START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Obama Executive Orders Vastly Empower Psychiatry While Gutting Patient Rights


Health & Wellness  (tags: abuse, babies, children, death, drugs, ethics, family, government, health, healthcare, humans, interesting, investigation, news, risks, society, warning )

Kenneth
- 531 days ago - naturalnews.com
In the last several decades, Psychiatry has joined forces with the pharmaceutical industry and the result is the mass drugging of adults and children. With a huge influx of money from the drug companies, Psychiatry has enormously increased its influence.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 6:35 am
"President Obama issued a set of 23 executive orders Jan. 16, 2013 that vastly empower psychiatry. This great expansion of psychiatric authority and power will ensure that organized psychiatry and the mental health establishment will not resist other presidential executive orders that greatly impair the free and effective practice of psychiatry, psychotherapy, and all of healthcare.

Order 23 is "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health." Even more than the "Decade of the Brain," from the 1990's, this new dialogue will push power to psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. The dialogue will be a national PR campaign on behalf of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Executive orders number 20-23 are another psychiatric marketing dream come true. Number 20 orders, "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover." Number 21 directs, "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA [Affordable Care Act] exchanges." The Affordable Care Act is Obamacare, and the exchanges are the health insurance exchanges that are supposed to be established under the ACA. And Order 22 states, "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

Before you imagine that these three commandments will make counseling and psychotherapy more available and affordable, think of Medicare or Medicaid. We will have more coverage for psychiatric drug prescriptions and for 5 or 10 minute med checks, the financial staples of the drug companies and psychiatry. The above three orders to enforce parity ensure a growing psychiatric establishment in America."
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 6:42 am
As a leader Obama has to delegate responsibility to others for their supposed knowledge of certain things. Then he acts on recommendations from those people.

While I'm sure he had good intentions, and was responding to the clamor of the people for 'mentally deranged people shouldn't have guns!" he may have inadvertently caused the exact opposite effect now with these executive orders.

While it sounds good in theory that any patient who tells a doctor or psychiatrist that they are having thoughts of suicide or homicide and also have a gun at home, that now it behooves that doctor or psychiatrist to inform the police who thereupon are made aware of it
What happens in reality may be that the person will simply NOT TELL their doctor or psychiatrist these things in order not to be 'discovered' or 'exposed'.
Also, it does nothing to prevent such a person from buying a gun or guns a few days before their plans, since evidently in 32 states you don't need any ID or check to buy a gun.

What do you think?
 

Birgitta S. (221)
Friday January 25, 2013, 7:11 am
Very Hard & So So Important Issue; Thank you, dear Kenneth for this.
 

Carol H. (229)
Friday January 25, 2013, 7:32 am
noted with concern. thanks Kenneth
 

Arielle S. (314)
Friday January 25, 2013, 7:45 am
I think a really good psychiatrist would be able to tell if a patient was thinking of suicide or murder - it is one of those between a rock and a hard place issues but there are no easy answers, are there?
 

Kit B. (277)
Friday January 25, 2013, 8:02 am

Kenneth is correct and this like any business is going to require an over sight agency. Not everyone that is dealing with some depression requires either psychiatric nor medical intervention. Suicidal ideation does not necessarily lead to murderous intention. There is an estimate that between 70 -80% of people suffering pain from injury or depression are prescribed some form of anti-depression. As we know from past "mass-shooters" many if not most have been on an anti-depressant.
 

Kathy Chadwell (371)
Friday January 25, 2013, 8:26 am
I take no meds except when I get a kidney stone that sticks. I suffer from constant kidney stones, Crohn's disease, deteriorating spine. They told me 4 years ago that 2 years from then I'd be in a wheel chair. I'm still walking about. Like I said I only go to the doctor when I absolutely have to. My father taught us that it was all in our head and to deal with it. What they want to give people today you just can not trust. Many are not in pain because they are depressed,, like they want people to believe. They are depressed because they are in pain. I get depressed because of all the abuse in the world. Abuse of our animals is overlooked while abuse of power (which also harms humans) is swept under the carpet. NO PILL is going to cure this. People need to stop letting them tell them what to take. I have told them and refused to take meds that are tested on animals. Which leads us back to WHY I am not on any meds.
 

