Wednesday, 30 November 2011

What is munchaseuns and differential diagnosis

I've been recalling something I read on the wiki page. It said it was a type of factious disorder.

I didn't think this is true. I think munchaseuns is uncontrollable and while the symptoms might not be true or exaggerated or self inflicted there is a psychopathology behind it.

I'm not sure though. I'm trying to remember the debatre about munchausens syndrome. The case study I read proves it exists but there's a debate in the consensus of mental health as to its veracity.

Its sort of like it is an illness about people making up illnesses but it is illness by them doing that.

Sent from my smartphone

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

An apple a day keeps the doctor away...

...if you throw it in the right direction.

I want this to be a campaign for antipsychiatry. And humour.

Keep the doctors away. Empower individuals to better mental health. Like, for example and e.g., humour.

Laughter is the best medicine.

Sent from my smartphone

My shadow

At university I was a fun loving guy. I also got to meet some serious criminals when I dropped out.

I worked in a call centre and a good friend of mine ..well...he knew a lot of criminals. He was rumoured to have killed someone but that didn't really worry me. He was good to chat to and we smoked hash together.

I'm not squeeky clean. I'm probably thought of as one of the bad guys in circles I mix in. I've had friends whose reputation would scare the shit out of most people. I remember going down to a local pub with a friend of mine to get some herb and have a few beers. He said it was the scariest experience of his life. I guess the people look scary to him but they didn't to me.

University life was very different. I went to a posh university. I also hung out on the darker side of the local area. I met a lot of criminals. I mean drug dealers and stuff. Mainly. My only crime was drugs and enjoying them and sometimes selling a little. I was never a big seller. I would usually give it away. Sometimes I would sell because I needed money on top of all the other money I would make taking photos and working.

I met people like the guy who was rumoured to have killed someone, perhaps for money. One day I asked his advice about whatt to do about someone I knew.

The person in question had stolen money - hundreds of pounds - and items from people. He was a friend of a friend. He owed a close friend of mine some coke so I sorted him out with a contact in return for him fulfilling this deal. This was a step in the spiral for him.

He start selling but he also kept stealing. In the end it came to my house. A friend of his was going out with my housemate so he came round and things disappeared.

I didn't know what to do so I asked my friends advice. He said he'd have someone break his legs. I thought that was a bit harsh. He said he'd have someone steal everything from his rented room. This includes the sink and carpets.

I would never have asked him to do either but when I confronted the problem I explained I would have his legs broken unless he stop stealing.

I am no better than that guy and I had no right to make a judgement. What I did - the process I went through - isolated him from his friends. I was right on the evidence but I was young and stupid about the solutions.

This is my shadow. The part of me which allows me to walk with safety in places others would fear. It is the product of my dark side. The part of me I try to tame.

I have drunk with people who have killed. The person I asked advice from at university never told me about the rumour and I never asked. 3 soldiers I've drunk with and puffed with and have told me about the deaths they caused. They, at least, were legally sanctioned but they're still murderers. One wasn't cold blooded. He was homeless because of the kills he'd made. The guilt wracked him. Another's first kill was defending a comrade who was shot. This was a moment of passion too.

The third person though....we spoke about the first sniper I had met, the homeless one I've already mentioned. I spoke of the sniper's guilt. He was a sniper too and laughed. He was surprised any sniper would feel like that. The training means killing is as easy as playing a computer game. A person's head becomes dehumanised. It becomes just a target.

This person had been looked after by children's social services. Somehow he was recruited into the army and trained as a sniper. He was loyal to the army. He was a trained killer. Cold blooded too.

We smoked Afgan hash and drank beer while chatting outside in a pub near the head quarters of a UK mental health charity. We'd never met before then.

My shadow allows me some unusual experiences in life like learning a little bit about murders and how to be a fucking scary student.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? Suicide

Some people want to die. Some try to take their life. Suicide is one of the most complicated facets of the human condition.

Suicide used to be a crime in the UK then it became something which the psychiatric system dealt with. Suicide in Japan used to be a punishment. People would be forced to kill themselves by the state.

There is a historical divide in attitudes to suicide. The Eastern cultures are somewhat ambivalent. In India widows would throw themselves onto the funeral pyre where there recently deceased husband was being cremated. In cultures of the Semetic tradition, I.e. Islam, Judaism and Christianity suicide was alsways taboo.

Psychiatry is a construct of those cultures. As the dogma of psychiatry is spreading to the East perhaps their attitudes to suicide will change.

There is an extraordinary statistic which is rarely quoted. 90% of suicides are because of mental illness. I think it is Edwin Schniedman who calculated it but I'm not sure.

10% of people kill themselves but are not mentally ill. I question which definition of mental illness is being used. I assume it is the biomedical one but the test wouldn't be biological.

Studies do show brain differences. Differences are found in serotonin receptors according to The Neurobiology of Suicide by...james man I think.

Suicide can be triggered by life events. It can be a temporary reaction - or over reaction - which some people experience.

Suicide can be a symptom of depression or other diagnoses. It is common in schizophrenia. Schziophurenics account for 20% of the UK annual completed suicides.

It can be something someone thinks about but never acts upon. It can be something someone experiences once and never again. It can also haunt a person for their entire life until they finally complete the act.

If at all possible, everyone but the suicidal person wants them to live. This can make what is often a very lonely process even more lonely. There is a strong association between isolation and suicide but I don't know what is cause and what is effect.

The system which stops people killing themselves is the psychiatric and mental healthcare system. They are empowered to do so by the people and the experiences and voices of those who've survived and recovered.

So far I've written nothing on suicide. Not the tip of the iceberg.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? The application of science

I think I like many people consider psychiatry a pseudoscience however I differ from szasz and bentall as to why it is a pseudoscience.

It isn't because of the flaws except for the fundamental one. Psychiatry applies science to human types but makes a judgement of pathologisation before it does so.

The methods of science are used to apply the biomedical paradigm but the process starts with a perjoratisation. It usually only looks at negative aspects too, and the negative valuation is subjective. Science isn't subjective except when it is a poor science, or a pseudoscience.

I don't know if I'm capable of communicating the point well. Let me try by talking about language.

I often use the term "the human condition" to describe what mental health and illness cover. The reason is I'm trying to remove all subjective valuations. I want the term for mental health to mean the same thing as colour. Colours like red or blue or black or purple or whatever are not judged positive or negative. They're just colours and all are useful when painting a picture.

This is true of many things. this is what science demands as much as anything else. True objectivity. So many of the methods - for example placebo controlled experiments - are all about seeking objective truths, truths which last the generations.

Psychiatric science doesn't last and neither do some of the diagnoses. Concepts fundamentally change and this evolution is uncontrolled. It is a drunkard's stumble through a maze rather than the more focused path of true scientific endeavour. The temporary subjective influences of every generation colour the science.

Scientific methods have never had a greater challenge than understanding the human condition. Reading psychiatric literature is enough to see there's so much more to be known.

There is value to difficult life experiences and there is value to unwanted or outcast people. Too much psychiatric science seeks to understand the individual rather than the circumstances. The science sees the effect of what it pathologises and sees the individual as the cause of the effect.

Let me explain this badly and be unscientific. It is 50-50. Individuals are the cause of their life circumstance, their behaviour and actions and choices and lifestyle and being and....everything within the human condition. Everything pathologised by the one word mental illness or psychiatry and everything valued by the small and not termed or thought of in this way...psychosanology which is the study of wellness of people and types and the mind - the antithesis of what psychiatry represents in part. It is the new antipsychiatry. They call it well being...this isn't the word for it...it is positive mental health, the thing which psychiatry and psychology have historically failed to achieve success in bettering or understanding.

This is is stuff which science applied well could begin to unravel and chisel away to find the objective truth. This pursuit is why scientific methods are used and valued. Artistic or creative methods have other purposes. Religion broke as the dominant dogma of truth because science offers practical working solutions and answers.

The pure methods of science can find the objective truth but when the tools of comprehension and understanding and application aren't there then...its fucking bullshit.

Bad experiences can be good or useful for development. Good experiences can lead to bad outcomes in later life....or be associated with it at least because true causality is a damn hard thing to nail down properly.

There are things which are intuitive to me and things I've seen and experience which might or might not be true. They are subjective experiences to everyone else but I experience them as true because I feel and sense and experience them as real.

Be it life change, be it a person's journey, be it the things which are called madness. Be it whatever aspect of the human condition gets evaluated by science or labelled by someone as good or bad or ill or not...science would be objective about it.

Put it this way. The very first step any scientist has to make is to learn to be autistic....that is...any good scientist. Obessive compulsive might help but first of all a good scientist trying to understand humans must eschew the standard human judgements, the bias of the status quo of cultural or consensus thinking, and see with a clarity unique in humans: objectivity about people.

Scratch that last sentence. I don't know enough about autism. The point of this last paragraph was to try to see positive qualities - positive in the sense of value and utility rather than value out of compassionate reasons - brought about by objective thinking about stigmatised concepts by seeing positive in something which is negative.

The part I am missing in my communication of this is the seeing value through objectivity thing isn't correctly expressed. Objectivity is a state of lack of judgement.

Fuck it. I've had enough this evening. I feel like thinking about something else while I drink myself into a stupor this evening in the park.

Long johns are an amazing invention. I have two on. Several other layers. I also have a smartphone with a proper hardware qwerty keyboard. And internet access.

