Posts Tagged ‘Adlerian’

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/shortcomings-of-a-psychiatric-bible.html

Patients and parents concerned about mental illness have every right to be confused. The head of the federal agency that finances mental health research has just declared that the most important diagnostic manual for psychiatric diseases lacks scientific validity and needs to be bolstered by a new classification system based on biology, not just psychiatric opinion. The hitch is that such a biology-based system will not be available for a decade or more.

The DSM V is the most destructive book every written to human relations. The so-called biological disorders are voted in or voted out. If they are biological than why have a vote. That is like a committee examining your biopsy and voting on weather you have a cancerous tumor. The committee has now decided that grief is a mental disorder. At one time they voted being gay as a mental disorder. The human experience is not a mental disorder. We may be distress from the challenge of living but that does not mean you have a mental illness with a biological basis. Instead, ordinary people being hurt by life events. Psychiatry has reduced being human to bio chemical reaction without any evidence. Read the article below and they admit there is no proof for a chemical imbalance. Yet they will give you addictive and dangerous brain drugs that do alter your chemistry.

Do not let anyone diagnosis you or a love one. Most of all do not let anyone give you or a love one psychiatric medication. How engaged and connected is the person making the diagnosis? How happy do they appear and do they like people?

EDITORIAL
Shortcomings of a Psychiatric Bible
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 11, 2013

Patients and parents concerned about mental illness have every right to be confused. The head of the federal agency that finances mental health research has just declared that the most important diagnostic manual for psychiatric diseases lacks scientific validity and needs to be bolstered by a new classification system based on biology, not just psychiatric opinion. The hitch is that such a biology-based system will not be available for a decade or more.
Related in Opinion

Opinion: Why the Fuss Over the D.S.M.-5? (May 12, 2013)
Today’s Editorials

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, posted his critique of the manual in a “Director’s Blog”on April 29 and expanded on his reasoning in a recent interview with The New York Times. He was critiquing a forthcoming revision of the American Psychiatric Association ’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the first major reissue since 1994. Although there have been controversies over particular changes in diagnostic descriptions, he said, the new revision involves “mostly modest alterations” from its predecessor.

The psychiatric association’s diagnoses are mostly based on a professional consensus about what clusters of symptoms are associated with a disease, like depression, and not on any objective laboratory measure, like blood counts or other biological markers. The mental health institute says scientists have not produced the data needed to design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive measures. To fill the gap, the agency started a program two years ago to finance research in biology, genetics, neuroscience, cognitive science and other disciplines with the ultimate goal of helping scientists define disorders by their causes, rather than their symptoms.

The underlying problem is that research on mental disorders and treatment has stalled in the face of the incredible complexity of the brain. That is why major pharmaceutical companies have scaled back their programs to develop new psychiatric drugs; they cannot find new biological targets to shoot for. And that is why President Obama has started a long-term brain research initiative to develop new tools and techniques to study how billions of brain cells and neural circuits interact; the findings could lead to better ways to diagnose and treat psychiatric illnesses, though probably not for many years.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic manual remains the best tool to guide clinicians on how to diagnose disorders and treat patients. Consensus among mental health professionals will have to suffice until we can augment it with something better.

There is no medical basis for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. ADHD is a list of behaviors (that annoy teachers) that does not reflect a real syndrome, underlying disorder, or medical condition. Interventions involving parent education, encouragement, discipline, and making school an interesting place could solve the problem.

Instead, stimulants/amphetamines are used on the children, which does two things. It makes them compulsive and they lack interest in others. This passive child may make the class more orderly and the home quieter but it’s a high price to pay. It does not enhance their performance in school. The child becomes compulsive and is able to perform lower order types of activities but not higher order learning.

The use of stimulates on children, such as Adderall and Ritalin, are addictive and can impair their physical growth, cause serious developmental delays, harm their brains, interfere with their ability to be emotional self reliant, prevents them from being children, and increases the chance of future drug problems (by 20%).

The drugs are used to control the child and take away their personhood. Long-term use can harm the brain (brain shrinkage). The majority of diagnoses come from the school. As of today, I have not heard of any home school children having the ADHD diagnosis.
We are actually medicating them for behaving like children. A teacher or parent who decides to become responsible and provide guidance and leadership to the child can correct the problem.

