Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I apologize that this has taken me some time, but I have been somewhat busy and tired as of late.
First, I agree that helping others understand each other better and to look at things with foresight will greatly help the cause of emotional health.
“about how their brains work and hopefully then perhaps they'll pay more attention and slow down, take care of each other, be less judgmental, discriminating, hateful, etc.”
I’m not exactly sure what you mean here. I agree with helping society become more emotionally intelligent, critical thinking, and helping people understand those who are suffering will greatly help reduce the number of mentally ill. Where I’m not sure I agree is that if this is necessarily based on understanding ‘disorders’ and the ‘base functions of the brain’, but rather just generally having individuals take time to pay attention to those who are suffering, and relate to them on an emotional level. In fact, I think that the view that ‘disorders are responsible’ leads to more discrimination; in the vein of people, and sometimes unfortunately mental health ‘experts’ viewing them as less than people, as ‘crazy’, without legitimate reasons for feeling the way they feel that could just as easily apply to them.
The view I hold is that educating in an emotionally intelligent way and offering humane alternatives to mental suffering rather than maintaining the status quo and forcing a continuation of routine will work to provide empathy, rather than sympathy or pity. Sympathy often fails to work because the ‘helper’ has a preconceived notion of what is going on, and feels above the person, while pity is almost always demeaning. On the other hand, empathy involves a constantly changing relationship on a personal level in which both parties learn from each other.
“The willpower of which you speak comes from the brain. Some people are unable to effect the type of change you mention on their own. Think about what you see around you...why does a woman who knows she'll lose her kids if she uses cocaine again while on probation go ahead and use?”
I agree, somewhat. That’s largely because we’re raised in a world where something looks after us, and taught to embrace acceptance, not critical thinking. I think if people start to learn to understand why people really are mentally ill, this could spread further. I also agree that willpower does come from the brain, but through a huge labyrinth of reactions and nervous system impulses that are far too complex to alter accurately and positively with a single drug or even a few drugs. Of course, I certainly agree that cocaine is a very dangerous and addicting substance to at least 99% of users. Her irresponsible behavior is due to:
Serious physical addiction (physical substance that actually alters the brain directly and produces stimulant effects throughout the body). Brain chemistry does seriously change in the presence of heavy drug abuse, and this has actually been proven. Of course, greater willpower can HELP, but it generally applies to circumstances, not direct introduction of physical agents.
Poor quality drug education- leads to irresponsible use and more often abuse, as well as a huge amount of crime brought upon by illegality as opposed to careful regulation and education about the true effects of drugs
Lack of responsibility – She mindlessly abuses the drug with idea that “I will not get addicted” rather than careful planning. She also has the idea that someone will save her if things do go wrong, due to our ‘nanny state’. This ties into the previous statement.
“Is she evil, forced to by society, or is there some drive to use that her willpower cannot overcome. I've seen this many times. I have attempted to be there for people and show compassion but it just isn't enough sometimes.”
I agree, this is largely a physical, bodily addiction that can be augmented by metaphysical experiences. I also can agree that when things have gone very bad, compassion sometimes isn’t enough. She is not evil, but the way society functions makes her more predisposed to mindless addiction. I don’t think this is an accurate parallel to mental illness, because while the addiction may have been easier to stop had she been more responsible and had it been caught early, she is suffering from a serious physical addiction influenced by a direct, physical agent.
“This same example pertains to those who are obese. They know the consequences and don't want to be this way. They know that they can slim down by watching what they eat but they are unable to do it. Lack of willpower or a drive that overpowers the willpower? The latter is the case and this is a brain thing. Why? Because we have to have these drives to survive.”
I’ve read up on this before, and I’d have to only partially agree that our survival instinct is responsible for obesity (though not directly), in most cases. While it is agreeable that some types of physical structures are more prone to weight gain, there is a kind of primal comfort derived from eating (which ties into survival instinct), combined with a surplus of sugars and other substances that actually alter the physical state of the body directly, and can become something of an addiction. It is partially because of society however, because in a society that is very gluttonous and emphasizes huge portions, it is easy and socially accepted to overeat. It’s more of a survival instinct exploited and messed around with, I’d say. But see, that basic primal comfort is normal. It’s just that it is overdone due to society and circumstances that cause someone to seek comfort in the form of this feeling and the surplus of sugars.
“We are driven to eat to survive. So our brains say to us...that looks really good and is rewarding when you eat it. The brain lights up and says eat this. The frontal lobes kick and say no but the drive (reward center) says go for it and wins out. This is certainly related to society as we have such easy access to high calorie foods and don't have to exert ourselves anymore.“ This I can agree with, though the issue is often much more complex if related to personal issues.
“The only time I feel ethically inclined to intervene on someone's behalf is when it is obvious they will come to harm if I don't and the reason is something I can help with. It's like saying to a cardiologist who is trying to save someone with a heart attack "Don't intervene, he made the choice to eat poorly and not exercise and society is at fault because of high fat food and no need for exertion." You wouldn't go for that if it was you.”
And of course, that person would have the right to refuse treatment. Could their judgment and willpower not be affected by their condition if it had been taking an emotional toll on them, i.e. not being able to do the same activities?
“The only difference is that this patient would likely scream and say "treat me!" In my world, people's brains are affected so their willpower, judgment and insight are all affected so they can no longer make the decisions they would normally make if not influenced by depression, psychosis, drug addiction, etc.”
