREAT the mental disorders not suppress them.
What psychiatric hospitals do (as well as psychiatrists, which hand out antidepressins and other drugs like candy) is to just medicate people and hope that the drugs will do their job without them actually DOING anything.

This, I know.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, if you bothered to research anything, you'd know that drugs are in cases necessary, but what the 'Toxic Psychiatry' tells us is that drugs are the MAIN part of any mental disorder ''treatment'', starting from depression through to all types of sociopathy, right through to psychosis and schizophrenia.

How would you talk someone out of schizophrenia? What's your solution other than medication for serious psychiatric problems?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Anyone who has ever suffered from clinical depression has been on some kind of drugs at some point. They in turn become addicted to the drugs (mentally, and sometimes physically) and therefore any hope of actual treatment is being diminished.

My kid is hyperactive - here's some pills
I'm stay at home wife - here's some pills
I'm depressed - here's some pills
He's psychotic...for some reason - here's some pills
This patient is suffering from extreme paranoia - Here's some pills
etc...

The first three I see the problem. The second two, not so much unless you've got better ideas.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
These drugs have huge psychotic effects on whomever is taking it - and those in mental institution are NO exception. The sad truth is, that any side effects which are being experienced by the drugs are attributed to their original disorder and in many cases doses have been increased.

Just a question, how does one determine what's a result of the drugs and what's the result of the disorder?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Mass handing out of drugs, involuntary treatment, have all contributed to the unsuccesfull 'treatment' of patients inside and outside of mental institutions.

For people that have fairly mundane problems I agree. For schizophrenia, psychosis etc there's no other known solution.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Now, if you really bother knowing about it (instead of just trying to be a smartass), here are good reading suggestions -

- Medication Madness, by Peter Breggin, M.D
- Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry:
Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex
- The Antidepressant Fact Book:
What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa and Luvox
- Toxic Psychiatry

And 1908294876 million other academic papers and books.
It explains nicely what psychiatry/psychology should actually be and how it was supposed to treat people.

Thanks.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.

You don't think the brain might have something to do with the mind? One hell of conspiracy.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The types of drugs they give to patients in mental institutions are probably on ''trial bases''. It would not for a second surprise me.

Some of them almost certainly are. On the other hand you cannot test a drug properly unless you try it on people that have the disorder you're attempting to treat.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Here's an example - Strattera was an unsuccessful antidepressin that did not get approved, and that as an alternative got marketed as a medication for ADHD, in USA. Enough said.

I don't really see how bad marketing can be blamed on psychiatry . . .

shiv
.

Robtard
Originally posted by shiv
um lil bitchiness According to Robtard if the rape** is on private land its o.k.

Its o.k.


** -rape/ overmedication/ murder etc
according to Robtard



Are you retarded? This is a serious question.

BackFire
Hahaha.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.

biological psychology?

what do you have against ion channels and dendridic NT receptor protein chains?

I get what you are saying with the rest, and largely agree. I had a course in 3rd year about drugs and society, where we did touch on pharmaceutical drugs. I made the point that, even if ADHD meds were successful, they gave a mind set, very early on in life, that pills solved behavioural problems. Which they don't. Most people in the class reacted angrily, as though I had personally attacked them (they also had siblings on ADHD meds) and nobody really got the point that looking to medicate behaviour when it is inconvenient is a bad idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The first three I see the problem. The second two, not so much unless you've got better ideas.

I think you are assuming too much competence in the mental health system. I see what you are saying, and if there were a mental health issue that worked like diabetes, and a pill like insulin, there would be no arguing.

However, that isn't how it is. It would be inappropriate to try and say that any one thing is the specific problem, but the psychiatric industry is not set up to accurately diagnose problems with individuals. When talking about the higher functioning patients (like the example you quoted) a lot of the issues are that they will come into a doctors office asking for meds by name. They have already determined that they need meds to behave properly, eliminating any effect a psychiatrist might be able to have even if they were interested in more than what pills to prescribe and how the patient was abused as a child. Blah, trying to keep this on topic, so much to ***** about psychiatry for...

