The mental health system is based on a fundamental fallacy that biological and behavioural differences constitute a true medical illness and are scientific labels.
The medical model has been repeatedly debunked on scientific grounds and I'll try to explain why.
Perhaps two centuries ago a doctor thought black people were black because they had a disease. He named it negritude.
Today this idea seems ludicrous but it's still happening today in the psychiatric system.
Psychiatry is done by doctors because early on in the concept the medical model was misapplied to human behaviour to day biological differences and associations with a prognosis - a worse life course. That's the medical model and why it regulates human behaviour.
The same model can be used to validate negritude too. Black skin passed down through the generations fulfills the biological requirements. Two centuries ago black people would have a much worse life course because they were black. Even more indicative of the medical model, the model of change or 'treatment' would be to make those diagnosed with negritude white. Obviously the right model of change is to preserve the individual as they are and combat the society and cultural forces- prejudice is an appropriate synonym - which causes the worse outcomes for black people.
This line of thought is why I question the definition and power to force treatment wielded by mental health professionals. Their model is wholly specious in terms of the biomedical model and the dimension of psychopathology.
Just to reinforce the point I'll mention the demedicalisation of homosexuality. It is clearly not a mental illness but social prejudice enforced by psychiatrists caused this normal human type (in fact I think there's a spectrum) to be considered abnormal. Society's morals changed and so did psychiatric pathologisation, which is a ludicrous situation typical of the variability and pseudoscientific nature of psychiatry.
Many other authors have made this point with far more substance. And when it is applied to suicide its right to power is supported by a large body of evidence of typical specious evidence.
Of course It isn't that simple. It would be irresponsible to apply an anarchy to suicide, but the blanket ban on assisted suicide for the mentally ill is equally irresponsible and supported by no criminal law since suicide was decriminalised in the last century.
Clearly those were much more compassionate times. Since the took over I'm not sure things have gotten better.
Of course, if you're of the opinion that preventing all suicidal people from killing themselves then mental health services and you are pseudocompassionate.
I believe suicide virgins should be protected from making an attempt that, if it fails, the individual would regret after the emotional impulse has left them.
But the picture for suicide veterans isn't good. The blanket suicide prevention drive means effective methods which are non-violent in nature are hard or impossible to acquire. Here is where the falseNess of the current paradigm shows itself. Those who try to kill themselves shortly after a triggering event and would regret killing themselves who get protect. Those like me who have wanted to die for a long time. We can't get the release from life we so desperately need. Cunts.
The legislature do not know the torture of living with chronic suicidal ideation and wanting the final exit to our personal pain.
We want to die but not impulsively or shortly after a triggering event. We've lived with wanting to die for a while. We might be scared of dying but more afraid of living. Our only regret is past failed attempts didn't work.
There is no worse torture in developed world countries than chronic and unfulfilled suicidal ideation because, worst of all, no compassion nor empathy nor understanding nor respect nor even sympathy.
We are forced to live through the misery which has already crushed a human soul. Insult to injury is every unwanted day survived.
Ugh. I'll finish this later.
- sent from my smartphone
No comments:
Post a Comment