This blog is my notepad. All of this month I've been writing for nano wrimo, drunk. A lot of it has been in the park.

Sent from my smartphone

Sunday, 27 November 2011

Oh the fuckedness

This is a small, tiny, little fraction of what goes on in my internal reality. When I was at NIce recently is was an assesment. A psychiatric one.

This isn't true. Internally I was seeing signs this might be, ie I saw that a person might be displaying something which I saw as a psychiatrist asessing or a person who knew more about me than they could know without ...unusual systems or unusual chance. Or my misperception.

Ah. Fuck this shit.

Sent from my smartphone

What if I am mad?

This is something which springs off something about definitions of mental health and madness. It just something I've been think about as a concept then I had a thought.

It wasn't what if I am mad. It is revealing though. Thoughts can be.

There is a clear divide between my internal and external state. It isn't a perfect delineation. Regardless of the finesse I know there is a difference between my internal and external, what I feel like and what I chose to project.

For some this is normal, for some this is weird and for some this sounds like a symptom of madness...if they only knew what they saw.

I admit I often critise myself and demand perfection as my standard. Many peope do. I also dismiss positive evidence. Other people do too.

But I have a different externalisation to my personality...or perhaps I have to because part of my experience of me is that I'm wonderful and smart and talented. I dismiss any of the latter...and this has worsened with time for reasons. I rarely take positive in my self or my being.

But...and here's an even bigger but than starting 2 paragraphs with the word but...I try to present myself as different to how I feel inside.

A simple example. I fear being truly arrogant. I have failed in this way in the past and in a big way. I'm constantly fearing the consequences of a period of arrogance or two. My internal unconscious systems have developed or perhaps overdeveloped to keep my ego in check.

At the same time I've sort of accepted that perceptions are important. It is why I present something different to who I am.

What might not make sense is I am comfortable being percieved as arrogant...or at least I will joke about it.

I don't understand it and I don't know how it is percieved by people. I know I dumb myself down at times but there are times I also have to pretend to be smart.

I would like to have the belief that I'm smart because I understand how little I know and even more I don't know I know but...fuck...to me that sounds like bullshit.

How I come across may be confusing to a lot of people. Some may find it normal but many ay percieve it as odd.

I don't know why people might find it odd just as I don't really know why an individual might do it.

What I do understand is that labels...well...they're funny things.

There is an aspect of intelligence called crystalising. The original Westernised theory of intelligence is based on 3 types. IQ we all know. Then there's reasoning or...ration or stuff...sorry...doing this from memory in a park in north london on a cold november evening.

Anyway, the third type is crystalising. Again it is a word and a concept I am not good at explaining or understanding because I haven't had time to read absolutely everything.

Fuck. I've gone off on a ramble. Crystalising intelligence and labels don't work as what I was trying to explain.

People need to label things to function better in this world. Crystalising intelligence and this model of intelligence relate to labelling because crystalising is about concepts.

Concepts exist in our minds. To communicate we have to use words. When they're not precise - they don't mean what we want or think them to mean - the individuals have problems. When they're not precise then everyone has a problem. We can't communicate the concepts because my concept means something different to yours.

It isn't about differences of opinion. Precise labelling is necessary to communicate concepts precisely. It is a result and a facet of this quality of crystalising intelligence.

Fuck...what was I talking about?

Sent from my smartphone

Can I be fucked to write another word

Not really. There's so much more though.

Concepts are so important. While I've not been writing I've been thinking. The paradigm of illness is well applied to human behaviour. It is easy enough to say there is evidence to support the idea that mental illness is a real illness. What I have done is say there's evidence to say it isn't an illness.

Or it could be called a psychosocial illness rather than a biomedical one. Or even a biopsychosocial illness.

The change in the word would unite all the stuff...just like the word mental health does.

The thing is...if it isn't biomedical then it isn't an illness. It is something else.

This is basically the reduction of what I'm trying to say into a few words.

The understanding of the human condition, our variances and 'abnormalities' has advanced significantly over the last couple of hundred years. It started off in psychiatry but it need not have been medicalised.

Before psychiatry there were simply asylums. Before asylums there was the prognosis, the exclusion and the stigma. The mad became under the purview of doctors later on and this is all what the biomedical thing is about.

It is an illness because doctors treat it and because of the biomedical model. The model empowers doctors to manage and treat and do whatever to the mentally ill. This is because they're treating a real illness which causes the socially or culturally undesirable 'symptoms'.

Whatever mental health is or isn't it is ruled over by the medical profession. The decision makers and law makers - almost exclusively until very recently - believe it is an illness.

With all the compassion of mental illness and treatment there is also forced treatment. Forced lesbian treatment clinics still exist in South America and they're an easy example of what is currently unacceptable in the West but is still done to other mentally ill people here, mentally ill people who haven't been demedicalised yet.

It is worth remembering that the UK has one of the highest overdiagnosis rates of black people with schizophrenia. They are overdiagnosed 9 times compared to their white counterparts but this effect isn't seen in the West Indies.

What can be done to lesbians in ecuador and schizophrenics in the UK is all possible because it's a true mental illness, it is biologically caused and unwanted and will do worse in life. This is what the biomedical model brought: forced treatment because human types were judged to be the result of biological illness.

The whole system and way of thinking changes if the model deviates from the biomedical model. It is important to remember psychiatric patients lose their liverty and this is the worst punishmment handed out in the UK and other countries. The way this punishment is allowed is through a very well funded system which demands guilt must be proven and innocence presumed. This is the right of anyone but a severly mentally ill person and this right is denied because of the biomedical model.

No other model has the foundations to automatically use this power, not if the power is used justly. The power of forced treatment is being used on lesbians in other countries. Lesbians there are mentally ill and a century of psychiatric science would have evidence to support the medicalisation of homosexuality.

Other paradigms have different tenets which become used to achieve the same objective but they do not deserve the same way of thinking. It is in this respect where this question I've been thinking about has such relevance.

When you string together a concept or new idea there's stuff it is based upon. In science lessons we called in first principles. In other fields these may be called tenets. These are the basic roots or ingredients from which so m.uch of the later stuff is made from when it comes to the thought processes and explanations.

Those must be correct otherwise the rest is a house of cards.

More importantly in mental health, what's made possible by those tenets or first principles of the biomkedical model represent some of the greatest ills in modern times a by advanced nations upon their own people.

Worse things usually happen to prisoners of war than psychiatric patients. The thing is we all know that bad things happen to prisoners of war. We expect doctors to do good things.

Doctors in their own minds do good things. The people also see it that way. It is an assumption that healers are good people. Doctors save lives and help people too. It is why their profession is so well respected.

This brings privileges though. Doctors are readier to admit their mistakes (in the UK) because they're sued and prosecuted a lot less than in the US where private healthcare is the way most people get their healthcare. When they admitted to killing 1,800 old people every year they got away with it without a slap on the wrist.

I wrote to the Department of Health recently via my local minister. She's good at taking my views forward. They wrote back telling me that I shouldn't worry. The government were reducing the number of deaths to just 600 a year.

The figure I quoted was from a report by the Royal College of Psychiatry. The deaths were caused by the use of a drug on the elderly with dementia. The drug doesn't treat the illness. What it does is it makes people easier to manage.

Carers and care home worker assumed a pill given by a doctor is a good thing. The pill didn't treat the illness. What it did is suppress unwanted behaviour.

In a sense this drug is a bit like a pain killer but instead of reducing an individual's pain the drug reduced the pain of others.

it also killed the patient but that doesn't matter. Doctors were treating a biopsychosocial illness...

The paradigm of illness means the elderly can be killed - when the state knows they're being killed unnecessarily - when the treatment doesn't cure the biological component of the illness. It just uses biological methods to suppress unwanted or undesire behaviour or other traits in the individual - symptoms - at the cost of a 50% reduction in the life expectancy.

What is the cost of not defining mental illness?

Sent from my smartphone

Thursday, 24 November 2011

What is mental health? Ditto.

So what is it. This is why I like the idea of a two way book.

Write, please.

Sent from my smartphone

Finding things funny which ain't

Someone really affected me whe she said I was just a drunk.

Yes. I am. But it hurt to hear her denigrate my being, my self, when she used derogatory meanings to my label.

I should be stronger. I should man up. Her words bore deep into me.

This isn't funny. What is is my response to a human rights activist who was doing a response to the united nations.

Poor tina. I had sent her some evidence and research. She asked for permission to quote me and use my name.

In a moment of intense pain I got her email and read it. I was drunk and what was conscious, underlying, came forth. I told her to quote me as just a drunk.

It is funny to me. Just quote me as a drunk. She didn't and in my first email I gave her a choice not to, and to use my name as she'd asked. Thankfully she did.

The world is not ready for someone to sign themselves as just a drunk. But it is so embarassing and funny at the same time to even dare.

Sent from my smartphone

Am I crazy?

As to see ideas and possibilities as opportunities?

Fuck. It ires me. Am I mad or is it psychiatry. What the fuck is being treated? Why aren't there real treatments?

I need a spliff. This shit stinks.

Our human race is beautiful but not so in our homogeniousnessness. Our conformity and similarity are useful but...a rainbow is many colours and that's why it is beautiful.

I...I grow weary. I am fighting for a painter to see all colours as useful. As valuable. As meaningful and with purpose to a scene.

This metaphor isn't true though. I would never have to have this conversation with a painter.

Fuck.