Ruth S. (313)
Friday January 25, 2013, 8:36 am
Thank you for sending this out Kenneth.
 

Brian M. (145)
Friday January 25, 2013, 9:04 am
This comes as no surprise: no progressive agenda on our centrist President's plate; we can no longer be surprised when orders that look more and more like the extremist Republican agenda are signed. We have to face reality: our nation, for all practical purposes has two Republican parties...one that has gone off the deep end of extremism, and the other, more moderate conservative republican party...that still likes to hide behind the label, Democrat. Likewise, it will come as no surprise when this President decides that leftist dissent to his administration will be deemed a form of mental illness. Political dissent will be silenced by mass medication of the disenfranchised. Perhaps he is reading Putin's playbook for ideas?
 

Alice C. (1797)
Friday January 25, 2013, 10:43 am
Thank you for keeping us posted.
 

Agnes N. (717)
Friday January 25, 2013, 12:07 pm
Thanks.. Kenneth
 

cecily w. (0)
Friday January 25, 2013, 12:44 pm
Let's also look at another aspect at the milder end of the spectrum. The secret is in the billing--you know, the codes that your doctor's office submits to Medicare or your insurance company.

You go to the doctor--an internist--for a routine physical. You were thin to begin with and you've lost some more weight. The doctor asks you if anything is wrong (which he should) you mention (fill in the blank here, anything from "my mother died" to "work problems" to "I'm having trouble sleeping"). He prescribes a few valium to help you
sleep just for a few nights. A couple weeks go by. You've solved the problem, or at least you're coping, and you're sleeping again without the valium and eating just fine.

A few more weeks go by, and you see the detail sheet from your Medicare or private insurance claim. That visit for
a routine physical was billed as "psychiatric services" even though the doctor is an internist, not a shrink. Sure, you call around. The insurer refers you to the doctor's office because it was coded there. The doctor's office refers you to the biller (a separate company). It's not just a mistake--a simple "miscode"--but even when you get it corrected, reference to the "psychiatric services" will remain somewhere in your electronic file.
 

Rosary G. (3)
Friday January 25, 2013, 12:54 pm
January 16, 2013: "President Barack Obama signed 23 executive actions today with the goal of suppressing gun violence and researching the effects of violent media on young minds. The actions supplement a proposed $500 million program to curtail gun violence, including implementing a universal background check for gun buyers, restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting magazines to 10 rounds, and developing emergency preparedness plans."

So what's the problem?

Executive ACTIONS, not orders. Get your story straight before posting crap on this site,

Come on, Care 2, get this paranoid garbage off the site, please!
 

BG Callahan (0)
Friday January 25, 2013, 1:11 pm
I was disappointed in the natural news site--it seemed to be more alarmist rhetoric than a reasoned analysis of the issue raised. Smells a bit like "Fascists are coming to take away your brains!" I have had 2 close friends who became Marriage/Family therapists (one passed away in December--who I closely assisted in her education because she was legally blind) and I have NEVER come across the mind set this article describes. However I learned of a person who was protesting the way medicine was being administered in his HMO--THEY were able to take him into psychiatric custody and administer drugs as a response to a peaceful leafletting!
 

Craig Pittman (44)
Friday January 25, 2013, 1:19 pm
"Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President" This definition comes from the Library of Congress. Forbes magazine called the January 16th, 2013 signings "Presidential Orders"

The words 'actions' and 'orders' are interchangeble when used in this sense.

 

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 1:31 pm
@Rosary G" 'paranoid garbage'? Let's see. This article is by Dr. Peter Breggin, 46 YEARS in the field of Psychiatry, has been called to testify as a medical expert witness approx. 85 times since 1987, and has a subspecialty in psychopharmacology. Seen thousands of patients in clinical practice.

