S. Wessely contradiction on forced treatment/benefit sanctions?

[antherder]

Burn her!!

Careful now...or I'll cast a healing spell on you and cure you all!!! Waa-aa-a!!!

 

[TiredSam]

Burn her!!

This is why we need Andy Burn 'em on our side.

 

[Sean]

What is this? The Dark Ages?

Everybody knows that you can't burn a witch until you have conducted the proper scientific test to see if she floats.

 

[TiredSam]

We are not the first to notice the parallels. I just posted this link on the urinary tract thread:

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/20...sident-of-the-royal-college-of-psychiatrists/

And reading the second article, noticed the following:

Sir Simon expresses surprise that DSM-5 has been so controversial. He discusses this matter from various perspectives, but in my view he misses the essential point.

He writes: “The DSM is nothing more than a list of psychiatric disorders, accompanied by descriptions of disorders and explicit criteria for their diagnosis.”

It might be argued that this statement is true in the literal sense of the term, but it ignores the fact that the DSM is also (and perhaps more importantly) the primary source of legitimacy for the unproven assumption that all serious human problems are in fact illnesses, and are best “treated” by medical methods.

The contention that the DSM is nothing more than a list of psychiatric disorders is a bit like saying that Malleus Maleficarum (1487) is nothing more than a list of signs by which witches can be identified, and ignoring the fact that it was also the authoritative confirmation that witches really did exist and really did cause a great deal of mischief. For almost three centuries, Malleus Maleficarum served as the justification for murdering eccentric and otherwise unpopular women. In the same way, today DSM is used throughout America and other countries to justify and legitimize the drugging (sometimes forcibly) of millions of people, frequently with horrendous side effects.

The rest of the article is well worth a read.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Thus, for example, the statement that x% of people with CFS recover with CBT and GET may not be intended to be factually true but to bring about the effect which is desired, whether in the patient or those who commission medical services. The problem is that it then becomes difficult to know which statements are intended to be performative and which to be judged by truth values.

The lies told about recovery from CBT or GET are quite deliberate, because many psychiatrists believe it is better to give false hope than tell the truth.

 

[antherder]

What is this? The Dark Ages?

Everybody knows that you can't burn a witch until you have conducted the proper scientific test to see if she floats.

Launching my own hunt now...for my spellbook...

 

[Valentijn]

The lies told about recovery from CBT or GET are quite deliberate, because many psychiatrists believe it is better to give false hope than tell the truth.

What a happy coincidence that those lies protect their careers and secure funding for them at the same time

 

[Robert 1973]

For all his flaws, Simon Wessely is also a very astute politician. He must be aware that PACE and his BPS model are sinking and it would be surprising if he was not calculating how he can avoid drowning along with his ship and its crew.

One option would be denial. Wessely is a master of the false narrative but there is surely too much on record for that to work, even for a manipulator and escapologist of his experience.

Another option occurred to me when I was listening to John Major talking about Martin McGuiness after his death. I don't want to get into an argument about Irish politics, or the rights and wrongs of McGuiness and the IRA. But it was thinking about the legacy of the former IRA leader and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland that made me question, what if Simon Wessley were to admit that he was wrong, apologise, ask for forgiveness and use his power and influence to promote biomedical ME/CFS research?

It may seem improbable but he must be aware that he risks being remembered by future generations of doctors for all the wrong reasons, and for someone who is as concerned about his status and reputation as he appears to be that must be a scary thought. Many would never be able to forgive him but a mea culpa would surely be the best outcome for patients. For my part, I would struggle to forgive him, but if he was ever truely remorseful I would try. To live with the knowledge of the horrors that he has inflicted on so many innocent people would be a very heavy cross for anyone to bear.

 

[lilpink]

In terms of mental illness versus the BPS /MUPS nonsense one striking reality appears to be that those who are in very genuine need of receiving support for their mental illness are not able to access that support whilst on the other side of the coin we have the IOP flagrantly running the MUPS paradigm and widening its base as a catch-all for almost anyone who walks through the door of their GP and progressing them on the CBT therapists (without any proper assessment of their possible biomedical ills) thus commandeering the budget which should be used on people with mental health problems but at the same time saving wad loads of money for the Government by misdiagnosing people who might need expensive tests and medical interventions. The BPS school should stop messing around with 'being the BPS school' and do the jobs they are paid to do: treat people with mental illness who are not getting the care they deserve. It's not as if anyone at the mercy of a MUPS diagnosis wants the sort of care the BPS crowd are delivering.

 

[trishrhymes]

The BPS school should stop messing around with 'being the BPS school' and do the jobs they are paid to do: treat people with mental illness who are not getting the care they deserve. It's not as if anyone at the mercy of a MUPS diagnosis wants the sort of care the BPS crowd are delivering.

I agree that mental health services should be focused on those with real mental health needs. However, I would not want to inflict on people with serious mental illness the under-trained IAPT psychologists/ nurses/ OT's who only know how to do their MUPS nonsense.

 

[SamanthaJ]

I agree that mental health services should be focused on those with real mental health needs. However, I would not want to inflict on people with serious mental illness the under-trained IAPT psychologists/ nurses/ OT's who only know how to do their MUPS nonsense.

Agree. Lack of respect for patients is pretty much a requirement in 'treating' MUS and can't even remember the issue of informed consent being mentioned. This mindset is inappropriate in any area of medicine.

 

[TiredSam]

I agree that mental health services should be focused on those with real mental health needs. However, I would not want to inflict on people with serious mental illness the under-trained IAPT psychologists/ nurses/ OT's who only know how to do their MUPS nonsense.

Trouble is that now that a billion has been spent on training thousands of them, something will have to be found for them to do.

 

[SamanthaJ]

Actually, it's a depressing thought that so many potentially competent and probably kind people in the health service will have been brainwashed into practising this nonsense, making them useless for anything else unless they are retrained.

 

[slysaint]

Trouble is that now that a billion has been spent on training thousands of them, something will have to be found for them to do.

Maybe a call center for the Psychiatrists Support service?
"Psychiatrists experiencing difficulties during training can access free, confidential support. Call on 02072450412" http://bit.ly/1SZzFPw

 

[lilpink]

However, I would not want to inflict on people with serious mental illness the under-trained IAPT psychologists/ nurses/ OT's who only know how to do their MUPS nonsense.

That what I was saying.