Sent from my smartphone

My mad idea for schizophrenia

This is some crazy shit.

First of all it takes the mental illness idea. I don't believe schizophrenia should be suppressed but I don't understand enough to make this point.

Schizophrenia is the longstanding prototype of mental illness. Medical perceptions of the diagnosis are strongly tied in with the medicalisation of the human condition itself.

Schizophrenia is caused by differences in the brain. I disagree but this is what the medical profession thinks - at least most doctors do. Some psychiatrists may be more advanced than the rest of their profession.

The brain illness is responsible for the abherrant behaviour and cognitive dysfunction. This 'truth' has been the pursuit of psychiatric science since its creation. Schizophrenia is ostentsive. It fits the prototype of mental illness as it was originally defined.

And, course course, there's the prognosis. Bental challenges the validity and reliability of the science. He doesn't go far enough into how it totally breaks down in clinical practice. Regardless of these salient points, the diagnosis predicts a worse life course better than any other system which attempts to fortell a person's future. Bentall made reference to the science of psychiatry in the same breath as astology in these respects in his book Madness Explained but respect must be given to psychiatry for doing future prediction it so well.

What's perhaps worst is the science and treatment have such little benefit to these poorer outcomes. People with schizophrenia are still being disadvantaged, dying and all sorts of other bad stuff.

I have my own personal thoughts on the solutions to the problem but they're even madder than this one.

It takes a look back into medical history to see that mainstream thinking isn't always the truth. Stroke patients a scant century ago were written off. Their brain had malfunctioned and all doctors could do was to let them die comfortably. A stroke is definitely something which changes the brain and quickly.

One day an old man had a stroke and international best medical practice was applied. He was sent home to die. His two sons were academics and had their own theories. They put them to the test to save their father.

Their father was forced out of bed. He was forced to relearn how to walk. He was fed on all fours from a dog bowl which he was forced to crawl to.

This insanely degrading treatment helped him recover a high level of function. He went back to mountain climbing as a hobby having been given a prognosis of being left to die at home.

There was no real treatment at the time for strokes but this experiment showed what was possible. The patient died of a heart attack and when he was autopsied they found the stroke had destroyed a large part of the biological neural connection between his brain and body. His rehabilitation overcame this brain deficit.

The principle which was proved is neuroplasticity. The mind can overcome biological damage to the brain. Today this idea is the fundamental of modern stroke rehabiliation services and they do it with more human dignity than those two carers who expermiented on their father.

Rehabilitation in stroke overcomes a classically defined brain illness.

I've had half a bottle of wine already and smoked a bit too. Am I so crazy that I can see a potential new direction for schizophrenia treatment?

Perhaps neuroplasticity means schizophrenics could be rehabilitated rather than drugged to death by modern treatments?

I'm not the only crazy one. There is already promising new research into this area. I found it after I searched online for schizophrenia and neuroplasticity. One site is using computer games. People have already bought into the idea of brain training if they own a modern Nintendo portable. It was advertised using a campaign which focused on its value for brain training. This is all I'm talking about. Brain training.

My idea is slightly more crazy. It is in part based on my non medical understanding of schizophrenia. There are other things relating to the prognosis of mental illness and the disability.

The first is wealth or lack of it. Poverty is bad in lots of ways. The majority of people with schizophrenia in the UK are on medical benefits. It's about 95%. It is one of the highest rates of people not in employment or education who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Work brings them out of poverty or education gives a person purpose and a pathway to work. This is obvious. Poverty affects happiness and life expectancy. Work gets a person out of poverty at least.

Schizophrenics can't get suitable work. For one, they're crazy. There is still stigma and discrimnation. But they also have no work experience because treatment used to be medical benefits and housing and a few psychosocial treatments for the lucky ones. It is. Getting better but lots of people are still unemployed. The unemployment reinforces the worse occupational outcomes.

There are many challenges but there's also a crazy opportunity. Neuroplasticity. Schizophrenia treatment and failings, especially on the disability aspect. Poverty and its effects.

I would say...go on...finish this off yourself...but no one gets the reference.

Employment could be a treatment. Organisations which do stuff for money or for the greater good could employ schizophrenics in certain roles or with just some daily task which work on neuroplasticity to reduce their pathology.

Work which involves memory recall. Work which involves dealing with people. Whatever. Think about the pathology and think about the possibility. How is it possible to allow a human being to do what were most amazing at: adapting?

With the right brain training it may be possible to truly change the pathology of schizophrenia just like rehabilitation services did for stroke patients.

Rather than computer games though couldn't treatment be done differently. In our jobs we're constantly being brain trained. If we were a bit smarter about things we could treat some of the pathology of severe mental illness by offering roles which were hybrid jobs in their purpose.

They do a function required by an organisation and the individual is suitably reward irrespective of their disability. Part of their work is certain task which are aimed at treating them but also form part of their job.
This takes a high level of sophistication in job creation within the framework of a modern organisation. Managers don't break roles down into the type of activity which would allow the principle of neuroplasticity to allow a schizophrenic to be made normal.

So it is crazy. There are the barriers of reality. Current recruitment practices don't split roles up in this way either. They seek to find the best and those who fit in. Few organisations truly exist to do more than deliver to their bottom line in a Machevillian way.

Organisations are swayed by legal duties and charity campaigns. They can also be incentivised by financial rewards to do more than achieve their bottom line. Many organisations still have ideals too, ideals which would mean they might be willing to look at employment as healthcare.

The most idealistic organisations in this respect are the healthcare organisations and charities. The Third Sector.

Would they be crazy enough to innovate a new direction of mental healthcare treatment? One which requires totally mad thinking on their part.

Work could be a way to treat the pathology. Work could also be a way to significantly affect the poorer life outcomes of schizophrenics in the uK and this could lead to other improvements in other measures.

Alternatively there's the status quo and those who aren't crazy enough to even attempt innovating. They're responsbile. 20% of the completed suicide rate is by schizophrenics. They die 20 years earlier. 95% are out of work or not in education.

The status quo is a life on harmful and unpleasant drugs. The drugs don't treat the core pathology, just the externalisation. Few other treatments are offered.

Today the schizophrenic is written off. I heard of that happen to a stroke patient once. The medical profession failed them when it took that attitude.

Thank fuck for the invention of applied neuroplasticity right?

Sent from my smartphone

The legalisation of drugs and cars

Sometimes it is useful to have ways of communicating something. Bringing a new concept in line with something existing is one way to do it. I'm just never sure if I do it well.

So anyway, drugs are illegal. The good ones anyway. Why? I'll answer a deeply complicated question with a facile answer: they're percieved as dangerous by senior decision makers.

The only recreational drug which is legal is alcohol. This sits in between the rational arguments because it is legal and it has all the properties of the other drugs. In fact it is more dangerous in the long term than heroin are more physically addictive than cannabis. It wrecks lives and should have all the stigma of other drugs attached but it is legal and gives a lot of people a lot of pleasure.

The illegal drugs are also a lot of fun which is why people do them. Actually that's an oversimplification. People do them for many reasons but a commonality is they enjoy the experience of being high.

They're dangerous things and they're not regulated. The industry is estimated to be worth 5 billion pounds a year. Demand is signficant no matter what measures are taken and supply is hard to stop. Millions of people every weekend take drugs safely and as part of their lifestyle.

They are dangerous but then so are cars in the hands of inexperienced people. A young adult has to get a license to use a car, just like they have to get one to own a shotgun. In untrained hands a car is dangerous and can kill quicker than a spliff.

People might argue that we need cars so they have to be legal. We don't need cars. Many people never drive a car in their life just as many people never try any drugs. It is possible to rely on public transport and two legs for most things. We don't need personal transportation. It is a convenience.

Drugs are a convenience too. They enable amazing experiences not possible without them, or not without a lot of effort. From cannabis through to lsd and ecstacy to heroin and crack cocaine. Users use them because they create wonderful experiences, experiences which any addict will admit is one of the reasons they got into them.

Addiction is the problem. They're sooo good. Cannabis for example. It's not addictive in the true sense. There's no established biological addiction. It is very addictive in psychological terms, terms which used not to be held up as true addictions. It is a great drug.

In a sense it's like cars and speeding. Speeding is bad and can cause harm, far worse harms than drugs, but speed is okay. There is a framework which says going too fast is too risky for most people. A formula one driver is capable of driving at speeds higher than the speed limit but on public roads they're bound by this limit just as anyone else. This is all done to protect lives.

These systems of protection, license and regulation which we see for the car industry is only seen in the psychiatric pharmaceuticals industry in the wide market of drugs which people can buy.

If I want to get crack and know how to get it I can. It may be strange to say it but it is the most addictive drug I've ever tried and I've only tried it once...though I wouldn't mind doing it again. It is an amazing and unique experience. There is no regulation and suppliers are incentivised to get their customers hooked. This is one of the most addictive substances know to humankind and it is not regulated.

Regulation means safety. It means pure drugs not cut with other things or at unknown strengths. People die from drugs for many reasons and this is one of the factors. Users don't get pure drugs. They can be cut with harmful substances. Sometimes batches can be stronger than usual or a totally different drug with a different dose profile. Legalisation would keep people safe.

The modern world allows monitoring beyond what was possible years ago. Speed cameras for drugs aren't difficult when drug purchasing can be monitored. Of course a grey market exists but it's better than a black market. It is one step towards. A safer system which monitors for 'speeding' - excessive short term consumption or addictiong - where the speed cameras are sited.

