• Welcome! It’s great to see you. Our forum members are people, maybe like yourself, who experience mental health difficulties or who have had them at some point in their life.

    If you'd like to talk with people who know what it's like

Being nice

Z

Zero

Guest
The ideology behind an organisation such as MIND the mental health charity is 'empowerment of the client group' apart from being patronising its also a out and out lie. MIND like every other mental health focused group is psychiatry dependent. To actually stand up to for the rights of a individual would be far to much of a sacrifice for many people to take. To offer 'impartial' advice without trying to spare the horrors of 'triggers' and without straying from the NICE expounded guidelines is hypocrisy at its worse. In the end most mentally suffering people tend to want reactive help, that is they want to be helped and listened to on their terms NOW. The idea that true cure will take quite a investment of time and energy is alien to most people. Pills and a temporary but undemanding ear to chew is what most people want and which is readily available in the form of a psychiatrist or CPN. Anyone who dares stray from this debilitating status quo is, at first, patronised, then ostracised and as a last resort violently discredited.

The idea that a medication does anything but numb the brain is idiocy at best and deliberate self harm or violence at worse. Medication's only saving grace is that when taken a patients behaviour will conform to their family/peer group but at great expense to the self. However the so called helpers still adhere to the psychiatric definitions like a child clings to their mother.

The reactive nature of mental suffering is obvious if you just observe peoples ability to go from great suffering to denial as soon as the sun comes up or the bank balance is suddenly more healthy. Psychiatry sees this as signs of improvement – it isn't.

The self help groups, or 'client focused user groups' (yawn) are a block to free thinking. They try to 'protect' their 'clients' from alternative views to societal norms. Adults have a right to maintain their illness as long as they choose, but to deny that there are real and lasting cures available is criminal.
I have no sympathy for stupidity and lack of knowledge in this knowledge saturated age but to add to the ignorance while pretending to stand for a individuals rights while maintaining the abuses is sickening.

Being NICE isn't always the best way.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
Hi Zero - Largely I agree.

'MIND' - I do find to be one of the more impartial & open minded MH charities at work. I am very much into non-orthodox 'alternatives', & I often use some of the information on their web site for reference. It is comprehensive & balanced.

As for medication. Personally I think that there are far better ways of helping the majority of people. & I also think it criminal that such ways are not widely available. But such is the World, & the societies that we live in. There are also those who are best treated with meds, even with the exhaustion of all other methods. I do think that there is a place for Bio-Medicine in the treatment of the Mind. I have met some who swear by ECT, as the only thing which turned their lives around & helped them.

In the extreme, I have personally known of a case of someone having a frontal lobotomy; & being very pleased that the procedure was performed.

I reluctantly take a low dose of a med, & I try to be as accepting as I can. For now, there is not an alternative; the specific support isn't there for a successful withdrawal, & my situation & circumstances are such that if I stopped this med I would become very unwell. It's not what I wanted - but after 20 years of 'problems', & exposure to orthodox psychiatry, well, that's the way it is.

I have been looking at as many sides to mental health as I can, for some time. I lean towards psychological interventions, especially the work of Carl Jung, & John Weir Perry. I follow Holistic approaches. I fully agree, personally, that the Bio-medical model in relation to mental illness is largely a nonsense, & there are better approaches. But there is no 'done deal', the simple truth is that no one knows fully what is happening in 'mental illness'.

Many people I have found, if not most, appear satisfied with the orthodox model.
 
Z

Zero

Guest
Carl Jung who I admit I am not to heavily acquainted with is the inventor of the collective consciousness I believe. The archetypes of experience. As with Freud and Klein etc anything that tries to displace the personal experience of the individual with 'innate drives' or 'archetypal behaviours' only aims to displace they truth. Google Alice miller and read about such things if you choose. The system makes it hard and in some cases damn near impossible for alternatives to be explored. Confusion abounds and ain't nowt worse than wondering into a manipulative quack therapy that costs lots of money (which I have done).

I personally have had a life full of shit, psychiatry and the nhs just added to my woes. I have thankfully found a alternative. I wouldn't choose to force anyone to do anything (unlike psychiatry) but the alternative information should be made available along side conventional ideas.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
Your Quote, incidentally, by Thomas Szasz; although very much opposed to mainstream psychiatry, was himself a psychiatrist. Psychologists are very often trained in psychoanalysis, & are familiar with it; they work alongside psychiatrists in the NHS. I don't quite get why you would talk about 'alternatives', & appear to be so opposed to the orthodox on one hand; then admit following orthodox practices?
 