So who's the paranoid,, unqualified person here Rosary? Um, I would guess YOU!

I'm certainly sure he knows the difference between executive actions and orders.:

Same thing @ Bo Callaghan. Anytime you want to question Breggin as nor qualified to give a 'reasoned analysis' about anything to do with the field of psychiatry, please let him know.
 

Mary T. (188)
Friday January 25, 2013, 2:06 pm
Thanks Kenneth, Noted.
 

Bill C. (354)
Friday January 25, 2013, 2:16 pm
too funny

your unqualified Ken, I do not know about anyone else

please feel free to post your useless quote mantra now....
 

Kit B. (277)
Friday January 25, 2013, 2:26 pm

From FACT CHECK.org/


Home • The FactCheck Wire • FactChecking GOP Response to Obama Gun Plan
FactChecking GOP Response to Obama Gun Plan
Posted on January 24, 2013


Republican response to President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce gun violence has been peppered with misleading claims.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas claimed, “Gun bans and anti-gun laws have always led to one thing — more gun violence.” But the majority of academic research on the effect of the federal assault weapons ban, as well as restrictive gun laws in several major cities, has found no such causal link.

Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana condemned what he said was Obama’s plan to “push” doctors to ask patients if there are guns in their homes. But Obama sought to “clarify” that the federal health care law does not prohibit such conversations between doctor and patient.

Stockman also claimed a parent “may face a prison sentence” for giving his or her “son his first hunting rifle,” referring to Obama’s call for universal background checks on gun sales. But the president’s proposal — which would require congressional approval — specifically says there should be “common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the Second Amendment “cannot be … abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.” But all of Obama’s major proposals to restrict the sales of firearms and ammunition would require congressional approval and would not be carried out by executive fiat.

Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma falsely claimed that Obama’s plan includes “23 executive orders” — a “nearly 15% increase in the total number of executive orders” issued by the president since taking office. In fact, Obama does not plan to issue any executive orders — but he does propose 23 “executive actions.”


Home • The FactCheck Wire • FactChecking GOP Response to Obama Gun Plan
FactChecking GOP Response to Obama Gun Plan
Posted on January 24, 2013
Bookmark and Share

Republican response to President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce gun violence has been peppered with misleading claims.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas claimed, “Gun bans and anti-gun laws have always led to one thing — more gun violence.” But the majority of academic research on the effect of the federal assault weapons ban, as well as restrictive gun laws in several major cities, has found no such causal link.
Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana condemned what he said was Obama’s plan to “push” doctors to ask patients if there are guns in their homes. But Obama sought to “clarify” that the federal health care law does not prohibit such conversations between doctor and patient.
Stockman also claimed a parent “may face a prison sentence” for giving his or her “son his first hunting rifle,” referring to Obama’s call for universal background checks on gun sales. But the president’s proposal — which would require congressional approval — specifically says there should be “common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the Second Amendment “cannot be … abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.” But all of Obama’s major proposals to restrict the sales of firearms and ammunition would require congressional approval and would not be carried out by executive fiat.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma falsely claimed that Obama’s plan includes “23 executive orders” — a “nearly 15% increase in the total number of executive orders” issued by the president since taking office. In fact, Obama does not plan to issue any executive orders — but he does propose 23 “executive actions.”

In a speech on Jan. 16, the president laid out an ambitious plan to curb gun violence. Obama called on Congress to enact laws to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun, as well as the restoration of a ban of “military-style assault weapons” and a 10-round limit for magazines.

Obama also announced that he would take 23 “executive actions,” including initiatives such as launching “a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign” and issuing a presidential memorandum “to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”

A number of Republicans immediately pushed back against the president’s plan.