There is also the benefit of taxation. Speed cameras bring in a lot of revenue as do the road and car taxes. A licensced system pays for itself and a license revokation system allows for people who can't handle drugs to be identified and retrained.

People make mistakes and people learn from them. This is why there are few lifetime bans of drivers who speed unless they kill. Most get temporary bans. They go back to driving eventually.

Yes, implicitly I don't see abstention as a solution. Addicts love their drug and treatement currently means they lose that love, be it sex or crack cocaine. An addiction can be the same as an all consuming love of a woman for some people.

Treatment should bring that love under control but not by never enjoying the high. The future of drugs is not only legalisation and acceptance. It is understanding that addiction treatment shouldn't stop the user using. It should teach them the control our society requires of all of us who love something.

Sent from my smartphone

How the buzz of altruism quickly fades

I buy a lot of stuff on ebay. No matter how small most purchases I make also have a pound donated to whatever cause pops up.

I don't feel good about it. It's just routine.

I am good with my money if I'm spending on ebay. I don't get the same pleasure of a shop purchase or something new. Second hand stuff is new to me of course. I don't get what I want a lot of the time. Most of my purchases serve a function.

I would shop in charities shops if I had the chance but they're poorly stocked in suitable mens clothing or the other things like electronics. I don't sell on ebay and give my stuff away to charity shops or people. I've given away lenses, slr cameras, filters, flashes and all sorts of stuff rather than sell on ebay.

None of this ethical living and buying makes me feel good. At some point it must have done. At some point I must have changed my buying habits not just because of becoming much poorer but also because it made me feel better to be a more ethical shopper.

It was the same with being vegetarian for a while. For a little bit it was hard but also made me feel more conscionable. Then I got used to it and it didn't feel good or bad.

This is a property of the human mind. It gets used to things. An established psychological effect called the hedonic treadmill shows how changes in life and life events cause a short lived change but the person quickly returns to their natural state or cycle.

An essential part of our reality process is the dismissal of regular information. For example, if you're sitting down you'll probably not be thinking about the feeling of the chair against your bum. Now I've mentioned it your consciousness might unlock the awareness of the physical contact but without the focus of the mind's eye we forget. This is necessary to consciousness because it is part of the streamlining of all the sensory and cognitive data to allow real time consciousness to work.

Perhaps this basic effect becomes part of our higher functions, an emotions and states of well being. Our feelings and our thoughts.

Perhaps we get used to stuff which is regular because without it we'd be going "wow! Sliced bread!" all the time or something. We'd be looking at everything with fresh eyes. All that we did, all that we feel and experience.

I have no idea if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Sent from my smartphone

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

What is mental illness - an aside on sexuality

A few years ago I was manic and tried to do nano Wrimo in a week. That's 50,000 words in a week. I failed. Obviously. I got to 20,000-25,000.

I never read it. It was called 8 Ways and it was named after a girl. I cut and pasted about 10,000 words from other stuff I've written. After 5 days I gave up. 35k words in total.

Anyway, this period was a flight of idea. The ultimate brainstorm. I was writing a few thousand words a day and my brain was on fire.

I'm an openminded person. I think in abstract thoughts and explore objective things with a subjective lens. I'm also crazy and I think crazy things. Some of them, though perhaps shameful, are interesting.

One is autosexuality. This is not a normal word. It means someone who masturbates. It is a specifically descriptive thing of action in sexuality. It does not ask what a person is thinking about or seeing. Just that they pleasure themselves more often than they're enjoy pleasure with someone else.

I'm talking about wanking more than shagging. Bear with me please. I find coarse language so much more eloquent when I'm drunk. Perhaps sober too but I repress it.

Wanking is what a lot of people do. Excess masturbation used to be a mental illness in itself but as times changed they, like gays and lesbians, became depathologised.

Wankers didn't become destigmatised though. Though some of those in the homosexuality movement may also have been wankers their primary battleground was on gender preference that than sexual practice.

There is so little discussion of wankers except, perhaps, in the derogatory sense. Like other old mental illnesses there is a plethora of dialogue which challenges the stigma and prejudice.

They're never there for the wankers though. There is no movement which stands for the identity of wankers. Feminists got their identity through firebrands like Jermaine Greer. I have no idea if she's a wanker or not. She's a staunch femnist writer and she might enjoy a good wank. She's been called a wanker I'm sure but that was in the prejudicial sense.

The gay rights movement have stopped this sort of practice, though it still goes on. Mental health campaigns have stopped this sort of practice, though it still goes on.

No one stands up for the wanker and says "we have a right too!"

So I have sex with myself?

So what if I'm am...or used to be...called mentally ill.

I have a right to be who I am. I have an right to identity and a right for that identity to be expressed without calling me a wanker...unless they mean it ina good way.

I can't even be proud to be a wanker. It is embarassing and shameful. I dare never reveal that I'm I wanker to other people...but I think they know I'm a bit of a wanker...

Sent from my smartphone

Different ways of working

At the moment I'm thinking about something else other than mental health. I've just done a typing spree and I'm thinking of something else to take a quick break.

It's a person I want to email with something I think is funny.

I ...and then a word... you so much I wish I was gay.

The problem is there's a part of that statement I find funny. The bit I'm labouring over is the ...and then a word... bit.

I don't know what the word is I can use. Love. Like. Am smitten by. Am infatuated by. Am possessed and consumed. Am a passionate person who, when he feels for someone, feels with an intensity few others have to deal with or repress.

This person I fell in love with. She was a friend and that was all I would have wanted or asked for. I felt lucky to have her in my life. I couldn't wish for any more and, for untold reasons, would not.

To me it feels like she wants nothing to do with me. It isn't her fault for that. I've not been helping. I think part of the problem is I am still truthful about my feelings for her.

I don't know what they are though. I can't name them. I wondered today if she was just my muse. To me she is absolutely, drop dead beautiful. Her beauty has become painful to see because I...I'm not allowed to feel it or see it as beautiful.

She has a boyfriend and...well...he's a better man than I. I only ever wanted friendship and I tried not to fall in love with her.

So my feelings for her are beyond friendship. But they're not. They never were until one point where I was cornered about my affection. Until then I had just suppressed it and tried to be normal as a friend.

I am okay with those feelings though it can be hard to deal with. It does hurt. But life happened and I don't know how to fix it. I don't know how to get back what I want: just our friendship.

The joke I came up with I won't send to her because I've trained myself not to send any more drunken messages.

I think you are so beautiful I wish I was gay.

Sums it up really. In a funny way. Just want to be friends.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? Society

This is an area I might have covered already but I want to write about it again because it's so important to what mental health is. This is something I've spent some time considering but haven't yet come to grasp what I'm talking about.

The impact of society on mental health is large and multifaceted. Society at large influences psychiatry as it does people.

A fascinating case study detailed in Ethan Watters erroneously titled the Americanization of Mental illness shows what influences other than the individual can do to mental health as do other chapters of the book.

An anorexic drops dead in the street and the Hong Kong media report the story. The journalists reach for Google or whatever search engine they prefer. They inevitably read the Wikipedia entry as well as other sources.

The problem was the dead anorexic didn't present with those symptoms listed online. In Hong Kong psychiatrists used to see a different presentation to anorexia though, I assume, they expected the same prognosis and treatment. Online are the Westernised reference symptoms but psychiatrists see different presentations (symptoms) across the globe.

After the media story disseminated the Western symptoms to the Hong Kong public consciousness local psychiatrists found more people presenting with the reference symptoms rather than the usual local ones.

A media story changed the presentation of a mental illness. This is a strange result and not well known nor, I guess, understood.

One of the little tit bits I use to convey mental health information to people I meet in the pub.

It's not just geography which can affect mental illness. Around the time that modern psychiatry came into existence there was an epidemic of hysteria. Epidemic is not hyperbole. Hysteria was a mental illness which Kraeplin, Jung and Freud all tried to tackle because of its very high prevalence.

It was often women who had hysteria but I'm afraid I don't know the exact percentages. One common treat was to give a woman a paraoxial orgasm. Usually by hand a doctor would proceed to stimulate a woman until she climaxed.

What would now get a doctor struck off was then a common practice treatment. The only problem the doctors had with it was their arms would get tired. This was the Industrial Age and so someone invented a steam powered device to do the job which doctors were doing. And so the vibrator was born.

It is extraordinary to consider that in the space of two centuries the hysteria prevalence has dropped dramatically. Conversion disorders, as they're now know, have a prevalence of inidence of about 1% (the Wiki page is wrong. Conversion disorders are the modern diagnosis for hysteria. Diagnoses relating to sexual dysfunction might present and be detected as a conversion disorder but the majority of disorders of sexual function don't. Conversion disorders are about the display of psychosomatic symptoms which are the hallmark of hysteria.

So what happened apart from the name change? Was it the vibrator? I doubt it though it's amusing pub banter to consider it. (Too frequently the conversation drifts to "so there's a truth behind when people say she just needs a shag and she'll be alright." A funnier response was...a woman goes to see a therapist because she's not feeling herself...this was by a Norwiegan artist friend of mine.)

Sexual mores were very different then and women weren't so ready to find release sexually or enjoy carnal pleasures, at least openly. Whether the paroxial orgasm worked on not is unknown. It is my guess it was the sexual revolution which changed things as well as a greater acceptance of women's behaviour without the stigma and pathologisation, perhaps as a factor of the equality movement whereby men lost a lot of power over the social judgements of normal behaviour. After all, it was likely husbands complaining about their insufferable wives which brought women to the doctor in the first place all those years ago.