Check out Peter Breggin, MD, Talk Back to Ritalin and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal

Bedtime, morning routine, sibling rivalry, homework, chores, family meeting, learn ways to raise responsible children without the traditional fear, power, and the threat of punishment. Most of all no medication or diagnosing kids—just capable, likeable, creative, and loveable human beings
Alysonn Schafer flyer

“Adults adopt the stance of being “cool” and free from intense feelings of any sort. But such counter-valuing is another form of suppressing our highest nature:

If you are a man and you are are not struck dumb by your woman once in a while, you’re missing something, you’re being blind to something which is there—and vice versa, of course. As a matter of fact, there is as much de-sacrilizing of the male by our females as there is the other way around. It’s just isn’t done. Its permitted, I think, still for a husband to adore his wife: that is, to get really sloppy about it in a nice way. I don’t think it’s possible anymore for a woman to get sloppy about their husbands. I think that is forbidden.”

Abraham Maslow in The Right to Be Human, by Ed Hoffman

By Peter R. Breggin, MD
December 22, 2012

The Newtown tragedy has sent us searching for answers to mass killings. There are many important questions to be addressed, such as “Is tighter gun control feasible and consistent with the Second Amendment?”, “Can we prevent so much teen exposure to violent games and movies?”, “Would it help to put armed guards in schools or to arm teachers and principals?”, and “How much mass murder is driven by psychiatric drug exposure?” These are critical issues.

Recently, another issue is being pushed by both the political left and the political right. In the last few days, talking heads on TV and even some of my friends have been arguing that we need stronger commitment laws and other psychiatric interventions to protect people from maniacal shooters. In additional to gun control, President Obama is talking about increased mental health services.

As a psychiatrist, I know that increasing the power of psychiatry in our society is not the way to go.

To begin with, we need to distinguish between good mental health services and the kind of services that will result from government promotion of mental health services. In the mid-1960s I was an officer in the U.S. Public Health Service, and for a year I was a fulltime consultant at NIMH helping to build and staff community mental health centers around the country. They were supposed to address a broad range of needs and services, but utterly failed to do so. The remnants of them are nothing more than drug dispensaries.

We know exactly what happens when the government pushes mental health services, because we can examine their results. The VA, state mental hospitals, and county clinics offer little else than drugs. Or consider the scandals involved in government-run foster care where children are routinely subdued with drug cocktails..

It is becoming increasingly clear that Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, was very emotionally disturbed and socially incapacitated. But what does psychiatry have to offer in protecting society from individuals who have serious psychological or psychiatric problems, and who may sometimes become violent? Does it offer treatments that will help these individuals live more normal lives? Can it screen for violence and protect us from disturbed and destructive people?

First of all, making involuntary treatment even easier won’t reduce violence. Every state in America already has laws to temporarily incarcerate individuals in mental hospitals if an official suspects them of being a danger to other people. Short-term, depending on the state, this temporary certification process can be carried out by a wide range of health professionals and law enforcement officials. It does not require a judge or a hearing in order to accomplish this–just one or two officials to sign the papers. It is especially easy for a parent to initiate this process, because health and law enforcement officials are especially responsive to parental concerns about violence.

Second, after an individual is locked up in a mental hospital on a temporary certification, it is always possible to detain that individual long enough to obtain a court hearing for more lengthy involuntary commitment. It is well known that these hearings compromise individual rights and are almost always won by the committing agency and doctors.

Third, in recent years a growing number of state, now a total of 44, have passed draconian legislation whereby individuals can be committed and forced to accept psychiatric drugs on an “outpatient” basis. That is, they can be forcibly drugged into a stupor while remaining otherwise free. This has become a widespread affront to civil liberties while causing considerable misery and physical harm through medication toxicity.

Fourth, so many people harbor feelings of violence, and so few perpetrate them, that it is impossible to screen society for violent individuals without untold numbers of “false positives.” In a general psychiatric practice such as my own, a number of patients will be struggling to control their violent feelings and usually a few will have acted aggressively or violently in the past. Within society as a whole, there will be thousands of “suspicious-looking” people locked up and drugged for every genuine threat. The recent demise of the nation’s largest screening program for mental disorder in the schools took place in part because it was criticized for being both ineffective and a threat to individual rights.

