Posts Tagged ‘Counseling’

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?

Shortcomings of a Psychiatric Bible
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.

1.From birth on, children form beliefs about their self-worth.
2. Praise and encouragement are not the same thing. Praise rewards a child for performed acts (performance base esteem) Encouragement conveys acceptance of a child for the mere fact he or she exist. “When things go poorly you will always have a place” (authenticity). It separates the deed from the doer.
3. The differences between encouragement and pressure are substantial.

Specific ways to encourage young children:

A. Look for strengths.
B. Divide large tasks into smaller, more manageable ones.
C. Provide opportunities for each child to contribute. Give real jobs.
D. Avoid regularly doing for the child what the child can do for herself.
E. Recognize effort and improvement.
F. Demonstrate learning from mistakes. Have the courage to be imperfect!
G. Simply enjoy being with your child as they are.

Your specific applications of encouragement:

1. One of my child’s assets is:
2. One way I can give him a real job is:
3. Other ways to encourage:

“A child needs encouragement like a plant needs water.”
–Rudolf Dreikurs

How do we forgive our fathers? Maybe in a dream. Do we forgive our fathers for leaving us too often, or forever, when we were little? Maybe for scaring us with unexpected rage, or making us nervous because there never seemed to be any rage there at all? Do we forgive our fathers for marrying, or not marrying, our mothers? Or divorcing, or not divorcing, our mothers? And shall we forgive them for their excesses of warmth or coldness? Shall we forgive them for pushing, or leaning? For shutting doors or speaking through walls? For never speaking, or never being silent? Do we forgive our fathers in our age, or in theirs? Or in their deaths, saying it to them or not saying it. If we forgive our fathers, what is left?
From the movie “Smoke Signals”

Robert Whitaker
Journalist and author of Mad in America, Anatomy of an Epidemic.
Posted: April 28, 2010 02:25 PM
‘Anatomy Of An Epidemic’: Could Psychiatric Drugs Be Fuelling A Mental Illness Epidemic?

A few years ago, while writing an article about the merits of psychiatric medications, I looked at whether the number of adults receiving a federal disability payment due to mental illness had significantly changed since 1987, which was the year that Prozac was introduced. Our society’s use of psychiatric medications, of course, has soared since that time, and here’s what I discovered: The number of adults, ages 18 to 65, on the federal disability rolls due to mental illness jumped from 1.25 million in 1987 to four million in 2007. Roughly one in every 45 working-age adults is now on government disability due to mental illness.
This epidemic has now struck our nation’s children, too. The number of children who receive a federal payment because of a severe mental illness rose from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007, a 35-fold increase.
I wrote Anatomy of an Epidemic to investigate this epidemic, and this pursuit necessarily raises a very uncomfortable question. Although we, as a society, believe that psychiatric medications have “revolutionized” the treatment of mental illness, the disability numbers suggest a very different possibility. Could our drug-based paradigm of care, for some unforeseen reason, be fueling this epidemic?
To answer that question, you need to pore through the scientific literature for the past 50 years and piece together a documented account of how psychiatric drugs affect long-term outcomes. Do the medications help people stay well? Function better? Enjoy good physical health? Or do they, for some paradoxical reason, increase the likelihood that people will become chronically ill, less able to function well, more prone to physical illness? Researchers have studied these questions in a variety of ways, and their results tell a story that is, to the say the least, startling.
Here is just one of many such studies. In the 1980s, Martin Harrow, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, began a long-term study of 64 newly diagnosed schizophrenia patients. Every few years, he assessed how they were doing. Were they symptomatic? In recovery? Employed? Were they taking antipsychotic medications? The collective fate of the off-med and medicated patients began to diverge after two years, and by the end of 4.5 years, it was the off-medication group that was doing much better. Nearly 40% of the off-med group were “in recovery” and more than 60% were working, whereas only 6% of the medicated patients were “in recovery” and few were working. This divergence in outcomes remained throughout the next ten years, such that at the 15-year follow-up, 40% of those off drugs were in recovery, versus 5% of the medicated group.
As Harrow reported at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, “I conclude that patients with schizophrenia not on antipsychotic medication for a long period of time have significantly better global functioning than those on antipsychotics.”
This does not mean that antipsychotics don’t have a place in psychiatry’s toolbox. But it does mean that psychiatry’s use of these drugs needs to be rethought, and fortunately, a model of care pioneered by a Finnish group in western Lapland provides us with an example of the benefit that can come from doing so. Twenty years ago, they began using antipsychotics in a selective, cautious manner, and today the long-term outcomes of their first-episode psychotic patients are astonishingly good. At the end of five years, 85% of their patients are either working or back in school, and only 20% are taking antipsychotics.
In Anatomy of an Epidemic, I report on the long-term outcomes literature for schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, and bipolar illness, and also the literature that details outcomes for children treated with psychiatric medications. My hope is that if our society can become informed about these long-term studies, then it could have a reasonable discussion about embracing other models of care–like the one pioneered by the group in Finland–that have proven to help people get better and stay well too.

Every day Geri and I have clients come in convinced by some one that they have a chemical imbalance, brain damage, genetic defect, or traumatized from the past. In short victims of their biology or heredity. We believe that the symptoms are real but the cause of their problem is misleading. Perhaps a better description for their symptoms is “unhappiness”. If they could change the opinion they have of their self and know what choices to make with an important relationship in their life, an improvement in their mental health would occur. In short, they feel happy.

This includes the variety of symptoms we see from anxiety, depression, anger, ADHD, to the more serious bi-polar.

William Glasser does a better job of describing what I am attempting to say when he writes:

“How can such a common, easily understood word such as unhappiness possible describe all the misery and mayhem that exists around us? My answer is: unhappiness is not simple. . . . it can appear in our lives in many different forms and lead to a myriad of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that puzzle, frighten, and disturb us. Severe unhappiness can lead to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and chronic, excruciating pain with no pathology to explain it, as in the condition called fibromyalgia.

A more accurate title for the DSM-IV would be The Big Red Book of Unhappiness. No matter how we experience it, almost every symptom can be traced back to its origin: relationships that lack love, respect, or both. By making choices that help us stay connected with each other, the unhappiness can be over come. Caring and respecting, never controlling, are the cornerstones of mental health.” (p. 57)

William Glasser, Warning Psychiatry May Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health

Courage, is taking action, knowing you will make a mistake, and you do it anyway.