Its not that there shouldn't be pills to treat behaviour, its that pills probably shouldn't be THE treatment. Someone with psychosis, who cannot be "therapied" out of it, does not deserve to be locked in a small room and medicated. In this instance, the medication is not treating anything other than the inconvenience that person is causing to the administration staff.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
However, that isn't how it is. It would be inappropriate to try and say that any one thing is the specific problem, but the psychiatric industry is not set up to accurately diagnose problems with individuals. When talking about the higher functioning patients (like the example you quoted) a lot of the issues are that they will come into a doctors office asking for meds by name. They have already determined that they need meds to behave properly, eliminating any effect a psychiatrist might be able to have even if they were interested in more than what pills to prescribe and how the patient was abused as a child. Blah, trying to keep this on topic, so much to ***** about psychiatry for...

Its not that there shouldn't be pills to treat behaviour, its that pills probably shouldn't be THE treatment. Someone with psychosis, who cannot be "therapied" out of it, does not deserve to be locked in a small room and medicated. In this instance, the medication is not treating anything other than the inconvenience that person is causing to the administration staff.

I agree. Pills shouldn't be the first resort unless the person is a clear and present danger, ideally doctors should at least start by steering patients toward other types of therapy with meds being used to smooth the process at most. What I object to is the mentality that overmedication = anyone who gives meds is a blood thirsty monster.

What would you suggest should be done for someone with serious psychosis? The current methods obviously don't work all the time but the alternatives strike me as being at least as bad.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I agree. Pills shouldn't be the first resort unless the person is a clear and present danger. What I object to is the mentality that over medication = psychiatrists are bloodthirsty monsters

What would you suggest should be done for someone with serious psychosis? The current methods obviously don't work all the time but the alternatives strike me as being at least as bad.

honestly?

let them work on a farm

The vast minority of cases are violent people, and even then, with proper supervision, it isn't a huge issue.

I worked in a group home for a few years, which we have instead of institutions in Canada (not for criminals though). Just giving them the respect of being a person goes a huge way. Their sense of independence, even if it is to get up and shower by themselves, is without a doubt huge in their overall well being.

Realistically, people just need to realize that psychiatry is beyond the research at this point. We don't understand the mechanisms of any disorder well enough to be prescribing pills for it.

blah, and as a nitpick, TECHNICALLY, psychiatrists aren't over medicating the patients. They are properly doing so. The entire practice encourages these practices as the desired norm.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
honestly?

let them work on a farm

The vast minority of cases are violent people, and even then, with proper supervision, it isn't a huge issue.
Seems like a workable idea

I worked in a group home for a few years, which we have instead of institutions in Canada (not for criminals though). Just giving them the respect of being a person goes a huge way. Their sense of independence, even if it is to get up and shower by themselves, is without a doubt huge in their overall well being.

Cool. Does seem like it would be a huge organizational problem, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
Realistically, people just need to realize that psychiatry is beyond the research at this point. We don't understand the mechanisms of any disorder well enough to be prescribing pills for it.

I'm not sure I follow the first part of that. How does psychiatry get past its own research?

Originally posted by inimalist
blah, and as a nitpick, TECHNICALLY, psychiatrists aren't over medicating the patients. They are properly doing so. The entire practice encourages these practices as the desired norm.

But clearly that's not what people mean.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure I follow the first part of that. How does psychiatry get past its own research?

psychiatry largely does applied research, and borrows from pharmacology and some neuro/psych.

They are trying to "research" treatments to problems that aren't understood at more basic levels. So like, "schizophrenia" is not a single disorder, but is rather likely a catch all term for thousands of other, similar disorders. When one understands more about the interconnectedness of neurons, it makes sense, as there are hundreds of places where a communication network could fail with similar results.

Because there is no understanding of the basic problems causing the "abnormal" behaviour in schizophrenic patients, all that can be treated is the behaviour itself. From my time working with schizophrenics, that treatment is to tranquilize them, which works, maybe 60% of the time.