I'm just guessing though. There have been lots of changes in society since psychiatry was invented. Unmarried mothers and homosexuals are no longer mentally ill. There has been a small amount of progress in my opinion. Sadly the number of diagnoses and the percentage of the population who are pathologised has swelled.

Along with psychiatry the Industrial Revolution brought many changes. The demise of religious power was one of them and it is my view that psychiatry took over a lot of the function of religion. But everything changed.

Mass education is one example. Before then Industrial Revolution there was no public schooling. This was a privilege for those who could afford it. Pip in Oliver Twist was lucky to go to school. The Dickens story has more relevance to the modern public because of this but they forget that only the very rich went to school back then.

Mass education is one example of the cheap standardisation which came with the paradigm of progress of the Industrial Revolution. "They can have anything they want as long as it's black" epitomises the tenet of standardisation.

Children had to begin to live standard lives too. They had to wake at the same time, arrive at school, concentrate in lessons and learn to do what they're told. And, of course, they became smarter and more productive through their conditioning.

Schools became a way to prepare people for the jobs they would do for life. Military schools like Sandringham would make the cadets who became the generals of the future. The children in these schools were conditioned in the same way but more so targetted to their future life job, their application to the engine of society.

The military went through changes too. Hierachy and routine became more important. Uniforms and training for even the lowest ranks fostered professional soldiers as the standard core of the modern army, much like the Romans had before.

In all areas of life this new change improved things for most people. The average length and quality of life rose rapidly but at an equal pace so did inequality and the gap between those best and worse off.

It is a sort of strange concept but it's fairly obvious in a way. The good things of the Industrial Revolution brought some bad things.

At the end of the Agriculture Revolution most people were poor by Industrial Revolution standards and died much earlier. In the IR a lot of people did better. They had better quality of life and longer, healthier lives. It wasn't just the advances made possible by science applied to medicine. It was a more regular food supply. It was the cleanliness from sanitation which reduced illness and spread of illness. Other factors also meant a lot of people were advantaged by the the progress of the Industrial Revolution.

Some weren't. Some did not do better and perhaps worse than before the Industrial Revoltion. Some were left out not only by the technological changes but by the social changes too.

Towns and cities teemed with outcasts, homeless, poor and/or crazy people. These were those left behind by the significant evolution of humanity. The methods used to help or remove these people were not pleasant. One of the less tasteful ones was the herding of these people onto derelict ships which were pushed out to sea without care for their passengers. The lucky ones might drift to the next port whereupon supplies are more of their kind would be loaded onto the mad ship before it was once again cast out to sea.

This is mental health. This is why psychiatry came to exist.

The history lesson is worthwhile because I've spoken badly of psychiatry. It isn't fair. What I'm doing is making value judgements on the body of mental health. Ultimately the only truth I have is that is exists.

It means many things and serves many purposes. One purpose is as a corrective system. A few centuries changed the face of daily life in developed world nations. Some of the systems and changes meant some people were disadvantaged.

This is the prognosis manifest. This was also a reason for psychiatry to exist. The Poor Laws and Asylums Act were two legal instruments used to use buildings such as old leper houses and turn them into places to house those who were worst off.

This was the start of the instituion of psychiatry. Some or many of the caretakers of the asylums became the first psychiatrists. They were tasked with looking after their inmates who had been spared from a worse life outside the asylum....perhaps.

This is an act of compassion. It is how the medical profession usurped religion in formalising compassion for the worst off in a system of the modern age. No longer did the church look after these people. Atheist systems did this function of religion using the system which became psychiatry.

And yet there's a problem. The author Foucault is said to exsplain it much better. I tried to rerad Madness and civilisation but found the language impentrable. People have explained to me how he sees mental illness as a false construct. It's not just the power of psychiatry though.

In short, he calls the creation of the asylum system The Great Confinement. It was when they were housed that the mad disappeared from society.

I'm exolaining this very quickly. Imagine if any type of person was, for generations, summarrily taken out of society - from view - into a treatment facility where their behaviour - or just the expression of an internal force - would be changed.

The idea of medical illness came later. The notion to hide the symptoms of madness from societies view was never an aim. The aim was primarily compassionate, as it often is when things fuck up, to help those worst off. I don't know when the idea of treatment arose. It was something which existed throughout the medical professions history but a lot of the knowedlge of Hippoxrates and Galen was lost to religions which saw it as heretical.

Nonetheless, the symtpoms of madness z- the mad themselves - became prisoners without crime. They spent their lives in asylums and society forget they existed.

Society bowed to the power of psychiatry but the initial force which created psychiatry was the people themselves and what they did to the mentally ill.

The solution meant society developed differently. I personally would suggest that societ became maladapted. This is why the schizophrenia prognosis is worse in rich, developed world nations like the UK and US. Their society is different and treats the mentally ill much worse than in poor nations. The society - in a sense - is ill in that the misdevelopment allowed by the Great Confinement means people do worse off in affluent nations on the best quality research available.

The mentally ill are now found outside the asylum but they're still confined. What I mean is the current paradigm of treatment - treating the individual - serves to suppress behaviour, thought, action or whatever else. Mental health diagnosis relates to a treatment which heals the illness by changing the individual to be more normal.

It all serves to make the human race more homogenous. The effect of psychiatry is a system which sees people to be something to standardise. The reason is the prognosis - the worse life outcomes - for those who do not live standard lives or behave ina standard way or whatever other quantity determines a loweing of life outcomes.

....a lowering of life outcomes in the society - the time and place and culture - in which a person lives their life in.

This standardisation is made even more possible by the creation of the asylum system and the empowerment of psychiaty to suppress the unwanted difference which creates the worse outcomes. The more powerful and effective psychiatry is the more developed world nation culture can demand more standardised people. Anything less than this false grade or quality of standardisation means a human being will do less well in life.

The body of psychiatry, the institution, must understand this but it so rarely attemtps what is a new direction: change society to alter the prognosis and disability of disadvantaged people.

Has anyone seen trading places,....actually...hold on. I need to crack open another bottle of wine then i'l move on to the idea of a new dijrection for mental healthj. Well..it"s not new. Charities have been doing it in a small and unrecognised way.

Change society to change mental disability...and other disabilities.

Sent from my smartphone

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

What is mental health ? What do you think?

The last time I tried Nano Wrimo I wrote 20,000-25,000 words.

I messed up though. I didn't do it in Nano Wrimo month. I also did it in 5 days. It was meant to be 7 and I think it is possible to write a stream of consciousness work that long in 7 days.

My last attempt was crazy. Anyone else who agrees has my thanks. It was a creative work. Many ideas spewed forth.

One of the good ones was the idea of a book your write in. I loved the idea of a book which was a community work, one which demanded the input of readers.

We have this with modern blogging but it doesn't need technology to ask a question. The reader is as important as the writer so now...at this point...I ask you the most important question:

What is mental health to you?

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? Drug use

Let me make a quick separation. There is drug use and drug misuse. Both may e stigmatised but only one is pathologised.

Well...that used to be true. In the last few years there have been calls by some in the mental health movement to pathologise drug use.

How or why? It doesn't matter if they're successful. Their dogma will be substantiated by evidence as is current practice. Treatments will be offered and the public accept this as the right thing. Such is the pattern.

Drug use is fun and doesn't mess up your life. Its the same with lots of stuff. I've tried many drugs and they're fantastic but risky things. The risk is worth the reward.

People who do a bit of drugs and drink but function and work. They're okay right? As long as it's not an addiction which messes up their life?

It's like gambling. We all do a bit here and there. Some don't. But some people get addicted to it.

The thing is when drug use..or gambling...becomes a mental illness in itself, for example like in the islamic religion, then it is enforced. The islamic tradition uses old systems of mental health to ban drugs and gambling. It percieves the ban to be purist but as time has gone on there have been allowances. There are muslims that smoke skunk because it wasn't literally banned but the messgae in the kuran is all drugs allow the devil in. There are islamic banks and muslim people who trade on the stock market even though gambling is banned.

Psychiatry sees the same thing happen. Mental illness is a biologically based construct. Alcohol is addictive because the addiction is physical. Same with heroin. Not cannabis though. Cannabis doesn't cause a physical addiction.

It is psychologically addictive but in the past this wasn't considered something which was within the purview of the mental healthcare system, I.e. it wasn't a biological illness whereas the others were.

Mohammed's pillars of Islam have been torn down by the sands of time just as Kraeplin's tenets of psychiatry have been willfully ignored in the name of progress and whatever else. Kraeplin probably wasn't a schizophrenic but muhamed probably was.

When the idea of illness was applied to an objective quantity, the human race and how individuals express, it was fundamentally based upon a principle. This is what ostensive means in psychiatry terms. The diagnosis strictly adheres to the model of the kraeplinian prototype, the model which allows the application of the paradigm of medical illness.

Now that's already been done the forces with power stick to sway what the word means. Mental illness now covers a wide range of things which are not related to the fundamental concept.

Gambling and drug addictions are pathologised without a strong focus on brain imaging like with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia remains the prototype but even time is chiselling away at Kraeplin's legacy.

The pathologisation of gamlbing and addiction, and schizophrenia in the modern shifted definition of mental health, are also defined by significant or severe psychosocial dysfunction. It fucks up your life, on average.

