|
Home > Archive > Schizophrenia Support > August 2004 > "Schizophrenia is not an illness"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
"Schizophrenia is not an illness"
|
|
| Newton's Cat 2004-08-16, 2:06 am |
|
http://www.enable.net.au/index.cfm?...ull&article=943
Rethinking schizophrenia 13/07/2004
ABC Radio AM - Wednesday, 30 June , 2004
TONY EASTLEY: A New Zealand academic has stirred up a controversy by
suggesting in his just published book that schizophrenia is not an illness.
Dr John Read, the director of Clinical Psychology at Auckland University, says the
anxieties or delusions of sufferers are actually caused by past traumas such as sexual
abuse.
And he says drug companies are taking advantage, by pushing the idea that
schizophrenia is an illness that must be treated with medication.
Dr John Read is in Melbourne for the launch of his book Models of Madness. He spoke
to Ben Knight.
BEN KNIGHT: John Read says schizophrenia is nothing but a name – a name for a
wide range of behaviours that don't come under any other heading. And by being given
a name, schizophrenia then gets the status of being an illness, and therefore, a new
seam for drug companies to mine.
JOHN READ: They're doing it with depression, which used to be called sadness, now
it's depressive disorder. They're doing it with people who worry excessively, now it's
anxiety disorder, and the list goes on and on.
And this is very actively promulgated – this idea that excessive feelings or not feeling
enough or sleeping too much, or sleeping not enough – are illnesses and disorders. It's
in their interests, the pharmaceutical industry, to promulgate that sort of idea on the
public. Why wouldn't they? It sells their products.
BEN KNIGHT: And he says that less than a third of patients will ever get any benefit
from drug treatment.
JOHN READ: In any other area of medicine, the cost benefit analysis would be such
that these drugs would probably be used only as an absolute last resort, when
everything else has been tried.
But that isn't the case at the moment. If you get a diagnosis of schizophrenia, you're
almost a hundred per cent guaranteed to be put on medication, and perhaps be offered
someone to talk to at some point, and it should be the other way around.
BEN KNIGHT: John Read's co-authors include the Clinical Director of Psychiatry at the
University of California in San Diego, and the Professor of Experimental Psychiatry at
Manchester University. In fact, there are 25 academic contributors to the book from
around the world.
But there are plenty of others in the field who, while they agree that drugs are not the
only treatment, say John Read's views are outdated and extreme.
Patrick McGorry is Professor of Psychiatry at Melbourne University.
PATRICK MCGORRY: Well, this was an idea that was around back in the 1960's.
There was tremendous confusion as to what the nature of schizophrenia was, and
there was a whole anti-psychiatry movement which was partly reacting to the kind of
abuses that were happening in psychiatry in those days, and also a fundamental
philosophical idea. I think that's very clearly been resolved through two decades of
research of various kinds.
BEN KNIGHT: And he rejects the idea that drugs are being used only to make money
for their manufacturers.
But Dr John Read says medicating patients is not solving their problems.
JOHN READ: We have this overly medicalised view where if you hear voices, or you
think the CIA is out to get you, then you immediately apply this scientific sounding word
schizophrenia and think you know what's going on, whereas in fact you know nothing.
You have to trace back, with the person, where the voices started, what the voices
are saying. Very often, the voice is the voice of someone who has done something
quite horrendous to that person in the past, such as child abuse or rape.
And trying to suppress those voices chemically is not a helpful thing to do when the
person needs an opportunity to talk with somebody about what has happened to them
and what those voices mean.
TONY EASTLEY: Dr John Read, the Professor of Clinical Psychology at Auckland
University, speaking in Melbourne there to our reporter, Ben Knight.
| |
|
| Interesting article. I don't feel that Read is right, I am positive that
there are many schizophrenics out of the whole who were never abused in any
way and still acquired the illness. However the pharmaceutical side is also
wrong in trying to find fault with more individuals than just those who
truly need medication. Doctors i've had in the past seem to scoff at any
idea of lowering medicine, when honestly I feel for many years I've been
overmedicated. Read is right that it is a business out to make as much cash
as possible, no doubt about that. But medications can work for many people.
"Newton's Cat" <flyingpussy@antigravity.com> wrote in message
news:41202cd9$0$39191$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> http://www.enable.net.au/index.cfm?...ull&article=943
>
> Rethinking schizophrenia 13/07/2004
>
> ABC Radio AM - Wednesday, 30 June , 2004
>
> TONY EASTLEY: A New Zealand academic has stirred up a controversy by
> suggesting in his just published book that schizophrenia is not an
> illness.
>
> Dr John Read, the director of Clinical Psychology at Auckland University,
> says the
> anxieties or delusions of sufferers are actually caused by past traumas
> such as sexual
> abuse.
