Investigators stunned by child dismemberment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=12103496]Originally posted by inimalist
[B]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. 🙂 (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.

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

ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

😆 😆 😆

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...?

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!

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.

~Sado

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.

Apparently the 911 call has been released.

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.

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

It'll fry your brain

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.

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.

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

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

It's obvious then, if electroshock causes brain damage and electroshock cures depression, then the only conclusion is: electroshock therapy [only] 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.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's obvious then, if electroshock causes brain damage and electroshock cures depression, then the only conclusion is: electroshock therapy [only] 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.

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

ergo, so does the brain damage.