Z

Zero

Guest
Of course we have to thank Freud for his discoveries. However It is noted (by some) that his turning away from trauma theory in favour of drive theory was a severe setback. Psychoanalysis has come a long way since Freud and Jung. Some people still stick rigidly to one or the other schools of thought. The best only stick to the experience of the patient. Blaming the victim is the biggest mistake any therapist can make even if it is disguised as a theory of innate 'evilness'.
 
Z

Zero

Guest
Your Quote, incidentally, by Thomas Szasz; although very much opposed to mainstream psychiatry, was himself a psychiatrist. Psychologists are very often trained in psychoanalysis, & are familiar with it; they work alongside psychiatrists in the NHS. I don't quite get why you would talk about 'alternatives', & appear to be so opposed to the orthodox on one hand; then admit following orthodox practices?
I'm not opposed to anyone who can work with a balanced point of view. I am opposed to denial of facts/research. The idea that a psychiatrist cannot work for the interest of the patient under any circumstances is silly, and one point of view I never subscribe to.

However I would suggest that psychiatrists such as Thomas Szasz are in the tiny tiny minority, as are Enlightened therapists. I don't give a damn if one chooses to take drugs and/or have electrodes attached to their head and be electrocuted, I give a damn that information is withheld by the so called 'experts'.

As for psychologists being trained in psychoanalysis... I have never come across one. In fact psychologists are expressly forbidden from practicing from one theoretical model.

If you get funding for psychoanalysis with a truely enlightened therapist in the NHS without limits on time then I am happy for you.

I don't shy away from the orthodox (psychoanalysis is orthodox) I shy away from deflecting truth.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
Psychoanalysis has come a long way since Freud and Jung.
With respect - I didn't think that you knew about Jung?

He was very ahead of his time & still is. I would not describe Jung as a Psychoanalyst; although it is something he did study.

'Jungian' based methods are & have been very much developed, along with the transpersonal. Such understandings & methods are alive & well.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
I am opposed to denial of facts/research.......I give a damn that information is withheld by the so called 'experts'.
Can you be more specific please?

As for psychologists being trained in psychoanalysis... I have never come across one. In fact psychologists are expressly forbidden from practising from one theoretical model.
& rightly so. An experienced & usually older psychologist will have some experience of psychoanalysis. I have just finished a course of psychology with a psychologist who had experience with such things .

If you get funding for psychoanalysis with a truly enlightened therapist in the NHS without limits on time then I am happy for you.
I have met a good one. There was limits on time, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't shy away from the orthodox (psychoanalysis is orthodox) I shy away from deflecting truth.
'Truth' - is a big word. Again, what specifically are you referring to?
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
As I said things have moved on.
From what? To what? I didn't realise that you had knowledge of transpersonal methods as well.

Alice miller - Who is an 'orthodox' psychoanalyst - I would neither refer to as progressive, nor 'alternative'. Her methods are firmly rooted in history. What exactly are you referring to?
 
Z

Zero

Guest
Can you be more specific please?
nope

& rightly so. An experienced & usually older psychologist will have some experience of psychoanalysis. I have just finished a course of psychology with a psychologist who had experience with such things .

Deflection from your own history is easy if many different theories can be used. Who wants to face agony when a theory can be so much easier.

I have met a good one. There was limits on time, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

So healing has a predictable time limit does it?



'Truth' - is a big word. Again, what specifically are you referring to?

My truth - the truth that society evades.... the truth of the abstract (apparently) childhood of each and every individual.
 
Z

Zero

Guest
From what? To what? I didn't realise that you had knowledge of transpersonal methods as well.

Alice miller - Who is an 'orthodox' psychoanalyst - I would neither refer to as progressive, nor 'alternative'. Her methods are firmly rooted in history. What exactly are you referring to?

Yes I can tell you have read absorbed and understood her books.

Look be ill it ain't my issue I have a alternative view research it or don't. Don't distort the facts or do... No one really cares, people die because people just don't care. Pills, therapy or bullshit its up to each and every individual after all its their life.
 
Top