But because we don't even know what is wrong in schizophrenics, we have no idea about a real mechanism to treat the problems. All we can do is medicate them until it is convenient for us to deal with it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But clearly that's not what people mean.

It is, though. To say that they are "over-medicating" presumes there is a proper level of medication that they should be on.

I worked with someone, call them MJ. MJ would have major behavioural episodes because of stuff in his surroundings. The other staff, the supervisors, and myself, all knew that MJ was in the wrong setting. He had too much personal freedom in the house he was put in, and was constantly becoming worked up over things that could easily have been controlled in a more rule based home, which we didn't have the man-power or supplies for (technically, the home was for very high functioning people who were being pushed for independent living, MJ should never have been considered for the home). When he would have an escalation, we would give him what is called a PRN (per-required-necessity, or something) of an anti-psychotic to calm him down.

To me, that is the problem. Institutional issues prevent people from getting the proper treatment, so we medicate them to make them docile enough to deal with. Everyone in the company I worked for knew MJ and knew the situation, everyone knew if there was a more controlled environment focused on his needs he would have had a more successful time, but nobody could or would do anything, and we kept him tranquilized, until he attacked one of the staff with a butter knife (more symbolic than anything, means he is taking it to the next level). I think it was more an issue of funding and nowhere really for him to go, but it sucks. The loss of the institutions means that the higher functioning ones aren't so badly abused, but there is almost nothing to do with cases like MJ.

*MJ obviously aren't the individual's initials, privacy rights and all that.

EDIT: to sum up that last bit, MJ wasn't overmedicated in any technical sense, in fact, compared to other stories that fly around, our staff was AMAZING at dealing with him without meds. Its that the way institutions are set up, medicating this way just becomes the norm.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
biological psychology?

what do you have against ion channels and dendridic NT receptor protein chains?

I get what you are saying with the rest, and largely agree. I had a course in 3rd year about drugs and society, where we did touch on pharmaceutical drugs. I made the point that, even if ADHD meds were successful, they gave a mind set, very early on in life, that pills solved behavioural problems. Which they don't. Most people in the class reacted angrily, as though I had personally attacked them (they also had siblings on ADHD meds) and nobody really got the point that looking to medicate behaviour when it is inconvenient is a bad idea.



I think you are assuming too much competence in the mental health system. I see what you are saying, and if there were a mental health issue that worked like diabetes, and a pill like insulin, there would be no arguing.

Originally posted by inimalist
However, that isn't how it is. It would be inappropriate to try and say that any one thing is the specific problem, but the psychiatric industry is not set up to accurately diagnose problems with individuals. When talking about the higher functioning patients (like the example you quoted) a lot of the issues are that they will come into a doctors office asking for meds by name. They have already determined that they need meds to behave properly, eliminating any effect a psychiatrist might be able to have even if they were interested in more than what pills to prescribe and how the patient was abused as a child. Blah, trying to keep this on topic, so much to ***** about psychiatry for...

I've heard of doctors prescribing stupid things that do absolutely nothing (placebo, basically). They basically lie. Most people aren't smart enough to know to go to the intertubes and look up the drug they are taking and figure out what it does. This helps keep the door open...no dependence on the drug really develops. It's all pyschological and the mind is the professional's putty. smile (That's more ideal that literal, of course.)





Originally posted by inimalist
In this instance, the medication is not treating anything other than the inconvenience that person is causing to the administration staff.

Or, the flipside, the person, being medicated, can integrate with some success, back into society...with some coaching, therapy, etc.


That isn't the case for all as some are beyond hope with current techniques and medications...which I believe you are referring to.

