MindFreedom Global News - 15 January 2012

by David W. Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International 

Daniel Mackler (right) warns of massive over-drugging, and rampant corruption involving the mental health system, drug companies and government officials in Lithuania.

You can read his essay and make a comment here:

http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/01/a-insiders-visit-into-the-lithuanian-mental-health-system

You can find my own comment there, because I've had a special interest in the Lithuanian mental health system. All of my grandparents were born in Lithuania and came to the USA. I've maintained connections with a number of Lithuanians. Also, globalization of the worst of the western psychiatric system threatens to become a tidal wave in many poorer nations. If the over-drugging and over-labeling continues, we are facing the biggest increase in psychiatric human rights violations in history. 

While I'm pro-choice about an individual's decision to take psychiatric drugs, I am really horrified about the untold and overwhelming human suffering caused by irrational and counter-productive psychiatric drugging. 

Feel free to forward this, especially to people interested in networking international solidarity for changing the Lithuanian mental health system. 

For MFI tips about showing films by Daniel and others, click here. 

In early 2011, leaders of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) released a book entitled Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry, including a chapter by me. The book one was one of the few tangible results from an historic dialogue in 2007 in Dresden, Germany.  There, leaders from the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) met with leaders of psychiatric survivor groups for an extensive dialogue... that apparently went no where (see photo above). 

One year later, here's my letter to publisher, editors and contributors:

Dear Drs. Marsh, Kallert, Mezzich and Monahan, and fellow contributors, 

It is nearly one year after the release of the book Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry.

I'm writing to you all, and copying to the book's contributors, to ask if there is any interest in dialogue about these topics? What have been the results? Is there hope?

I appreciate the opportunity to have my chapter with the perspective of survivors of coercive psychiatric human rights violations and abuse, included in this book.

I am grateful the publishers chose to make my chapter available as a free sample. In case others are not aware of that, my chapter can be downloaded free here:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/coercion

You all may find it amusing that this Fall a well-known psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Szasz, condemned my decision to submit my chapter for your book, during a public conversation with me at a conference, at our book table. He apparently felt my chapter submission was unduly collaborating with professionals who support coerced psychiatric practices. I noted in a friendly way with Dr. Szasz, that he apparently has had no trouble accepting paychecks for decades from tax-payer funded universities that also support coerced psychiatry. 

On a positive note, I know professors such as Dr. David Cohen, are using portions of the book as official reading material for their classes. 

Whether negative or positive, such civil discussions can at least surface these issues for discussion, and that's beneficial.

In the enormous power imbalance between people who are coercively treated, and the mental health professions that are charged with supervising coercive treatment, there is a psychospiritual and moral illness of such magnitude, that is so toxic, that it silences, it mutes. I think the Catholic Church engaged in such a silence for decades, before that institution's leaders were forced by society's courts to discuss human rights violations against far too many children. The issue for the Catholic Church and psychiatry is similar, because this is not just about 'bad priests' or 'bad psychiatrists,' this is about systemic, inherent, prolonged and immoral institutional silence, in which all of us who stay silent about abuse are complicit. 

Throughout time, those who are oppressed have lost countless physical power struggles, but have often at least had the unconquerable 'still small voice' that Socrates referred to, before his own tragic and terminal forced drugging. 

This Sunday, I hope you join me in remembering and celebrating the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. He noted that it is natural to be psychologically maladjusted to oppresion. He said he was proud to be psychologically malajdusted. But he emphasized that the key is to be "creatively maladjusted." If you google the words -- Martin Luther King Creative Maladjustment -- you'll see that he spoke about theme for ten years, including in front of an annual meeting of mental health professionals. MLK affirmed that the 'still small voice' of justice eventually bends the universe itself. 

Remember, your book directly came out of an historic, positive dialogue nearly five years ago in Dresden, Germany. Several of us felt hope from that meeting, preserved by video and text on this web site:

http://ki-art-multimedia.de/dresden/dresden.htm

For me personally, Dresden in June 2007 was an attempt at dialogue between our social change movement and WPA leaders, an attempt which seemed hopeful back then. But I'm sorry to say I was naive. For whatever causes, perhaps my own included, that attempt at dialogue seems to have largely failed. Since then, I've seen too many doors to dialogue with representatives of psychiatric survivor organizations, firmly closed by representatives of psychiatric professional organizations, including by the World Psychiatric Association. Working with a few individual psychiatric survivor researchers, rather than representatives of organizations of surv ivors, is not enough. 