People who enjoy these vices in pleasure and in moderation usually do okay in life. It doesn't affect their life course. It doesn't mess up their life and they get a lot of pleasure from it.

I'm different.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? "You're just a drunk!"

In recent times this is one of the most hurtful things anyone has said to me. It was most hurtful because of the person who said it.

This piece is about addictions but I'm going to talk more about myself than the research. I admit this isn't my specialist area so I'm just going to try talking a bit about it with reference to what I've written over the last few weeks.

I know very little about the good quality research into addictions. It's strange because many people would call me an addict. I've been denied help when I needed it because of my addictions.

I've had half a bottle of wine. It's half past noon. Normally I don't break the cardinal rule of functional drinking. Nothing before noon except hair of dog. Today I just did.

For most of my adult life I've been drinking and smoking cannabis, usually with a daily frequency.

I find it hard to accept I'm an addict. I'm just a person who likes to drink and get high regularly, but some people...okay...a lot of people don't like my lifestyle.

Is it detrimental to my life? Hell yes. I am poor and spend most of my money on booze and herb. I live a basic life because most of my money is spent on my addiction. The booze will damage my liver, the rest will destroy my lungs and give me cancer. My cognitive faculties...well...I don't know if I still retain my potential.

My life outcomes are poor and my lifestyle choices, choices which I find hard to break but have little personal volition to try to, have cost me a lot.

I've picked what is perhaps my least desireable feature - of which there are many - to expose. I've described it in a way which asks not for compassion, at least not the compassion of mental illness.

I called it a choice. I called it something I wouldn't change unless it was forced upon me. My life is fucked up and strange. Perhaps I am too. I was fucked up and strange before I got into drink and drugs.

Addictions have high levels of stigma and moreso than other mental illnesses. For a start many professionals don't treat addicts in the same way as they treat other patients.

It is worth noting briefly that the psychiatric profession creates addicts. Too often patients end up on psychiatric drugs for life.

Anyway, addicts are stigmatised like those with depression and they suffer worse outcomes. It is of no consequence if someone tells an addict to stop using. People in mental health circles know not to tell a depressive to cheer up. Most people wouldn't tell a gay person to be straight.

Addicts are singled out because of the assumption, and evidence base, of causation of other mental illnesses. No effort is made to understand the individual. Treatment is simply to 'manage' which really means cease doing what they enjoy.

People do understand what it is like to have an addiction, to love and enjoy something or someone who people don't want you to feel that way about. People don't understand how people like me medicate and self treat their subjective experience of unwellness by their addiction; it is easier to allow a doctor to prescribe a drug addiction for misery, which is what a lot of people get when they get an antidepressant prescription. People aren't told about the studies which show binge drinking to be an alternative to antidepressants and as effective.

Addictions are a stigmatised mental illness which is often left out of modern consensus debate because the people who have the power stigmatise this particular illness.

Stigma is a powerful and subtle force. It is why the paradigm of mental illness came into existence. The impact of stigma before psychiatry was ...a secret oppression the Nazis would be proud of, and took part in. The German pscyhiatry association apologised this year for its conduct during the Nazi regieme. The society factors which create the prognosis and the forces which create new pathologisations and treatments...they're all part of systems of power which get pushed on people.

The power of labelling as a mental illness asks for compassion but it also asks one thing: we must treat you. Treat means change. Treat means change. This is so important I said it twice.

The paradigm of mental illness applied to individuals means the label assigns treatment. Treatment means change. If you're gay be straight. If you're an addict be sober. If you're depressed then be happy. If you're crazy then be normal.

This is fundamental. My experience of wanting help for depression and suicidality is just an illustrative example. I went to my GP and self-referred myself to the national psychological therapies scheme. My GP acquiesced. 6 months later a psychologist assessed me and afterwards she forced me to engage with drug treatment before help for my depression and suicidality. I didn't attend the addiction service so was refused help, the help that I asked for and the request I made which was possible for the scheme. It is al.most amusing that I did a bit of volunteering for the campaign for the scheme.

I'm an addict though. The system which doesn't understand me and labels me as abhorrent enough to change won't help me with what I want to have changed when I wanted it.

I ask a lot I guess. I ask for the right to be an individual and I ask to use mental healthcare. As an addict I do not have this privilege.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? Paraphilias

When charities like Mind go on about distress and stigma they will always avoid mentioning paraphilias. They're not very public friendly mental illnesses.

I'm talking about things like frotteurism and paedophilia. These diagnoses elucidate another aspect of mental illness.

These are disorders of sexual preference and, I think, mainly related to behaviour or action.

Let me and try and explain what I mean. There is a fetish and there is a diagnosis related to rape. Some people are only aroused by raping someone (usually). Some people also have a rape fetish and find suitable safe communities and people with whom they can share and act out this fantasy. I'm made a differentiation because the person with the fetish is in control and they never cross the lines of antisocial or criminal conduct. It sounds condradictory to say rape which is consenting is but this is available and used by people in alternative sexuality communities.

Fortteurism is the rubbing of gentials on strangers. Peadophilia is sex with children. This, again, needs a little dissecting because peadophilia is also a criminal charge. I don't know the difference between the law and the medicalisation I'm afraid but I guess with one the person is deemed in control.

There's another aspect too. A friend of mine is was a GP and he told me about a patient he was having a conundrum about. The patient had come to him admitting strong paedophile thoughts. The patient was a mental health academic so he understood the risk of disclosure and what he expected from treatment. He was having trouble coping with and controlling his urges and wanted treatment. He told the doctor he had had them for a long time and had never done anything about the sexual thoughts.

My friend was unsure whether to report him to the police or detain him in a psychiatric ward. The patient was an average, law abiding person. My friend was worried about the consequences if he didn't do something about the revelation.

I said to him the individual had come to his doctor admitting these pathologised and stigmatised thoughts and urges. He had never been overcome by them and had sex with a child nor groomed one nor anything like that. He came to his doctor because he needed help maintaining this.

He posed no risk and he had done nothing wrong. He had come to his doctor, at great risk, to seek treatment.

Some people might take exception to me defending the rights of a peadophile. I don't think he was a paedophile. He had never crossed the line - from what he told his doctor - and took a big risk telling his doctor.

This quality he showed is called insight in psychiatric terminology, if I know my terms....I suppose I should say this is what the psychiatric term insight means to me. Some people lack insight and don't know they're ill.

Perhaps I'm wrong or perhaps I'm right that readers would have an issue with me defending a potential peadophile. I have extended the paedophile the same compassion I would extend a depressed person because they're both mentally ill.

There is an aspect to mental illness which is all about the extension of a compassionate understanding to something which might otherwise be treated with the discompassionate understandings which exist outside mental health.

A depressed person is lazy and weak without a compassionate understanding. Part of the medicalisation still attempts to differentiate between the lazy and the depressed because it is percieved only one deserves the privilege of the invalid. But clinical depression can look like laziness.

It can slo be antisocial. After 4 days without showering I must smell disgusting. I feel ashamed when I go to buy my wine and stink but...well...I don't think much of myself anyway. This change in pride has happened over the last couple of years and it's happened before. I wasn't always like this though.

I have to be very careful about this next example because I shouldn't speak about it. There are people who have unusual fetishes. Very unusual. They are the sort of things which are embarassing or shameful rather than illegal. The example I'm talking about isn't copraphilia but it might as well be. This diagnosis and sexual preferemce is used to describe people who get sexual pleasure out of feaces.

I don't give a shit. I don't care what people do to get turned on. I don't care unless someone is harmed and it is all done with consent by people (or animals) who are capable of consenting.

Irrespective of my personal feelings towards people's choices and behaviours, I know this person suffers. They suffer because they're unusual and in a way which has shame attached to it. There's something they enjoy and they can enjoy with certain people on the fringes of society or who are openminded enough to see beyond the kink.

This person has a double life. Well..more than one. They have to hide this part of them from society. It causes them intense distress and it is hard to feel that anyone understands enough to talk about it let alone indulge them in their fetish. Everyone's distress is unique and this individual suffers the pain of mental illness.

People who

Sent from my smartphone

Monday, 21 November 2011

I have tried to eschew my love of things...

...but this phone is great.

Over a decade ago I had a phone like this. It was the nokia communicator. It was the size of a brick and the battery didn't last. I couldn't even connect to the net...well...only once...and we looked at pictures of pretty ladies...and the waiter helped me connect it to the internet...in the indian restaurant in Coventry where I was sitting.

The phone I'm using now has an internet connection which connects even though I'm sitting in what feels like a forest except for the sound of cars in the background.

I am also typing on a smartphone. This one is a little better. It connects to the internet easily. It is a little smaller and most of all it has a better battery life.

That's all. In a decade. It is also cheap. There are better smartphones out there. This one just gives me all I need.

What it offers me is something I couldn't have dreamt of a decade ago. I would be poor yet I would still have my dream device. It is freezing out here but the keys are made right so I can still type.

The thing is...with photos I'm different. I've recently started carrying my camera with me again. I found a lens but its a poor quality one. I just don't bother thinking about using it. I've tried. The results are shit. The photos aren't composed badly but the reproduction just isn't right. I've yet to take them into the lightroom and see what I can do with them because...well...yeah...whatever.

I don't own my dream photography setup yet. It would cost a lot more because I want good lenses. Those still cost a lot and don't depreciate quickly like digital cameras do.

