The Human Rights Act guarantees rights to people but takes them away from the mentally ill. The most ideologically advanced piece of multinational legislation fails to guarantee rights to a group which has been subject to centuries of oppression.
Developed world nations laud their progress in human rights over other nations moving to developed status but it seems the more developed a nation is the worse the problem caused by the engine of psychiatry to those rights.
The idea of mental illness allows subjugation. It says that your being is wrong and must be changed to be acceptable. Most importantly it formalises this. It applies science to justify the pathologisation of behaviour and people.
The use of the medical profession to deal with the people and experiences once explained by religion means there is a sanctity applied such that it is assumed that only good things happen. While other places where people are incarcerated have human rights inspections or campaigns with wide public support protesting against the methods used the system where people are incarcerated by doctors and nurses is without oversight. After all, they're healers...except they're not. Not when the profression allowed itself to be used to treat behaviour and by the choice of methods broke the Hippocratic Oath, one which though basstardised is still taken by every doctor today. I paraphrase it as,
"First do no harm you fuckers. If you do you're not a doctor. You're someone who needs to try my chocolate salty balls in your mouth. Go on...put them in your mouth and suck them."
As soon as they starting using treatments like waterboarding, now a form of torture which people campaign against, they stopped being doctors. They still continue to electrocute people to cause seizures all in the name of good medicine and without consent. Or good evidence for the effectiveness of ECT.
Any sane person would refuse ECT and no real doctor would allow it. And yet there is still the possiblilty for this sort of procedure to be forced. Fucking cunts. Causing seizures is what real doctors strive to prevent.
Instead they've become persuaded that these methods of last resort are appropriate. It is history and, more often than not, the history of the advancement of the use of positivisitic (or real science) methods in the human condition.
It is perhaps the anthroplogist Foucault who makes the salient point. It's just a construct of society. It doesn't mean it's not real to the individual. It changes the way it's thought about though. If it is mental illness, something which is an illness, then there are a certain set of rules whereas if it is a problem to society or caused by society then there's a wholly different way of thinking.
Mental illness is the idea that biological deficits cause spurious behaviour. So a person is mentally ill because they're gay because a dysfunction in their brain makes them abnormal and studies show a difference in the size of the hypothalamus. This is, of course, bollocks when society judges homosexuality to be part of the human condition. In the 1970s the US demedicalised homosexuality and in the early 1990s so did the World Health Organisation.
When it was percieved as an illness, to be treated by doctors, anything was allowable because that's what doctors can do. They can irradiate people to cure cancer, risking death to save life. They can remove half a child's brain to prevent seizures. An entire hemisphere is removed as a treatment which, currently, is only available at John Hopkins in US.
The lobotomy is a perfect example of what medical procedures can be used to treat behaviour and without high quality evidence to support their use.
But let me use an example which might be better to segue onto the next point. The medical profession chose to use a type of mental health drug on people with dementia. Dementia is considered a prototype mental illness. There was dementia before there were diagnoses such as schizophrenia or as it used to be know back in the day when psychiatry was invented "dementia praecox."
Dementia is an organic mental illness. The word organic should be superfluous. That's the only kind. It means there's a physical or organic brain disease responsible.
The problem doctors decided to treat with psychiatric medication was not the biological problem. It was the problem of the behaviours which came from the biological change.
Without any evidence which showed the drug reversed the organic symptoms doctors in the UK started to prescribe psychiatric drugs to 'treat' the illness but they were never treating the illness. They were treating the behaviour associated with the illness.
The class of drug they used has many names. Doctors call tehm antipsychotics and they're popular in the treatment of schizophrenia but I disagree with the term as do many others. Antipsychotic means they've been shown to prevent psychosis, ie they stop the experience of delusions and hallucinations. They weren't called antipsychotics when they were invented. They were called major tranquilisers. The nuance is important. Tranquilisers don't stop psychosis, they just chill people out without sending them to sleep. It's why studies show chemcials in cannabis to be equally 'antipsychotic'. The measures of psychosis have little resonance with the experience or patient wishes. They're designed around psychopathology, not distress. They're designed in a way in which the other term for antipsychotics makes sense. They're a chemical cosh. They're a drug which subdues and thereby changes behaviour.
Doctors chose to drug the mentally ill to remove the social problem. They chose to use medication to treat socially unacceptble symptoms rather than any disease process. They used drugs to chill people out which didn't treat any aspect of illness. They used a chemical straitjacket.
Their solution killed people. Not one or two. Not tend or twenty. Researvh evidence showed when these drugs were used to treat dementia they reduced life expectancy by half. A report from the Royal College of Psychiatry stated the 1,800 people every year were killed unnecessarily when antipsychotics were used to change the behaviour of the elderly with dementia.
First do no harm you pieces of shit. It was GPs who were responsible for this manslaughter. They inadvertently killed more people in a year than had been killed by the mentally ill in 20
The murdering fuckers aren't really murders. It took research evidence to discovedr to discover the problem. The report by the RCPsych was commissioned. The UK government strategy changed too, as any citizen would expect. There was a scientific investigation wjhere the 1800 deaths were discovered. The deaths weren't considered when people used these drugs for large periods of their life, just wwhen used near the end.
Work this shit out yourself. Or allow yourself to be illed by doctors on a grand scale. They never sopped using these killer drugs to sedate the elderly.they never attemptd to heal the illness. They soufht to change behaviour but they killed people by doing it.
Do no harm? My chocolate salty balls should be in very high demand.
Doctors kill my kin and I've been borne into a family of doctords.
They have higher standrads, right? When they know they're killing someone for their behaviour. Well, that's just murder.
After the whole killing people with demntia thing happened they weren't banned from using the chemical cosh. They were just restricted in their murder if the elderly, the knowing causation of death.
Guess they prefer killing people to sucking on my chocolate saltyy balls.
No comments:
Post a Comment