>
> And he says drug companies are taking advantage, by pushing the idea that
> schizophrenia is an illness that must be treated with medication.
>
> Dr John Read is in Melbourne for the launch of his book Models of Madness.
> He spoke
> to Ben Knight.
>
> BEN KNIGHT: John Read says schizophrenia is nothing but a name - a name
> for a
> wide range of behaviours that don't come under any other heading. And by
> being given
> a name, schizophrenia then gets the status of being an illness, and
> therefore, a new
> seam for drug companies to mine.
>
> JOHN READ: They're doing it with depression, which used to be called
> sadness, now
> it's depressive disorder. They're doing it with people who worry
> excessively, now it's
> anxiety disorder, and the list goes on and on.
>
> And this is very actively promulgated - this idea that excessive feelings
> or not feeling
> enough or sleeping too much, or sleeping not enough - are illnesses and
> disorders. It's
> in their interests, the pharmaceutical industry, to promulgate that sort
> of idea on the
> public. Why wouldn't they? It sells their products.
>
> BEN KNIGHT: And he says that less than a third of patients will ever get
> any benefit
> from drug treatment.
>
> JOHN READ: In any other area of medicine, the cost benefit analysis would
> be such
> that these drugs would probably be used only as an absolute last resort,
> when
> everything else has been tried.
>
> But that isn't the case at the moment. If you get a diagnosis of
> schizophrenia, you're
> almost a hundred per cent guaranteed to be put on medication, and perhaps
> be offered
> someone to talk to at some point, and it should be the other way around.
>
> BEN KNIGHT: John Read's co-authors include the Clinical Director of
> Psychiatry at the
> university of California in San Diego, and the Professor of Experimental
> Psychiatry at
> Manchester University. In fact, there are 25 academic contributors to the
> book from
> around the world.
>
> But there are plenty of others in the field who, while they agree that
> drugs are not the
> only treatment, say John Read's views are outdated and extreme.
>
> Patrick McGorry is Professor of Psychiatry at Melbourne University.
>
> PATRICK MCGORRY: Well, this was an idea that was around back in the
> 1960's.
> There was tremendous confusion as to what the nature of schizophrenia was,
> and
> there was a whole anti-psychiatry movement which was partly reacting to
> the kind of
> abuses that were happening in psychiatry in those days, and also a
> fundamental
> philosophical idea. I think that's very clearly been resolved through two
> decades of
> research of various kinds.
>
> BEN KNIGHT: And he rejects the idea that drugs are being used only to make
> money
> for their manufacturers.
>
> But Dr John Read says medicating patients is not solving their problems.
>
> JOHN READ: We have this overly medicalised view where if you hear voices,
> or you
> think the CIA is out to get you, then you immediately apply this
> scientific sounding word
> schizophrenia and think you know what's going on, whereas in fact you know
> nothing.
>
> You have to trace back, with the person, where the voices started, what
> the voices
> are saying. Very often, the voice is the voice of someone who has done
> something
> quite horrendous to that person in the past, such as child abuse or rape.
>
> And trying to suppress those voices chemically is not a helpful thing to
> do when the
> person needs an opportunity to talk with somebody about what has happened
> to them
> and what those voices mean.
>
> TONY EASTLEY: Dr John Read, the Professor of Clinical Psychology at
> Auckland
> University, speaking in Melbourne there to our reporter, Ben Knight.
>
>
>
| |
| Démenti 2004-08-19, 10:06 pm |
|
James wrote:
> Interesting article. I don't feel that Read is right, I am positive that
> there are many schizophrenics out of the whole who were never abused in any
> way and still acquired the illness. However the pharmaceutical side is also
> wrong in trying to find fault with more individuals than just those who
> truly need medication. Doctors i've had in the past seem to scoff at any
> idea of lowering medicine, when honestly I feel for many years I've been
> overmedicated. Read is right that it is a business out to make as much cash
> as possible, no doubt about that. But medications can work for many people.
I find that doctors in general are thinly-disguised salespeople whose
primary job is to peddle medications, treatments, and diagnostic tests,
partly so that they can continue to make a living but mostly so that
thoe providers of those things can make a profit. Doctors are accorded
too much status in our society because there is only one area of life in
which the "if you believe it, you can make it happen" pop-culture
horseshit doesn't apply, and that's relative to a person's own death,
which means a person's own health. Personal health is the only thing in
our society that hasn't been etherealized and relativized, with the
result that too many people behave as if doctors are gods. But the
doctors I've had have been extremely limited human beings with not even
one-thousandth of my depth and complexity. This is especially true of
psychiatrists, who could be replaced with robo-pets that can sign
prescription pads and no one would be the wiser.
dM
| |
| nexus 2004-08-25, 11:06 am |
| The brainless social psychiatry of the sixties is on a par with the
biological psychiatry of recent. Better theories engage multicausal
arguments.