I do believe that that is a very subjective judgment for anyone to make, thus it is impossible to proclaim ones’ self more able to judge someone else’s need for treatment than themselves much of the time. Of course, there are exceptions, such as someone suffering from rabies and going insane (just an assumption, I actually don’t know how it affects humans), but that is because of a direct physical ailment that impairs the brain. Who is ‘more able’ to make judgments is currently determined by societal norms rather than the breadth and depth of their perspective, their emotional understanding, and their wisdom. Depressed people are often on the road to a greater perspective; as odd as it sounds, pain often brings a greater deal of wisdom.
Now, one might say that this is okay as long as they function in society, but perhaps they do not because those who are intelligent and intuitive do not function in our society well, for good reasons. Maybe it is because mediocrity has become the letter of the law, and those who are intelligent are ignored, not extolled. A depressed person often has their ‘normal’ life interrupted and begins to see life in a more cynical, truthful manner because they now realize that their previous illusions of happiness were dead wrong, and it is a hard transition to make when you are alone and nobody is helping you along. This is why people get depressed often; shattering a perspective and having to stuff it all inside and take it in, even if you do not directly realize it is one of the hardest things that people will go through in their life, if they ever experience it. With a huge number of messages being fired at them rather than help, it also breeds a huge amount of confusion.
I’m not trying to insult, but I propose a question: What if a cynical, angry misanthrope who understood vast aspects of the world, life itself, and the beyond were to ‘treat’ the average person with emotional torture so they could see life for more of what it really was? Would that be okay, because the average person would not have the judgment making capabilities of the misanthropic genius? I’m not referencing to myself, though I am quite a cynic, but the answer is no. Despite this genius, people need to make their own decisions and find out for themselves, though guidance can be provided. This, in my opinion, is actually better than ‘treating’ someone so they can return to the norm, but it is still wrong because it does not take into account an empathetic perspective which understands the person through and through and helps them understand the world better. I firmly believe that the cynical perspective is far more accurate than the average one, especially if it has clear alternatives and aims. Does that mean that a cynical, angry person should have the right to forcibly ‘treat’ someone who is average? No.
This ‘better judgment’ is also open to too much bias. What if a misanthropic person who was perfectly sane, but completely despised the world and most in it wanted to kill him or herself? Chances are that the vast majority of psychiatrists would diagnose that person with a disorder and give them drugs, while in reality, although his/her positions might have gone a bit too far, that person possesses a far more accurate world view than those psychiatrists. This is because there is a preconception that if someone wants to kill themselves, they are automatically mentally ill. I’m just saying that this better judgment affair is too subjective 99% of the time, and that many people who appear unstable on the scale of societal adjustment may actually be exhibiting healthy reactions, and have a sense of perspective that you or others may not.
“ I hope at least through our stimulating discussion, you realize that psychiatrists aren't all out there trying to control the world and people's minds. I nor my colleagues would know what to do with that kind of control.”
No, I do not. I do believe that a lot of psychiatrists have not been presented with the full picture, but the main people I hold responsible are the heads of the APA who cooperate with the heads of the pharmaceutical companies, and the Pharma CEOs themselves. Maybe they’re not bent on world domination, but there is one thing they want: money. If a more oppressive establishment makes them more money, I have no doubt in my mind that they will take those steps.
“
By the way, also in one of my videos, I describe the methods by which we commit someone to treatment. It is generally started by family, signed off on by an MD and finally a judge has to approve.”
That’s not always how it happens, but I completely agree that there are at least some checks and balances. The thing is, society is adjusted to accepting the word of psychiatrists (or any 'doctor' in a white lab coat) quickly, and judges are no more emotionally intelligent than the average person the vast majority of the time. Take into account a family which is purely reacting, scared and shocked, rather than thinking things through. This is how a lot of people get forcibly committed to negative treatment and families support it; they are too emotionally traumatized to think about what might really happen in the long term.
“When (or if) you have kids or get around them from the time of infancy, watch how different their temperaments are even from birth. They haven't had time to be effected by society yet but they are already different from one another. That is how they are wired...this wiring is very complex and different from one to another and therefore there can be illnesses that result. Gotta get back to work. Have a good one!”
Well, I do plan to have kids someday when I find the right partner (I am only eighteen), and I completely agree that people have different basic personalities. Passive people and aggressive people are more ‘predisposed’ to depression and bipolar/rage under the same extreme stress. Rather than being technical and labeling it as genetic, what should be looked at is that different people have different reactions to extreme stress that are often similar in severity.
I don’t disagree that sometimes, short term drug use can help someone who is seriously mentally suffering. However:
These drugs are not cures.
Many are very dangerous and have negative effects.
At best, the effects are temporary and equivalent to getting tipsy or smoking a joint
What I would suggest is to have drugs accurately tested with proven, short term positive effects, and offered in small amounts (yes, offered, not forced) to those who are seriously suffering. The current way is too skewed and misconstrued to be of any help. People end up largely getting addicted to these substances, taking them routinely, and often these ‘research’ studies are skewed in favor of making money on pharmaceutical grounds. Many even greatly increase the risk of suicide, and just numb things down.
Non-addictive drugs that produce temporary soothing effects without side effects should be optional in small doses for those who desire them, but:
1. They should never be forced
2. Research into their effects should be completely independent
3. It should be acknowledged that they DO NOT correct any ‘chemical imbalance’, and merely could be used from time to time to help relax. Thus, they should be tested on ‘normal’ people for these same effects, etc. Marijuana needs to be legalized and offered.
4. This should not be for profit at all.
5. Responsible, TRUTHFUL, and sensible drug education needs to be combined with this.
6. Side effects need to be very carefully examined from multiple angles.
I have more things to talk about, but I’ll keep it at this for now. Hope you appreciate my response. I’ll also be sure to check out that video of yours soon enough.
-Brian
No comments:
Post a Comment