* Further reading of this information at:

http://factcheck.org/2013/01/factchecking-gop-response-to-obama-gun-plan/
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 2:51 pm
Bill C., you have a long standing problem with me. I could care less. You come out of the woodwork once in a while. You're a little man with personal problems.
As I tell you repeatedly but which you seem incapable of understanding, I post things by qualified people. I notice all you do here is ATTACK ME. Not a word about Breggin or his credentials who is the author of this article.. You of course are a self-proclaimed 'authority' on mental health, yet you are neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist nor a medical doctor, all of whom I quote from.
The real problem is you cannot stand or tolerate anything by anyone that challenges your fixed ideas about Psychiatry.
 

Jude Hand (56)
Friday January 25, 2013, 3:26 pm
First, it was alarming to read a man who takes full credit for disallowing the continuation of lobotomies in the 70s. I chose to tread in his article very carefully following that boast. I chose to read comments from the Natural News and found many that violently, if I may, agree with him. It almost doesn't matter, my opinion on this issue. I'm too overwhelmed with the man's thoughts and the following comments.
 

Thomas P. (467)
Friday January 25, 2013, 3:49 pm
Thanks Kenneth. I read the entire article. With all due respect, I disagree with most of it. I frankly don't see it the way the author does. Moreover, I feel he is overreaching,. particularly with respect to what he says about Exec Actions #'s 16 and 17. The author states that "Number 16 directs, 'Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes' and number 17 orders, 'Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.'"

Frankly, I don't see a problem with either, and I can't imagine many other reasonable people would, professionals or otherwise, Neither of those orders requires doctors to do anything, it merely tells them they are not precluded from acting reasonably. The author gives 2 hypothetical situations where the implementing the above, and the doctor using his discretion to inform authorities, might result in a situation not ending well for the patient. The facts are that there are real life examples of NOT implementing the above have ended tragically not just for the patient but scores of others as well. The author's status as a doctor do not necessarily make him an expert on posing a hypothetical.

Moreover, he clearly has an ax to grind against not only the pharmaceutical industry but his own profession as stated at the end of the article when it describes his practice and his critique of contemporary (read, generally accepted) psychiatry. I am not an expert or a spokesman for psychiatry or pharmaceuticals, but let's be clear....they definitely have their place and are an invaluable source to millions of people (and in the case of pharmaceuticals, billions of people)...they are most certainly not all bad! Whether he agrees or disagrees with that is irrelevant....it is clearly a fact evidenced by the lives saved by pharmaceuticals. Additionally, he tarnishes his own credibility when he talks about "...this destruction of privacy within American healthcare..." and "Welcome to the new Orwellian world of psychiatry and psychotherapy." Frankly, it smells not only of an ax to grind, but almost of paranoia.

As a professional, I can tell you that laws regarding my profession and many others in my state (NY) and dozens of others have been trending toward getting professionals to perform further due diligence in an effort to crack down on dishonest/criminal providers as well as dishonest/criminal clients/patients, and this had been the trend WELL BEFORE the 23 executive orders were signed by President Obama. As long as they do their due diligence, professionals may find it harder to do their job, but certainly not impossible or even that burdensome. Harder than before, yes, but not hard. Gun violence, specifically, mass shootings (esp school shootings) have been increasing sharply, as have mass homicides. The debate that we are having in this country about gun violence and the suggestions about what can be done to prevent or mitigate it are NOT a knee jerk reaction. Quite frankly, they are long overdue.
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 3:53 pm
@Jude H: What are you talking about? He didn't say he took 'full credit for disallowing the continuation of lobotomies in the 70's".
He said in this article "The only reason we don't have thousands of lobotomies being perpetrated yearly in America today is that I took several years out of my life to fight against organized psychiatry to stop the return of psychosurgery in the early 1970s". He didn't say DISCONTINUATION, he said THOUSANDS OF LOBOTOMIES.




 

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 4:08 pm
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with anything, Thomas P. Lots of people agree or disagree with lots of things. It's called opinion. He states his professional opinion and I stated a few of his credentials. As far as his being a doctor for 46 years IMO it DOES elevate him to a certain level above someone who isn't, especially concerning the field of Psychiatry.