Fifth, meanwhile, psychiatry and individual psychiatrists have no way of determining who poses a real risk of violence other than the common sense indicators, such as the person is making threats or has already committed violence. Nowhere in the scientific literature is there a study that confirms that psychiatrists can determine who will, or will not, perpetrate violence. Scientific risk assessment approaches cannot be relied upon to make decisions about treatment or incarceration.

Sixth, “mentally ill” people, that is, people who get diagnosed psychiatrically, are not more dangerous than the general population, including neighbors in their communities. However, individuals suffering from substance abuse do have increased rates of violence, but largely toward family members rather than the public.

Seventh, when psychiatry becomes involved, drugs are dispensed, and psychiatric drugs can cause or worsen violence. A recent study of reports to the FDA of drug-induced violence has demonstrated that antidepressants have an 840% increased rate of violence.

In particular, there is no doubt that the Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had an effective level the antidepressant Luvox (fluvoxamine) in his blood at the time of the massacre. For the first time, I’m making public the drug company report to the FDA confirming that Harris had a “therapeutic” level of the drug in his body at the time of the murders. This is the official report to the FDA on March 17, 1999, from Luvox (fluvoxamine) manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals confirming “the presence of a Luvox blood level at autopsy.” I was an expert in cases surrounding the Columbine shootings and can also confirm that Eric Harris was taking the drug for a year, had a dose increase to 200 mg per day two and one-half months before the assault on the high school, and was showing signs of toxicity in the form of a drug-induced tremor five weeks before the event. Meanwhile, his writings indicate he was becoming more and more violent while taking Luvox.

The most devastating recent shooters were all involved with psychiatric treatment and evaluation, and it did not prevent their violence. In some cases, it undoubtedly increased it. Eric Harris, as noted, was in treatment for at least a full year leading up to assault on Columbine High School. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, came to the attention of police and then mental health authorities as a result of harassing another student and threatening suicide in 2005. A voluntary mental examination found him “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization” and Cho was hospitalized and found to be a danger to himself and others. In December 2005, he was court-ordered to have follow-up treatment but this was never enforced. There is no record of any further psychiatric treatment.

James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter, in the months leading up to his violent assault, was in psychiatric treatment with psychiatrist Lynne Fenton, medical director of student health services at the Anschutz campus of the University of Colorado, where Holmes was a graduate student in neuroscience. Fenton was considered an expert on campus violence and had written the protocol for her campus threat assessment team. She was sufficiently worried about his propensity for violence to report him to the campus police and the campus threat assessment team in early June, a few weeks before the theater assault. When the assessment team suggested putting Holmes on a 72 hour involuntary hold, psychiatrist Fenton rejected the idea. When Holmes quit school, the school washed its hands of all responsibility for him.

Adam Lanza’s psychiatric history remains undisclosed but there are indications that he was at some time psychiatrically diagnosed and taking psychiatric medications. The Washington Post quoted a family friend as stating he was “on medication.” Given his affluent family, he was almost certainly taken to psychiatrists.

Many people who could be helped by psychological or socially-oriented counseling or therapy avoid seeking psychiatric treatment for fear of being locked up and/or drugged against their will. There is some indication that the Newtown shooter was triggered in part by fear that his mother was going to have him treated involuntarily. My own clinical experience indicates that most violence perpetrated by “mental patients” takes place in reaction to and in resistance to having treatment forced upon them.

Overall, psychiatry has a history, both past and current, of trampling on the rights of untold millions of innocent, nonviolent individuals in the name of protecting society from dangerous people. The two hundred year history of state mental hospitals is one of the most oppressive in the western world. The current widespread psychiatric diagnosing and drugging of America’s children is another tragic example. It’s dangerous folly to seek solutions to violence from within psychiatry.

So, we need to get down to business of figuring out how to reduce school shootings and mass violence. We need to come together with determination to find solutions. Increasing psychiatric power is a distracting mirage; it is not one of the solutions that will work.

Families do need improved services to help with difficult, distressed, or potentially violent children, and a wide variety of empathic, caring approaches are available to provide this help. Schools also need more services to reach out to children and youth who are withdrawn and isolated, and on very rare occasion potentially violent; and again there are numerous effective ways of offering this help. I describe a number of these child and family-oriented interventions in my book that focuses on the Columbine High School massacre and other school shootings: Reclaiming Our Children: A Healing Plan for a Nation in Crisis.