The historical discontinuity of scientific knowledge, the social
construction of diseases, that is to say all diseases, be they cancers,
infections, auto-immunes, mental illnesses does not deny real pain and
suffering. Where all the deconstruction often fails, is in recognizing that
there are underlying biological factors impinging as well as social factors
intersecting.
Blaming mothers or sexual abuse springs from outdated narrow minded insight
orientated psychoanalytical mumbo jumbo.
That in times past and interestingly with a minority in the present, that
they should misunderstand the social construction of disease (see Foucault),
goes to say a lot about the intelligence quotient of many psychiatrists,
psychologists and other allied health professionals.
The evidence just doesn't support such mono-causal nonsense.
nexus
| |
| Newton's Cat 2004-08-25, 7:06 pm |
|
"nexus" <nexusextinct@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The brainless social psychiatry of the sixties is on a par with the
>biological psychiatry of recent. Better theories engage multicausal
>arguments.
>The historical discontinuity of scientific knowledge, the social
>construction of diseases, that is to say all diseases, be they cancers,
>infections, auto-immunes, mental illnesses does not deny real pain and
>suffering. Where all the deconstruction often fails, is in recognizing that
>there are underlying biological factors impinging as well as social factors
>intersecting.
>Blaming mothers or sexual abuse springs from outdated narrow minded insight
>orientated psychoanalytical mumbo jumbo.
>That in times past and interestingly with a minority in the present, that
>they should misunderstand the social construction of disease (see Foucault),
>goes to say a lot about the intelligence quotient of many psychiatrists,
>psychologists and other allied health professionals.
>The evidence just doesn't support such mono-causal nonsense.
>nexus
>
Focusing on biological factors to the exclusion of the relationship between the mother
and the child is an abuse of the human rights of those with "severe mental illness". The
theory that "psychosis" can only be generated by biological factors - that mothers
cannot and do not deliberately "drive their offspring insane" - is, in itself, a "psychosis" -
a delusion - a refusal to see what is blindlingly obvious when one investigates the
psyches of an alarmingly high proportion of mothers with schizophrenic offspring.
Some researchers postulate a genetic factor in the MOTHERS that causes them to
systematically disrupt the social and psychological development of one or more of their
offspring.
The problem is often (frequently) further compounded by the involvement of other family
members.
Most schizophrenics are "victims" - even those who "dote upon" their mothers and will
never utter a word of criticism of her.
Mummy is a witch.
One cannot expect a biological theorist, steeped in science and statistics, to "see" all
this.
| |
|
| "Newton's Cat" <flyingpussy@antigravity.com> wrote in message news:<41202cd9$0$39191$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
> http://www.enable.net.au/index.cfm?...ull&article=943
>
> Rethinking schizophrenia 13/07/2004
>
> ABC Radio AM - Wednesday, 30 June , 2004
>
> TONY EASTLEY: A New Zealand academic has stirred up a controversy by
> suggesting in his just published book that schizophrenia is not an illness.
>
> Dr John Read, the director of Clinical Psychology at Auckland University, says the
> anxieties or delusions of sufferers are actually caused by past traumas such as sexual
> abuse.
Looks interesting...
* What other types of 'past traumas' could be interesting to investigate?
PC §:-)
Taastrup CH
(FH)
| |
| The Black Hills 2004-08-28, 11:06 am |
| If schizophrenia were a crime and I were accused of it there would
not be sufficent evidence to convict me in a U.S. court.
Subjective opinions aren't evidence enough for a legal conviction ;
yet can be enough to send a person into a circumstance tantamount to
incarceration to be constantly tortured for the remainder of their life
in this country. Courtroom recognition of psychiatric opinion is a
perversion of the U.S. constitution and should be banned.
I am responsible for my own mental health.You responsible for your
own mental health."We the People" are all responsible for the mental
health of the legal system. It has become sick and requires treatment.
I wonder why lack of transportation disorder wasn't treated by
forcibly providing me with bicycle or an automobile.btw I was also
suffering from a severe money deficiency that went unnoticed.
I think the worst oversight was my "lack of being taken seriously"
disability. It led to years of coercive drug torture.
Looking on the sunny side finds me with just enough cognitive capacity
to meagerly exert influence as a literary activise. Literary activism is
unfortunately a primarily pro bono endeavor.
If you are fed up with the psychiatric status quo and want to vent some
anger tickle your keyboard over to...
alt.flame.psychiatry
I got better in spite of the treatments that were making me sicker.I
want my money back. I recieved a defective product that should have
never been on the market.
|
| |
|
|