As for 'having an ax to grind' against the pharmaceutical industry and his own profession, YOU BET HE DOES! So do a lot of psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors, and a whole bunch of regular Joes and Janes!. Are you kidding? And from that point we get LOTS of opinions regarding it.



 

JL A. (274)
Friday January 25, 2013, 4:43 pm
This issue exists within a historical context and a variety of trends. A hundred years ago parents were told to send their 'abnormal' children to institutions, psychological research was in its infancy and generally adhered to a mind-body dichotomy and many conditions were defined as mind that now are not (e.g., PKU). Some of the admissions records indicate that girls who were sexually active minors and other things we do not usually consider mental health issues were admitted. Schools could refuse to admit students they considered unteachable. In the 1960's the horrors of some institutions were revealed, the deinstitutionalization movement began with promises to develop appropriate community resources-which most believe were never adequately developed relative to the need. The Rehabilitation of Act of 1974 began the statutes mandating schools serve all children and the 'abnormal' were no longer hidden away and many have ended up in the criminal justice system. Many programs to become psychiatrists were Freudian as primary theoretical approach.
By the 1970's, states were licensing other professionals permitted to provide counseling, where primary difference was no medical degree and thus no prescribing privileges, and research was showing non-Freudian approaches could be both effective and less expensive, like behavior modification. The FDA was approving more and more new drugs with initial approval being for a mental health condition, and a growing body of evidence of ghastly side effects began (e.g., Tardive dyskinesia). Many of the earlier drugs proved to be less effective than later ones but effective for other conditions (e.g., antidepressants for neuropathies). Health insurers treated mental health conditions different from other health conditions, by excluding from coverage, limiting to inpatient, limiting length of treatment covered or number of visits, by type of diagnosis (e.g., on which DSM Axis diagnosis fell). Similar limits were in government health services programs. Medical doctors, honoring their Hyppocratic Oaths, sometimes chose to help patients with a prescription who otherwise had no coverage to get help. Some research indicates this is where most ADHD diagnostic increases and prescriptions come from.
Neuropsych research emerged confirming mind-body connectedness. More drugs targeting biochemistry associated with diagnoses are developed. The empowerment movements begin and legal precedents forbidding physical and chemical restraints occur. With skyrocketing health care costs, cost containment strategies become a primary trend for health care.
OH Medicaid eliminates anything other than prescriptions for mental health coverage just a few months before Congress passes the Mental Health Parity Act.
I've never believed there were simple or easy answers to this very complex issue.




 

Thomas P. (467)
Friday January 25, 2013, 4:47 pm
Kenneth L...again, thanks. I feel that In the article the author offered little or no scientific (medical) argument about why the executive orders are a bad thing, and he explained them away NOT by his professional medical opinion (which I am not qualified to speak to), but by his PERSONAL opinion that the executive orders will "ensure a growing psychiatric establishment." He necessarily draws the inference that would be a bad thing without telling us the obvious....why? Is it because he disagrees with generally accepted psychiatry, including its use of drugs? I would have liked to have heard something about that (and may have even been persuaded, as medicine in general is certainly not an exact science, as you know), but he didn't offer any of that. Instead readers are left wondering why he feels the way he does. The fact that he does have an ax to grind with his chosen profession makes me take what he says with a grain of salt, particularly with executive orders #'s 16 and 17. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be believed, it just means that he should be questioned further, not less. I have nothing personal against the author....I don't even know him. I took exception to what he said because I find his comments to be somewhat of a red herring in the debate we are having.

I stand by my comments, but I thank you for the article.
 

