Thursday, February 23, 2006
the psychiatric libertation movement
most are unaware of the underground anti-psychiatry movement, but it's composed of a large group of interesting organizations and individuals reclaiming their lives and rejecting their labels. many are victims (forced hospitalization, jail, electroshock, drugging, etc.), and others are sympathetic advocates. although many are fringe, and some of their efforts are confused with human rights issues and anti-corporation propaganda, they provide invaluable resources for psychiatric survivors, attempt to raise public awareness, and lobby for changes in how the government treats the "differently abled." organizations range from rabidly anti-psychiatry to simple mutual aid or support organizations for those who have had such treatments forced on them or have decided they prefer alternate routes to recovery. the latter often don't pass judgment on the efficacy of such treatment for some, but rather concentrate on its forced or coerced usage.
some cool organizations in the movement:
some cool organizations in the movement:
- the freedom center - a small massachusetts advocacy and support group began by individuals diagnosed with various disorders (bipolar, schizophrenia, etc.).
- the icarus project - the icarus project, "navigating the space between brilliance and madness," a "decentralized network of mad and wonderful people with homes all over the globe." in particular, visit their art gallery - my favorites are paper wall, the world between, and racing thoughts.
- mind freedom international - an independent coalition of grassroots organizations. they publish the mindfreedom journal.
- psych rights - a non-profit legal organization created to "promote and implement a strategic legal campaign in support of psychiatric rights and against unwarranted court ordered psychiatric medication."
- cybercenter for liberty and responsibility - thomas szasz's org.
Labels: misc. psych
the trackback URL for "the psychiatric libertation movement" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/113978359083225760
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
What about the victims of nutjob scizophrenics who ought to be in jail? Is there an underground movement of those people?
Anyone who thinks that "forced hospitalization" of some lunatic screaming that he's Jesus and threatening people should themselves be hospitalized. Forcibly and forever.
By
Greg newburn, at
Thu Mar 02, 08:32:00 AM
schizophrenics, rather.
By
Greg Newburn, at
Thu Mar 02, 10:14:00 AM
schizophrenics are rarely violent, and should face the same punishment the rest of us do if they are.
and yes greg, we should hospitalize everyone who makes you uncomfortable/annoyed... so, who would not be hauled away??
By
ns, at
Thu Mar 02, 01:48:00 PM
Oh yeah? Then why did my schizophrenic friend Ryan bum-rush the pulpit at a Pensacola revival church and almost beat up a preacher?
It isn't that they annoy me, it's that they are a "danger to themselves or others."
Lock 'em up, I say. Forced hospitalization saved my friend's life. Why do you want to see mentally ill people die?
By
Greg, at
Thu Mar 02, 07:08:00 PM
because i don't like people, in general. that is why i'm a libertarian!
seriously, i didn't say they can't be, but that they usually aren't, violent. we're talking in generalities; of course there are exceptions. from research i've read, most are withdrawn and prefer solitude, and usually only those with previous history of violence are violent once becoming "ill". in any case, violence against others is a problem sure, but not necessarily violence against oneself (if that were the case, then we'd be for making cigarettes illegal). but i know you want to make cigarettes illegal anyways, greg.
By
ns, at
Thu Mar 02, 07:15:00 PM
The usual standard for forced hospitalization is "danger to oneself or others," not "schizophrenic." Hence the principle assumes that some, but not all, schizophrenics are violent.
In other words, it doesn't matter if "nearly all" mentally ill patients are not violent. What matters is the mental state at any given time. If the reasonable person would determine that the paitent is sufficiently non-rational that he poses a threat, then he can be locked up. What's wrong with that?
Perhaps "danger to oneself" shouldn't be part of the equation (or perhaps the standard should be higher in such situations). But it seems that if you concede that someone can be sufficiently outside the norms of reason that they pose a threat to others, and that people in such a state can justifiably be hospitalized against their will, then the whole argument is conceded.
By
Greg Newburn, at
Thu Mar 02, 07:59:00 PM
>If the reasonable person would determine that the paitent is sufficiently non-rational that he poses a threat, then he can be locked up. What's wrong with that?
because these things are impossible to measure, first of all. second because you're punishing someone by the most serous method possible save death for having done nothing wrong at all. i do think that a line has to be drawn at some point about using preemptive action, but i think i'd draw the line much, much, later than you would, at the point where it was clear that they were intending harm to some specific person. that point seems to be where we differ.
By
ns, at
Fri Mar 17, 12:14:00 AM
hospitalization is "the most serious [punishment] possible save death"? That's a little extreme, I think. If you asked the average bipolar patient, once he starts responding to meds and is released, whether he feels that he was just punished "in the most serious way possible save death," my guess is he says no. And he probably says, "why would I think that? I'm glad they put me in the hospital; I could've killed someone."
"clear that they were intending harm to some specific person" is an impossible standard to meet. I'd imagine that most of the time, there is no intended victim. Rather, some event occurs that triggers an immediate violent response; one which wouldn't have occurred if the person was--in any meaningful sense, and to the reasonable person--sane.
By
Greg Newburn, at
Tue Mar 21, 08:23:00 AM
Post a Comment