This is one personal reason for me that, about five years after the Dresden meetings, this May 5, 2012, a number of us intend to peacefully protest in front of the American Psychiatric Association when their Annual Meeting is in Philadelphia to witness and address this silence. We will question the human rights implications of the APA voting upon behavioral guidelines for us all -- through DSM 5 -- without real representation from those whose lives can be impacted, and even ended, by that unscientific book's coerced enforcement. 

I look forward to any reply, either personally or via reply all. 

Best, 

David

David W. Oaks, Executive Director

MindFreedom International 

http://www.mindfreedom.org

A Harvard University agency that places students in volunteer positions - Phillips Brooks House Association (PBHA) - has featured my brief 'origin story' on their web site. 

I thank PBHA for placing me as an intern in my senior year in one of the early psychiatric survivor activist groups, Mental Patients Liberation Front.

You can view my story about 1976 directly here.

Or at the moment view it via PBHA's home page here. 

Quick, Mention the Working Class!

Whenever I talk about having graduated from Harvard, such as in my little 'biographies,' I almost always mention something like this:

• Both of my grandfathers were coal miners for a combined 31 years. 
• All my grandparents were lower-income immigrants (from Lithuania). 
• I grew up in a working class family and neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. 
• My scholarships to Harvard included one from the Teamsters Union. 

I think I mention this class stuff because I feel there can be a strange prejudice when one mentions Harvard. 

Graduating from Harvard is a little like getting one of those nifty awards from Dorothy at the end of Wizard of Oz: A widely-respected symbol that may help self-esteem, but the boost works best when affirming something real which everyone - absolutely everyone - already had all along.

When I mention I went to Harvard, I'm afraid someone will think I'm a "one percenter," as the USA Occupy movement puts it. Well, I support the positive work of Occupy. I'm not a percenter. But if I were? Martin Luther King said he was creating a 'beloved community,' including reconciling with everyone, one percenters included. 

Our movement of Marginalized and Disempowered (MAD) needs all the help we can get. Can we do more to reach the Harvard community?

Healing with Other Harvard Psych. Survivors

This Fall I was pleased to interact with a few other Harvard psychiatric survivor grads. Above is a photo of four of us (Laura Delano and Denise Maratos on bottom; myself and Jim Gottstein on top; click here for more detail). 

At the October 2011 conference in Los Angeles of the International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP), I coordinated a panel of psychiatric survivors. At the end I invited about a dozen other psychiatric survivors onto the stage to briefly recap their own stories. 

For a group photo I arranged it so that four of us who were psychiatric survivor Harvard grads were together. I found chatting even briefly with these friends deeply healing, thank you. This re-inspired me to reach back to Harvard folks.

Building Community for Mental Health Change at Harvard

In the last couple of years I'd tried a few other ways to reach out to the Harvard community for a variety of reasons: 

• Harvard's Mental Health Awareness and Advocacy Group (MHAAG), which is now defunct, invited me to speak on campus in 2009.  MHAAG leaders liked my presentation, but I noticed that the full room in Lowell House was almost all non-Harvard community members, with few students and only one professor.
• Last year I discovered that on 17 February 2001 a Harvard student using the pseudonym Student X made quite a splash when the Harvard Crimson published a letter about having used the mental health system. (February 2001, by the way, was the 200th anniversary of Harvard's McLean Hospital, where I experienced forced psychiatric drug injections.)
• One week later, on 24 February 2011, a Harvard Crimson editorial drew attention to that letter. 
• On 7 April 2011, the Harvard Crimson published my own letter to the editor about this exchange. 
• This led me discover HarvardSmiles which is a fairly recent initiative to support mental and emotional well being of Harvard community members. This is not necessarily a blanket endorsement because I have not reviewed their efforts or spoken with organizers, but from what I can see it appears to be a step in the right direction. 
• In summer of 2011, I finally read a riveting book about Harvard and the mind, called Harvard and the Unabomber (2003) by Alton Chase. Building on an Atlantic article from 2000 on the subject, the author explores the troubling fact that Ted Kaczynski experienced an extremely traumatic, prolonged and demeaning psychological experiment as a Harvard undergrad which, while in no way excusing mass murder, may be important to understanding Kaczinski's deadly alienation.