Quincy
Originally posted by Bardock42
And so it begins...,



ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

laughing laughing laughing

Sado22
true. is it just me or has shit evolved and grown a consciousness and decided to seek out other shits so it can have little baby shits that keep multiplying? confused


i dont know.
*files it under works in mysterious ways*

that's what i said...you can't ask a theist this question because the theist would say he has faith in god and that part of faith is beleving that this god that he has faith in is just, has plans that we don't know of and is wiser than us.
faith and logic are positively infertile.
that's why you asking me this question is absurd and destined to produce intellectual still borns. we're operating at different frequencies......and to anyone who's inclined to say that the theist's frequency is retard wave, be damned to a special hell where you are forced to have sex with 80 year old hermaphordites!


hey, jesus rocks okay...if hadn't been for him you'd be damned no expression

~Sado

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
biological psychology?

what do you have against ion channels and dendridic NT receptor protein chains?

Why (or how) would I be against Dendrites? I don't think we understand each other what I meant under biologial psychiatry.

Brain damage/injury and mental illness are two completely different things (as you already know).
I don't think we should get Neurobiology nor Neurology into this.

Biological Psychology refers to medication, shock treatment, lobotomy and other brain impairing practices done by psychiatrists in name of recovery from mental illness, not brain damage. Many involuntary.

Many of them actually cause brain damage, such as electroshock.
Seriously, who uses electroshock to treat depression? It's just incomprehensible to me why people do this.
I actually have no idea if this is even legal, although I have read that certain psychiatrists use it on institutionalized patients as well as those who are not. Scary.

AngryManatee
Apparently the 911 call has been released.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Biological Psychology refers to medication, shock treatment, lobotomy and other brain impairing practices done by psychiatrists in name of recovery from mental illness, not brain damage. Many involuntary.

No, that's the just the most crazy pants definition you could possibly have managed to slap together.

In the real world biological psychology/psychiatry is the understanding of human mental processes as a biological system. Therapy is just a single aspect of biological psychology.

Also, where do people still use lobotomies?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Seriously, who uses electroshock to treat depression? It's just incomprehensible to me why people do this.

Nowadays ECT tends to be used by the moderately wealthy when nothing else has helped their depression. They do it because it consistently gets results in that area.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nowadays ECT tends to be used by the moderately wealthy when nothing else has helped their depression. They do it because it consistently gets results in that area.
I though results were marginal and mostly temporary.


I could be wrong. I did a google search and didn't get anything useful...as far as statistics go.

shiv
It'll fry your brain

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I though results were marginal and mostly temporary.


I could be wrong. I did a google search and didn't get anything useful...as far as statistics go.

Temporary, yes, some fair percentage of people apparently do relapse. But apparently it's fairly reliable, again for depression, I don't know that it has any effect on schizophrenia or bipolar.

The problem with finding statistic is that no one seems to be collecting data on ECT (as in no one even knows how many people undergo the procedure yearly), which is worrying considering how adamant both sides seem to be.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Temporary, yes, some fair percentage of people apparently do relapse. But apparently it's fairly reliable, again for depression, I don't know that it has any effect on schizophrenia or bipolar.

The problem with finding statistic is that no one seems to be collecting data on ECT (as in no one even knows how many people undergo the procedure yearly), which is worrying considering how adamant both sides seem to be.

That might be why I had trouble finding results for statistics...it's not very well measured.




Here's something I found:

http://media.wiley.com/assets/138/93/UK_Tasman_Chap92.pdf





Just a tad outdated. It does reference a study that appears to be a meta-analysis of ECT, conducted in 1988. It was a 50 year compiliation.

shiv
Originally posted by dadudemon
That might be why I had trouble finding results for statistics...it's not very well measured.



its not very effective

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, that's the just the most crazy pants definition you could possibly have managed to slap together.

In the real world biological psychology/psychiatry is the understanding of human mental processes as a biological system. Therapy is just a single aspect of biological psychology.

Also, where do people still use lobotomies?



Nowadays ECT tends to be used by the moderately wealthy when nothing else has helped their depression. They do it because it consistently gets results in that area.

Actually, definition was not put by me, but by Neurologist Fred Baughman.
And please, spare us the wikipedia treatment. Biological psychiatry is not a legitimate science, regardless of what wikipedia tells you.
And oh shock horror, not all academics and practicioners agree nor acknowledge this form of treatment. unlike biology, neurology, physics or chemistry.
Just like biological sociology. Regardless of its existence, it does not mean it is legitimate nor gives answers.