JL A. (274)
Friday January 25, 2013, 4:51 pm
CA has helped address the pharmaceutical industry's influence on all kinds of doctors, including psychiatrists, by making gifts and samples illegal (anyone else ever get given a sample to try before filling a prescription?).
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Friday January 25, 2013, 5:48 pm
Thomas P., Well the obvious answer to what most of what you're saying is--- if you actually wanted to know about his 'professional medical opinion' about Psychiatry and you didn't think you got here in his article, then you would find out by going to his website which he provided at the bottom of the article. Simple.
This is one article. It would be nice if everyone said and did exactly what everyone else wanted them to, especially in one article.

You really can't say "instead readers are left wondering why he feels the way he does".. That's a generality about 'readers'. You don't think any reader of this article has understood or agreed with him? Come on. Read some of the comments after the article on Natural News. I don't see hardly anyone coming up with your particular views that you're giving.
So as I said, lots of people agree and disagree with lots of things. It's called opinion. You have yours. I have mine. He has his. What do you want.




 

Carmen S. (607)
Friday January 25, 2013, 6:33 pm
Thanks for posting this Kenneth, medical professionals and the pharmaceutical industry should not have that much power, people will not get properly treated for anything if they do not feel free to discuss what is going on in their minds or bodies, and pills are not always the answer. Yet with this, there are going to be many more prescriptions written, and many people being being kept track because of that, just in case something happens.
 

Marie W. (64)
Friday January 25, 2013, 9:58 pm
Psychiatrists and big pharma are too cozy and have too much power already.
 

Devon Leonard (54)
Saturday January 26, 2013, 1:04 am
Thanks for posting this Kenneth.
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Saturday January 26, 2013, 3:12 am
Apparently as Kit has pointed out above, there is a clarification to be made about 'actions' and 'orders'. There is a differentiation to be made.
Someone (Repubs?) altered Obama's actions into them being 'orders' back on Jan.16/17 and the media ran with it. Dr. Breggin like many others were apparently deceived by this alteration. Others, like myself, didn't know anything about it. Blame the person who initially altered it.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday January 26, 2013, 11:47 am
Oh America. No matter which direction it takes lately it seems to be the wrong one. What's happened to the USA that was a positive, powerful and peaceful nation full of hope and glory?!
 

Thomas P. (467)
Saturday January 26, 2013, 2:37 pm
Kenneth L...I'll answer your question. Do I think there are those understood or agree with the doctor? I'm sure there are. I understand what he's saying too....I just don't agree with him. Believe it or not, because there wasn't many commenting at the end of the article that had my particular views is not indicative of whether people agree with the President or not. I'm quite certain most see these orders as being very reasonable, both inside and outside the mental health care industry (the author notwithstanding). You see, before he made those executive orders, the President relied on opinions and data supplied in part from the mental health care industry, which (as you and the article have acknowledged) the doctor clearly has an issue with.

The President's plan will add more than $150 million in additional mental health care spending, which has been cut by over $ 4 billion by the states from 2009-2012 (from "What Obama's Gun Plan Means for Mental Health Care," by Seth Freed Wesler, Truthout, Jan 26, 2013). I'll repeat...there is NOTHING in the orders cited in the article by that compels mental health care providers to act; they merely state that they are not precluded in doing so. In other words, they are told that they can use their judgment (there is nothing new about that).

Frankly I really don't understand how you or anyone can be against bringing more awareness and more resources to a field whose funding has been so decimated because of the economy in the last few years. Does it mean that more people will be seen by mental health care providers? Of course it does. It also gives the industry resources to study specifically how to better reach teenagers and young adults, presumably in an effort to hopefully help them before they become an imminent danger to themselves and others. Again, I see only an upside to that, not a downside.

Moreover, I know what opinion is and knew what it was even before you felt you needed to point it out for me. I understand and respect your right and others' right to have opinions. My biggest point of contention was that the doctor has particular expertise that might give him special insight into what the President is doing. I felt that the article was devoid of his professional opinion and full of his personal opinion. I read your article and have also read others as well, including many from those that have no ax to grind and whose mission is to prevent gun violence, in part by getting help to the mentally ill and attempting to keep guns out of their hands. Our society is screaming for that. If that ruffles the feathers of the author of your article and some others, well, I say the stakes are much higher by not doing so. The President is trying to save lives and he has our backs. And I, among millions of others, have his.