Truly beneficial therapies and educational interventions do not rely on psychiatric diagnoses or drugs. Instead, they are based on what our Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy calls its “Guidelines for Empathic Therapy.” But federal, state and county governments will push for “modern” biopsychiatric treatments which will, beyond any doubt, do more harm than good.

http://breggin.com/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=299&Itemid=133

Peter R. Breggin, MD is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the author of more than forty scientific articles and twenty books, two of which are very relevant to current events in regard to medication-induced violence. In Medication Madness (2008) Dr. Breggin examines fifty cases of medication-induced violence, mayhem and suicide. His latest book is Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guidebook for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families. It presents reasons to withdraw from psychiatric drugs and describe a safe and effective patient-centered approach for prescribers, therapists, patients and their families to use. Dr. Breggin’s website is www.breggin.com.

“Finally, Maslow gently railed against the conformist ideology of the times. We can learn one key lesson from self-actualizers, he said: fulfillment in life never comes from following the crowd, but only from being faithful to one’s yearnings and talents. Social adjustment should never under no circumstance be seen as a way to happiness: rather, the path may lie in resisting prevailing values. As he often asked rhetorically, ‘The question is–adjustment to what?’ p. 216

The Right To Be Human, Edward Hoffman

Check this out about labeling our children, its only a minute.

By Timothy D. Evans and Raymond J. Corsini

Grousing is a common behavior that is highly destructive to relationships. It increases interpersonal conflict and provokes revenge while generating attitudes of resentment and no cooperation. Parents grouse at their children because they believe it will make them more responsible. One or both members of a couple may grouse at each other, convinced they know what is best for their partner. Despite its prevalence, grousing is a discouraging way of interacting. It destroys the potential for developing an encouraging and intimate relationship.

What is grousing? Webster defines grouse as “to grumble or complain.” It is related to the word “grouch.” Roget equates the term with “fret, chafe, frown, crab, or pout.” The usual synonym for grousing is nagging. The phrase, “Get off my back” means to stop grousing.

The initial step in encouragement training is to teach couples, parents, and teachers how their seemingly innocuous behavior irritates and discourages others. Nothing will improve in marriage until one starts working on him- or herself without trying to change the other person (Evans, 1989; Meredith & Evans, 1990). Marriage reconstruction requires the grouser to stop nagging, complaining, arguing, judging, criticizing, punishing, or rewarding (anything that irritates the other person). In short, the grouser needs to shut up and be pleasant.

GROUSING EXERCISE: An especially effective exercise for improving relationships entails the elimination of grousing for 4 consecutive days. After the therapist explains what it means to grouse, the following directions are given to couples or individuals: If you are guilty of grousing, are you willing to stop it for four consecutive days? If so, here is the assignment: You must stop grousing immediately and completely for four consecutive days. If you’ve been attacking, criticizing, yelling, reminding, nagging, threatening, bringing up the past, comparing, or pointing out mistakes, stop it now. This includes all negative behavior, no matter how “nicely” presented or well-intentioned.

Instead of grousing, act “as if” you are a sensible and self-controlled person who has decided to get off your spouse’s back and enjoy their company in spite of their shortcomings. You are not to do anything else other than to avoid grousing at your partner, child, or the person closes to you. After four consecutive days you have the choice of reverting to your old behavior.

You are only to participate in this exercise if you agree to do it for four consecutive days. This means that if you go for three days and grouse, you need to start over. You are not to perform this exercise with the intention of shaping-up the other person. You are changing your behavior because it is the decent and reasonable thing to do.

Assuming you follow through with this experiment, what might happen! There are several possibilities:

1. You will feel better about yourself. After all, who likes to be a prison guard monitoring someone’s behavior?

2. You will look better. Nags look like nags.

3. You will show/generate goodwill. Your mate will have evidence of your intention to improve the marriage.

4. You will become a more encouraging person.

5. You will reduce tension.

Your family will develop a friendly, supportive atmosphere. The Grousing Exercise is one that benefits everyone as both therapists and their clients can encourage themselves and their families. Practicing encouragement via the elimination of grousing is a win-win quality relationship proposal. ‘

REFERENCES

Evans, T. (1989). The Art of Encouragement. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Center for Continuing Education.

Meredith, C., & Evans, T. (1990). Encouragement in the Family, Individual Psychology, 46, 187-192.