There is nothing like a good lens. Damn. I miss those and the realistic hope of owning one again. An L-series. I'd swap sex for one of those. A beautiful lens is something which allows me to make images.

Sent from my smartphone

Will the charities start to use patients?

GPs are expects to have a new power in the NHS to commission NHS
services. This is a big change.

Charities are always trying to influence decision makers to deliver on
their goals. For example Rethink asked their ecampaigners to email their
MP to approve NICE's schizophrenia guidelines and ask that they were
adhered to. They used the public - specifically their stakeholders - to
influence their minister of parliament.

in the old NHS GPs had little power other than prescription or referral
to another treatment. In the former role they became targets of drug
company sales representatives. These people were part of the tranche of
methods used by drug companies to boost their sales. The sales reps were
tasked with making personal relationships with GPs and other doctors.
Their role was to create influence with prescribing physicians.

Charities have a remit to create influence, at least if they're
campaigning charities. They will need to innovate in the new NHS and I
wonder if one of their tactics will be to use patients to get key
messages and information across to GPs?

After all ,there's nothing immediately wrong with informing patients and
empowering them with information to further the laudable goals of a
campaigning charity. Drug companies already have their point of entry to
create influence. Patients get 5-10 minutes with their GP and if they
could donate a minute of that time to spouting a campaign message then
charities have a low cost way to deliver their messages to decision
makers. Patients become used by charities to influence decision makers
in all sorts of ways all the time.

Sunday, 20 November 2011

What would you do if you died yesterday?

We all know the saying about living every day like it was your last.

The saying is a simple way to communicate something life changing.

Now think harder. What would you do, today, if you had died yesterday?

I'd write a book.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? What do I know?

I know very little. What little I know is useful. I know a lot about how much I don't know. I may be quick to propose facile solutions and weak ideas but I do know that I know I don't know lots of stuff about mental health.

I know most from my lived experience. I've barely tapped into it in this work though if anyone knows my anonymous blog they'll find my inner demons. They'l know little insights into my suffering as well as my thoughts and my joy.

I've read a lot of studies and thought about it a lot. I don't know any more than any one else because I've read about it. I've met many people who understand it without reading a book. They have lived experience. It is an experience which is hard won but when it comes to mental health there is no better education.

People know more stuff about mental health than those sad, lonely theorists who work with the concepts and science which only a few people think has anything to do with what mental health really is.

And now I shall carry on finishing my bottle of wine.

Sent from my smartphone

What is mental health? Schizophrenia treatment

Schizophrenia is historically one of the worst diagnoses to have. Not only does it come with a high level of stigma and self stigma, it also comes with the worst outcomes.

The outcomes in the UK are particularly bad. Schizophrenics account for 20% of the completed suicide rate. Only about 5% are in work or education and it's one of the lowest rates in Europe.  The well regarded IPSS study from the WHO shows people do better in poorer nations than in London on social and clinical outcome measures.

The mainstay of schizophrenia treatment is based on the dopamine hypothesis. I have misgivings about this but it is what is commonly accepted by psychiatrists and what modern drug treatments are based upon.

Modern antipsychotics target dopamine receptors. It's usually the d2 receptor which is targetted though some drugs like clozapine affect a wide variety of other dopamine sites and 5HT receptors too. At a brain level they reduce the tranmission of a particular chemical which is part of how all our brains function.

The drugs are dangerous and have nasty side effects. A report from the Royal College of Psychiatry states the drug caused 1,800 deaths every year in the UK when it was used on the elderly with dementia. The drug is usually used on schizophrenics for their whole life time. The drugs have been shown to halve life expectancy in dementia patients. Placebo controlled studies have shown 11% difference in the brain volumes of Macaque monkeys who were treated with antipsychotics. Reviews of MRI trials show smaller reductions in brain volume caused by ther drug and other studies point to the effect the drugs have which reduces life expectancy.

These dangers are set aside to treat schizophrenia because it seems nothing else works in reviews og high quality treatments. The most dangerous of thes drugs, clozapine, can quickly kill a patient and has the worst impact on life expectancy but it is very effecting according to some of the evidence and is reserved for use after only 2 trials of other antipsychotics are shown not to work.

There is a growing body of evidence which shows alternatives are possible. Many of these are lower quality trials but a few are good quality and point to hope of better options.

It's important to remember what schizophrenia is. In fact it is quite a complex thing to define because of the variety of intepretations. I take an old fashioned view. It is a state of frequent or perpetual unshared perceptions - primarily delusions and hallucinations but in is more complex - which causes distress and disability. Actualluy, it is a human type. Possibly a phenotype from the genotype of schizotaxia but few remember this idea (even though modern genetic studies seem to be showing the same root gene for bipolar and schizophrenia).

Emil Kraeplin is one of the most highly regarded psychiatrists ever. He codified the medical model. He had a famous puzzle which basically asks what is the difference between a manic depressive and a schizophrenic. The people in the psychiatric asylums of the day exhibited both extremes of mood and delusions of perception and reality. In the end a line was drawn and the line between mood and perception of reality as the dominant pathologised feature.

The aspect of distress and disability is also important. Some people manage with altered realities. Some don't experience distress. This happens more often in poorer nations. The psychosocial dysfunction bit is of primary importance to the psychiatric definition.

That said, in the past the diagnosis has been used for nefarious purposes. Promiscousness was associated with schizophrenia and loose women could be diagnosed with schizophrenia; it was ok for men to be loose at the time. Abherrant or different thinking too. Communists in capitalist states and vice versa could have their ideologies pathologised if they didn't fit in. Black protestors in America during the civil rights movement. Their protests were madness and the diagnosis of schizophrenia used to incarcerate and drug them because their activism was a sign of an illness.

The UK still has the shame of overdiagnosing schizophrenia in black people. The rate is about 9 times more. It is less in the US and it is equal in the West Indies between white and black people. A study in 1999 brought a Jamaican psychiatrist to check schizophrenia inpatient diagnoses in a London psychiatric ward. He concurred with their physcians diagnosis about half the time.

So the diagnosis is not a strict concept in practice. Kraeplin's idea is not how schizophrenia is defined in the science, at least not in the measures of treatment.

Measures are very important in science. They need to be accurate but they also need to describe the reality or concept. I don't think modern measures meet expectations. For a start the sub measures are weighted. They're just averaged and at most split into positive and negative symptoms. They're also designed to be sensitive to the effect of medication. This is absolutely ludacrious. A scientific measure is biased to nothing.

PANSS and BPRS are rubbish. Their design lacks any semblance of use when applied to reality. In a way their bias towards the effect of medication invalidates them and the entire body of psychiatric research which use these measures, but then I have high standards for science.

The measures need to reflect the reality of the prognosis and account for numerous social factors. The latter is way out of my capability to explain but the WHO result is so important to understand scientifically. What is the major variable which means those in developed world nations do worse than those in developing world nations? I could segue off into attemtping to answer this but a more pressing reality is the prognosis.

I've read far too many studies on schizophrenia for any sane person. What I find is a dearth of ones on treatments which really affect the prognosis.

At the moment it feels like the overarching research question is how do we suppress psychopathology. It rarely investigates the treatment of distress or subjective unwellness.

I feel there needs to be a shift. The shift needs to be about the overarching research question. It should be a question related affecting the prognsis. It is assumed this is what suppression of psychopathology does but it is an assumption. There's too much evidence that the current mode of treatment - to which the research is geared - is to reduce pathology rather than directly aim to rectify the social disability and reduce distress.

The research looks at a set of around 15 characteristics a person can show. By the way - the same measures and interview systems are not used in clinical practice. I'm just talking about what happens in a rigorous research study. The effect of treatment is to reduce some or all of these characteristics.

The measures are flawed in many ways but the biggest flaw is they're not tuned to what affects outcomes. The assumption I would have is the science is centred not only on labelling people and suppressing unwanted pathology but also improving quality of life and equality of opportunity in life or whatever other concept means the reduction of the poor prognosis.

When antipsychotics were first introduced it was suggested the suicide rate would increase. The reason was psychiatrists expected their patients to be depressed because of the drug. In fact this doesn't happen and high quality studies show drugs like clozapine can reduce the completed suicide rate and attempted suicide rate. Let me be clear. The antipsychotic drug doesn't make people happy. Well...apart from one which at low levels can act as an antidepressant...but I'm not sure antidepressants actually make a person happy.

There is good evidence to show constituents of cannabis have antipsychotic studies. More than one high quality trial of cannabidols shows them to be as effective as second generation antipsychotics.

Why do you think that might be? If you've smoked cannabis, as I am now, then you'd understand. Cannabis high in cannabidols chills you out. Standard commercial weed has relatively low levels of thc and high levels of cannabidols. High grade skunk, like I'm smoking now while I drink this bottle of red, has higher levels of thc and a mix of the estimated 40-80 different compounds involved in the herbal cannabis high.

Thc is the one which causes psychosis when injected into people in laboratory settings. I've read two studies on it like this. Only one person in either study in the us or uk developed schizophrenia after being injected with thc. It was in the american study which was done first and the subject was in the higher dose group. The uk study only used the lower dose. None of the authors in the study comment on the clear dose response in subjects injected with thc.

Anyway, I've segued off a lot. Essentially it is quite possible the Rastafarians are self medicating. Alternatively they're getting high but the cannabidols chill them out so there's no externalisation.