Thanks to J.L. for her very insightful comments. Again, Kenneth, I thank you for sharing the article. Let's respectfully agree to disagree with respect to the author.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday January 26, 2013, 6:09 pm
I have to agree with Arielle S.
 

Mitchell D. (127)
Saturday January 26, 2013, 7:09 pm
I have bnot heard of Dr, Peter Breggin before, though I have worked in the M.H. field, originally in NY State, since 1967.
My understanding of the exodus from the state mental hospitals, which were not fun places to be- mostly warehouses for the chronically mentally ill, when the drugs available to treat were loaded with side effects almost as debilitating as the diseases they were trying to treat, had to do with a federal law aimed at easing the difficulties of the mentally ill.
Unfortunately, the money for the humane support of the released patients, many of whom had become "institutionalized" by their years in the cultural wasteland of the hospitals, was never forthcoming, and vast amounts of patients had no Community Mental Health Centers ( as I recall it, these were written into the law so as to provide a full spectrum of out-patient care)to go to, and wound up living in Single Room Occupancy flop-houses, with no reasonable access to meds.
One of the saddest aspects of the time was the virtual destruction/gutting of one of the country's best state M.H. programs, by Gov. Reagan, as a "cost saving" move.
Again, I do not know of this Dr.Breggin, (and I have indeed known of Psychiatrists, worked with a couple in the N.Y. State system,, and outside it, with whom I would not willingly even share a meal) and that may be my failing, but I ask you to "follow the money," consider what he appears to be selling, and any possible cause for him to be hitting on the field of Psychiatry.
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Sunday January 27, 2013, 10:06 am
Quite a number of psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors, neurologists, ex pharmaceutical sales reps, lawyers, educators, parents, individuals, etc., have much to say against Psychiatry, as far as whether it is or isn't a science, or whether there is any such thing as a chemical imbalance, or the actual efficacy of the drugs used to 'fix' these imbalances (per placebo effect), or the harm they are capable of, or the glaring connection between drug company funding of drug study trials and how they are approved, the American Psychiatric Association, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), and on and on.

No one should ignore the other side of the coin regarding anything.
 

Elizabeth S. (149)
Sunday January 27, 2013, 10:06 am
Noted with concern, regardless of what people are saying above, I do know that corporate greed will be the downfall of the people be it by mass drugging by anti-depressants and anti-psychotics claiming to be blanket pills for all of your moods, aches and pains, ie: Cymbalta and Zyprexa, or by Monsanto with their GMOs. The presidents power is most often influenced by corporate overseers. Thank you Kenneth for posting another most informative article.
 

Kit B. (277)
Sunday February 3, 2013, 11:43 am

I watched the testimony of the ER doctor that attended the children, killed and injured in New Town. I didn't realize that a doctor can discuss with his patients the harm of cigarettes or poor diet but is not allowed to discuss possible mental instability. Now that sucks.
 

Phillipa W. (199)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 7:31 pm
serious issue giving psychiatrists more power. At the end of the day, no-one can really deny that psychiatry is pretty much an entirely experimental field of study. To say that they have all the answers is dangerous. By all means, I welcome more services which people can access in times of need - we need more of them. Increasingly the problem is that these services rather than listening and trying to help that way instead have their own ideas and agendas and are simply sitting there trying to make your situation/condition fit into what they think it should be, and then tell you that you're completely wrong and then go off on another tangent about what the issue is and how it can be resolved. And with psychiatry increasingly the answer is more drugs. Experimental at that.
 

Phyllis P. (427)
Thursday October 10, 2013, 8:38 am
duly noted
 

Arlene C. (119)
Saturday May 24, 2014, 8:22 am
J'ai lu vos commentaires,merci
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.