And electroshock therapy causes brain damage. This has been the longest most withstanding theory from the first uses of electrotherapy to today. This is the most occurring side effect.
http://www.ect.org/index.php

Robtard
It's obvious then, if electroshock causes brain damage and electroshock cures depression, then the only conclusion is: electroshock therapy damages the depressed parts of the brain.

There, we can move on now to the next mystery. No need to thank Robtard, it's what Robtard is here for.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
It's obvious then, if electroshock causes brain damage and electroshock cures depression, then the only conclusion is: electroshock therapy damages the depressed parts of the brain.

There, we can move on now to the next mystery. No need to thank Robtard, it's what Robtard is here for.

But the treatment isn't permanent. It fades away after a while.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
But the treatment isn't permanent. It fades away after a while.

ergo, so does the brain damage.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've heard of doctors prescribing stupid things that do absolutely nothing (placebo, basically). They basically lie. Most people aren't smart enough to know to go to the intertubes and look up the drug they are taking and figure out what it does. This helps keep the door open...no dependence on the drug really develops. It's all pyschological and the mind is the professional's putty. smile (That's more ideal that literal, of course.)

where have you heard of that? controlled clinical trials?

if that happens, congrads, you have a wicked lawsuit against your doctor.

And no, in this instance, it wouldn't help, as many mental health issues are biologically based. Placebos would really only help hypochondriacs. Even people with somatic disorders DO NOT respond to placebos.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Or, the flipside, the person, being medicated, can integrate with some success, back into society...with some coaching, therapy, etc.

That isn't the case for all as some are beyond hope with current techniques and medications...which I believe you are referring to.

ya, thats exactly it, the pills dont integrate them into society, they incapacitate them.

If there was a pill that fixed schizophrenia the way insulin treats diabetes, I don't think anyone would have a problem. The issue is that the medication regiment isn't set up with treatment in mind in the first place.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why (or how) would I be against Dendrites? I don't think we understand each other what I meant under biologial psychiatry.

Brain damage/injury and mental illness are two completely different things (as you already know).
I don't think we should get Neurobiology nor Neurology into this.

Biological Psychology refers to medication, shock treatment, lobotomy and other brain impairing practices done by psychiatrists in name of recovery from mental illness, not brain damage. Many involuntary.

Many of them actually cause brain damage, such as electroshock.
Seriously, who uses electroshock to treat depression? It's just incomprehensible to me why people do this.
I actually have no idea if this is even legal, although I have read that certain psychiatrists use it on institutionalized patients as well as those who are not. Scary.

weird, my only familiarity with the term "biological psychology" comes from the study of the biology of the brain, and has almost nothing to do with psychopharmacology or clinical neurology. The only "biological psychologists" I know do experiments on rats and other non-human animals.

Weird that it should have 2 grossly different meanings...

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
where have you heard of that? controlled clinical trials?

That's one of the ways. Another has been a relative's doctor.

Originally posted by inimalist
if that happens, congrads, you have a wicked lawsuit against your doctor.

How so? If the drug doesn't do anything...what grounds can a lawsuit be held to, especially if the patient has shown improvement? Seems frivalous and likely to be thrown out if a doctor knows not to agitate a patient.

Originally posted by inimalist
And no, in this instance, it wouldn't help, as many mental health issues are biologically based. Placebos would really only help hypochondriacs. Even people with somatic disorders DO NOT respond to placebos.

But this misses the that "real" long term help doesn't come from a pill.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's one of the ways. Another has been a relative's doctor.

How so? If the drug doesn't do anything...what grounds can a lawsuit be held to, especially if the patient has shown improvement? Seems frivalous and likely to be thrown out if a doctor knows not to agitate a patient.

your doctor is not allowed to lie to you or put you on a medication regiment without your informed consent.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But this misses the that "real" long term help doesn't come from a pill.