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families ~ Vol. 2, No. 1 (1994) pp. 70

[1] Appeared in: The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families ~ Vol. 2, No. 1 (1994) pp. 70

Life is made of one-third what I choose to do with my thoughts, behaviors, and attitude. Another one-third is the choices people around me make, in which I have no control. Hopefully, my wife will continue to choose to be with me. I cannot control her choice. I can decide how I will behave in hopes that she will find me pleasant and interesting, but in the end, the choice is hers. The final third, which again I cannot control, is what the universe, biology, nature, or what some believe God determines. I have no control over a hurricane hitting Tampa, my cat having heart disease, or a friend getting cancer. This is biology. I do have a choice in how I interpret and relate to those specific events (again my one-third).

If we live long enough, we will encounter events that force us to face our vulnerability as human beings. This can be interpreted as an injustice because “I have been doing everything right (if there is such a way) therefore nothing bad should ever happen to me.” This “injustice” may be because of someone else’s choice or biology. When it occurs, I will experience vulnerability and know that I am not totally independent. Some may guard against these feelings of vulnerability and say his wife’s cancer is the work of the devil. These life events will test our emotional self-reliance (self-responsibility) and push us to need others.

When we confront and experience our vulnerability we receive a dose of humility, which connects us to others. From these incidents, we will learn there is only one genuine need we all have and that is other people.

Since the beginning of time, human beings have misbehaved and made poor choices. Take for example the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis. His brothers sold Joseph, the youngest and special son, into slavery. This was the beginning of Joseph’s trouble. He was falsely accused of having sex with his owner’s wife and thrown into prison. Yet he survived. Before he reached age 30 he was appointed as a top official by the ruler of Egypt. He predicted a famine and was put in charge of a food storage that saved the region. His brothers were forced to journey into the city seeking food, starving, and begging. Who did they appear before? Joseph! His chance to get even.

So it would seem that justice will prevail and what goes around comes around. His brothers did not recognize him and Joseph’s natural inclination was revenge. However, Joseph recognized that revenge was an easy way out. The courageous choice — and the only way to be happy — was forgiveness. One difference between happy and unhappy individuals is the ability to forgive.

Tragedy, error, inhumanity, and struggle will not go away. However, the realization that you have a choice in how you respond is powerful and influences your happiness and well-being, in spite of the other two-thirds. Forgiveness is done through the use of good psychology. It requires courage, emotional self-reliance, and a desire to be free.

Anyone who has done you harm will continue to have a stranglehold on your life, until you are willing to forgive them and free yourself from the resentment, anger, hurt, injustice, and sometime hatred.

Joseph took an active approach to the injustice and pain inflicted upon him. He used the situation to become socially interested instead of self-interested.

Forgiveness is an active process that requires these steps:
• I will not bring up the incident again and use it against you.
• I will not talk to others about this incident.
• I will not let this incident stand between our personal relationships.
• To do this I will not dwell or ruminate over the problem or punish you by withdrawing and keeping emotional distance.
• I will free the relationship to develop, unhindered of the past wrongs.

Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal is a book for the seasoned professional and the beginning graduate student, as well as for the patient and the family. This is in keeping with Dr. Breggin’s emphasis on a collaborative team approach to treatment and especially to drug withdrawal. This is not a book you will read once, but one you will have by your side, as a reference, for helping a love one or your client.

The first ten chapters inform us of the effects psychiatric drugs have on our brains and educate us regarding specific drugs. In chapter 11, Dr. Breggin, using his years of clinical experiences, puts all the ingredients together and demonstrates how to help individuals regain their lives from the disabling effects of drugs. Dr. Breggin does this by putting counseling and psychotherapy back in the forefront as the intervention and not the drugs. He gives respect and dignity back to the counseling process, including the active participation of the client and at times the family.

It is refreshing to read a book renewing the use of the core conditions (empathy, genuineness, and positive self-regard) as necessary and sufficient in helping clients’ function effectively. This is a long stretch from the medical model, which mistrusts human nature, relies on brain drugs, and denies self-responsibility. Dr. Breggin invites us to use what works, empathy and a therapeutic relationship.

This is a book that is both academic and clinical, and at the same time easily read by clients and families. A rare combination for the practicing therapist. His years of experience researching the effects of psychiatric medications combined with being an excellent practitioner are explained in a systematic and effective manner. You will learn the effects of drugs and how to approach your client in a collaborative and humane manner. This is what we need. The idea that drugs are the answer has failed and at the high cost of human suffering.