This idea that all antipsychotics do is chill you out is perhaps surprising. The drugs are also know to doctors as major tranquilisers. They relax a person without putting them to sleep. This is what antipsychotics really do. There is no science which shows they're truly antipsychotic, I.e. they reduce the delusions and hallicinations. There is no trial which looks only at the effect of the drug on the two measures of delusions and hallucination, two sub measures found in every schizophrenia measure but not weight about the several other factors. The most effective drug - clozapine - was reported to have little effect on the voices in a good quality German qualitative study.

Current treatment doesn't do what you might expect. A less commonly used phrase for antipsychotics is the chemical cosh. They're used in high doses in psychiatric wards to knock people unconscious or make them more docile and easy to manage. The latter reason was why they became used to treat dementia symptoms. They don't treat the illness but they make a person docile and easy to get on with and, of course, it also kills them quicker.

It suppresses psychopathology according to science. I'm tired so i'l be blunt. It does fuck all to better a person's life or outcomes or whatever they expect as treatment.

Sent from my smartphone

Saturday, 19 November 2011

What is mental health? What are the answers to what mental health treatment tries to do?

This is a skip and a jump ahead of where I am in this ramble.

As I've discussed, it tries to achieve different things because there are different reasons behind the concept.

Depression treatment should be to help people be less miserable or to treat their biological roots of misery. In an ideal world it would do what the patient wants and expects.

People go to their doctors in times of crisis. Carers and others may also use doctors to deal with other people's crises. Before the inception of psychiatry some people would go to their doctors to deal with the problems which are described as mental illnesses now but more often I think people went to priests or faith healers. Many still do, especially in countries where psychiatry is yet to establish a strong foot hold on the culture.

This can be times when grief gets too bad or misery too intense. It can be when a person becomes difficult to understand or dangerously withdrawn. It can be when a person is a danger to themselves or others. Priests, psychiatrists, doctors and wise people are where people go when they need expertise.

Regardless of the name of the system this human need for expertise in the human condition is fulfilled in different ways over the millenia. Psychiatry and mental health are the modern constructs which prevail in the Western world and like a religion it is spreading to developing world nations.

People need answers in their times of crisis. People need help for their emotional distress. When informal systems such as supportive social groups become inadequate or not utilised then people, carers and society turn to doctors.

Today their answers use the best available science. Psychiatric research, though underfunded, is still light years ahead of what it was a century ago. It's not perfect but if used strictly, I.e. if clinicians are very well trained to adhere to reference practices when making a diagnosis then there's a good chance the science fits together.

What this means is a person who is diagnosed with the accuracy used in research will have the other stuff which comes from the research. Or likely so anyway. It's not 100% accurate. They'll do worse in life. They'll die earlier. They'll be more likely to be isolated and unemployed. They're more likely to kill themselves or someone else. They'll have lower quality of life.

It is terrible what the prognosis really means and how the label relates to it. It is the role of doctors to fix it. Or at least this is the current request society makes to the psychiatric establishment. I assume this is what patients want too.

The label predicts a likely prognosis but it also selects the tailored treatment plan which works best for that particular human type, at least in theory.

Aside from outcome studies there are also treatment studies. Obviously. Modern treatments need to work. Obviously. The way we know it works is using scientific techniques. This is the modern paradigm of truth which replaces the power of god as the paradigm of truth. Science gives psychiatry power just as god's word gave religion its power.

Using the science they prove ways which work on diagnosis. The randomised placebo controlled trial is still considered the gold standard of evidenced based medicine. These expensive studies are replicated by different academics then review papers take an average of the results and apply meta-analytical techniques to further enhance accuracy - like the funnel plot. These are all ways to reduce errors from bias and other factors.

These reviews - systematic reviews and metaIanalyses - carry huge weight in the commissioning of national mental healthcare. They have the highest weighting of all evidence in the current hierachy of evidence used in best practice evidenced based mental health commissioning.

Some can include hundreds of studies and hundreds of thousands of subjects in all those studies. One of my favourites is the review on job satisfaction and health. On physical and mental health measures job satisfaction was associated with much better physical and mental health for the majority of people. The authors annoyed me though. There was no funnel plot to check for publication bias.

Still, antidepressants or psychological therapies - the current modes of treatment - are commissioned using these scientific methods, the methods which are designed to show what really works and what doesn't.

There are problems with this though. The first is that the science is at an early stage. The entire model of diagnosis might be fundamentally flawed. There are so many unexplained effects and unusual cases which the science is unable to explain.

We're talking about trying to truly understand people. This is why mental health as psychiatry is one of the greatest scientific goals in human history as well as the most challenging. We can split the atom and know the makeup of the fabric of the universe but we know fuck all about each other.

There are huge questions about whether mental health science is truly communicating or understanding the nature of what it is used on. It is science applied to people and the human condition and inviduals and personality and emotions.

The other problem is irrespective of these concerns about the success or correctness of the fundamentals - the first principles and core - of psychiatric science. It is about what the results say.

Too often as time goes on accepted treatments are shown to be poor. They look good in early trials but as time goes on more negative results are published, if they're published. Modern reviews are dispelling the efficacy of accepted treatments. As the science evolves and as other factors change, for example the enthusiasm of the practioners in exploratory trials for a new modality, the results seem to favour the control far too frequently.

In 2007 a review by Kirsch used unpublished data on antidepressants. With the unpublished data included the drugs were shown to be much less effective. This result was well publicised. Now more research shows that antidepressants aren't as effective as once thought. The same is true for psychological therapies when looking at high quality trials only. The same is true for electroconvulsive therapy. Too many reviews so accepted treatments to be ineffective, especially when the inclusion criteria excludes all but the best studies currently available.

Read Robert Whitaker or Dr. Joanna Moncrieff's work. I can reference some stuff but they communicate it so much better.

The one thing I would say is given a choice between a review of lots of studies of varying quality or a few very high quality studies I would go with the latter. The results from good science applied well is gold in an area which is full of shit.

So really...after all this stuff today...I've basically said that the mentally ill are going to have worse lives. The system isn't real in that it might not truly define an illness but it is definitely something which causes problems for patients and society.

Those that willing accept treatment do so based on an implicit and explicit trust. Some don't but that's another thing. Those that do might not be getting what they want, which is a predictably right solution which really works better than the placebo effect.

It's not doing nothing which is the comparison in trials. Doing nothing generally sucks whatever it is. Admittedly this may be my bias. The trials use something which is meant to be the same as the real treatment in the experience of taking it and using it except for one thing: the treatment. Science says if you want to really know something then test it using a suitable trial in an experiment with two groups, one which is only slightly different from the other only in the variable which is being tested. Did I say only enough? It is the most important word when apllying science to trials and what I'm talking about. A single trial derives signifcance from being as scientific as possible.

Good scientific experimental practice demands that everything but the variable in the experiment is the sole....the only.....difference between the two groups in the study. In my opinion. This is why I value reviews of very high quality studies above ones which include lots of studies of poorer quality. Oh, and the practical reason is the biases and errors of including poor quality results when studies reach the point of being accepted truths rather than things to think about is significantly reduced with increasing quality of trial.

What I mean is a half baked study is worth as much as nothing if you're like me and the pursuit of truth, by scientific standards, is paramount.

In practice the review which only looks at the very best studies holds a lot of weight anyway, even if it isn't truly recognised. If it was then there'd be more of these high quality trials done - at great expense - rather than the mass of cheap studies which show some hope of an effect but have signficant limitations in their application of science.

Low quality and experimental trials are obviously an important part of the prcoess of science and progress too. They're the steps to get the buy in, recognition and funding to do a truly scientific study. Anything without this paramount quality lacks the power of science. Science is about describing the truth. The absolute truth.

The absolute truth in mental health is when you're fucked up there is a perfect answer for you, something which is right first time.

This is a crazy idea but this is what good science offers. This is why science is accepted as the paradigm of truth by the modern consensus reality. This is what scientific principles achieve.

Two thousand years ago Romans were using seige catapults or some other projectile weapon which needed a range calculation to be made. Without science the weapon couldn't destroy its target. They needed to know physics but they had to invent it.

At first they assumed that, based on the understanding at the time, that a thing had energy to move then when it ran out it would instally drop. This isn't true. We could all see it when we throw a ball. It follows an arc. There's no cliff point where it suddenly drops. But at the time the Romans believed this was true.

I think it was Archemdies but it might have been someone else from his era who applied science to the problem. The powerful establishment didn't like it but they allowed his theory to be trialled.

It worked. Projectiles don't just drop when they've run out of energy. They keep going forward but start to fall by gravity.

This is science. It works because it asks that it works. A test shows what the test wants understood. If the test conditions can be replicated and the trial redone then a scientific result would be the same performance and results in every replication trial.

This is in a perfect scenario. But this is what scientists have to expect. Some might remember the cold fusion with palladium experiment which hit the news. Scinetists don't go to the press unless they've got something but what they had was the result of one trial. They got amazing results and could havebeen on the brink of inventing a new form of cheap, safe, green energy but it wasn't true. No study could replicate their findings.

If I'm depressed by any of this then I am sane.

Sent from my smartphone

Blog Archive

About Me

We It comes in part from an appreciation that no one can truly sign their own work. Everything is many influences coming together to the one moment where a work exists. The other is a begrudging acceptance that my work was never my own. There is another consciousness or non-corporeal entity that helps and harms me in everything I do. I am not I because of this force or entity. I am "we"