I don't think I've missed that at all. My point is that pills are used in place of real treatments.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
your doctor is not allowed to lie to you or put you on a medication regiment without your informed consent.

Cool. But it happens...



Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think I've missed that at all. My point is that pills are used in place of real treatments.

Cool. And I agree.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
weird, my only familiarity with the term "biological psychology" comes from the study of the biology of the brain, and has almost nothing to do with psychopharmacology or clinical neurology. The only "biological psychologists" I know do experiments on rats and other non-human animals.

Weird that it should have 2 grossly different meanings...

Think of it this way.

To most people physics is the study of how matter and energy move through space and time. To LilB physics would be the creation of nuclear weapons.

Rather than two definitions we have one actual meaningful definition and one that ignores the entire field in order to give it a specific spin.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool. But it happens...

not to me stick out tongue

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Think of it this way.

To most people physics is the study of how matter and energy move through space and time. To LilB physics would be the creation of nuclear weapons.

Rather than two definitions we have one actual meaningful definition and one that ignores the entire field in order to give it a specific spin.

lol, fair enough. People come into different terms in different ways, and as long as we know what eachother are talking about, its good.

Though, ya, I'd call what she calls "biological psychology" as some form of clinical or pharmacological psych. I guess brain surgery comes strictly from neurology...

Nemesis X
WTH? A baby was posessed by the devil and so the mother killed it? Biggest crock of bull**** I've ever heard in my life. See what happens when you're into religion way too much? This is freaking messed up.

Wei Phoenix
Originally posted by Nemesis X
WTH? A baby was posessed by the devil and so the mother killed it? Biggest crock of bull**** I've ever heard in my life. See what happens when you're into religion way too much? This is freaking messed up.

I don't think she was way into religion because the Christian God would never tell you to eat a baby especially if it was possessed by a demon.

In regards to her punishment...FRY THIS BEEYOTCH!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Nemesis X
WTH? A baby was posessed by the devil and so the mother killed it? Biggest crock of bull**** I've ever heard in my life. See what happens when you're into religion way too much? This is freaking messed up.

Yeah because obviously the problem is religion and not people that eat babies roll eyes (sarcastic)

shiv
Originally posted by inimalist
not to me stick out tongue



lol, fair enough. People come into different terms in different ways, and as long as we know what eachother are talking about, its good.

Though, ya, I'd call what she calls "biological psychology" as some form of clinical or pharmacological psych. I guess brain surgery comes strictly from neurology...

We're the product of different education frameworks. different words texts and syllabi to present the same data.

No one can win this debate.

Some countries use LHD.
Others use RHD.

dadudemon
Originally posted by shiv
We're the product of different education frameworks. different words texts and syllabi to present the same data.

No one can win this debate.

Some countries use LHD.
Others use RHD.


WHAT?


What the hell is LHD? Large Hadron Collider?

And, in context, I can assume RHD is a research doctorates...right?

Symmetric Chaos
Left hand drive vs right hand drive.

Then again science is usually supposed to be standardized better than that.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Left hand drive vs right hand drive.

Then again science is usually supposed to be standardized better than that.

SHIT!


I fail again to figure out something someone posted on the internet.



How did you know that that's what he was referring to?

Symmetric Chaos
I googled "rhd vs lhd" on the assumption that there was some level of competition between them.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
I don't think she was way into religion because the Christian God would never tell you to eat a baby especially if it was possessed by a demon.

In regards to her punishment...FRY THIS BEEYOTCH!

SHE ATE IT?!!!! WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE THESE DAYS?!!!!!!!!!! I am not coming in this thread again.

SportsGalTX
This is sickening and it happened near where I live.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
I don't think she was way into religion because the Christian God would never tell you to eat a baby especially if it was possessed by a demon.

Well maybe not EATING..... but why not though.........?

*cough*Abraham*cough*.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well maybe not EATING..... but why not though.........?

*cough*Abraham*cough*.

Yeesh, you tell one man he has to murder his kid and people act like you're some kind of wierdo. Can no one take a joke?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.