How Else Can We Reach the Harvard Community?

If you know a Harvard grad or community member, please encourage him or her to consider some of the below actions to help connect up the Harvard community with efforts to occupy our mental and emotional well being.

• If you have a relevant brief story, say about having used the mental health system while at Harvard, you can submit that as a blog entry via HarvardSmiles here. Even if it's not published, you will have reached the project organizers.

• Harvard alumni/ae may considering visiting HU Alumni Affairs web site, completing the online registration for free, and joining appropriate Discussion Groups. While there is one oriented toward psychiatric professionals that I am on, if there is interest we could start one on mental health issues. 
• If you are a Harvard alumnus or alumna, you may want to connect for free via the Harvard University Alumni member group on Linkedin, where you can post a news entry.

This is an open letter I wrote to Barron H. Lerner, MD, who wrote a column published in today's New York Times about the lobotomy of Eva Peron (show on right with her husband in 1945, the year before his election).

20 December 2011

Hi Dr. Lerner, 

Saw your article on lobotomy and Eva Peron, amazing.

I have just one question:

When do you think society will look back and witness the lobotomy-effect of today's widespread neuroleptic (antipsychotic) over-use?

This is my 35th year as a community organizer by and for people who use the mental health system. 

Surely, you must be aware by now that there are multiple sources of evidence that long-term high-dosage neuroleptics can mean actual SHRINKAGE of the same frontal lobes targeted by the lobotomy?

If not, just google ANTIPSYCHOTIC BRAIN DAMAGE and you'll get our folder on just some of the mainstream literature. 

I hasten to add that we are for human rights, including the personal private healthcare decision to take neuroleptics. Many of our members do. 

This is the 25th year of our group. 

And I am amazed by the UNIVERSAL human problems of the mind, and by universal I do indeed mean everyone. 

Because there is such widespread fascination with the 50,000 or so lobotomies of the 1950's. 

And meanwhile there is a massive increase of neuroleptics (antipsychotics) all over the world, today. Even of six month olds. Of children in foster care. Of seniors in nursing homes. 

And we know that long-term use can cause a lobotomy effect. 

You threw in the word 'effective' [in a reference to neuroleptics in the article] but that's controversial, too, especially for the LONG TERM. I hope you've read Robert Whitaker's book Anatomy of an Epidemic by now. I'll copy this to him. 

I have to repeat we're pro-choice on taking prescribed drugs. Many of our members choose to take neuroleptics. I don't want to get pigeon-holed into being 'pro' or 'con' any procedure. 

But in terms of human rights? Countless people are being lied to by licensed medical practitioners about the benefits and hazards of neuroleptics. Some are being forced to have these drugs. And most are being denied commonsense non-drug alternatives that have a proven track record. 

So how long will it take for society -- including you -- to look back at our current era, and marvel at the massive level of brain damage induced by the mental health profession while violating people's rights?

Some World Psychiatric Association leaders published a book that includes a chapter about this more at length:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/coercion

When?

Best, 

David

David W. Oaks, Executive Director

MindFreedom International

454 Willamette, Suite 216 - POB 11284

Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA

web: http://www.mindfreedom.org 

email: oaks@mindfreedom.org

office phone: 541-345-9106 fax: 480-287-8833

member services toll free in USA: 1-877-MAD-PRID[e] or 1-877-623-7743

Unite for a Nonviolent Revolution in Mental Health.

Join now! http://www.mindfreedom.org/join-donate

"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." 

- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

[This is a draft 10/12 check back later for changes.]

MindFreedom has launched a Boycott Normal campaign. 

But who is it exactly that decides what is normal?

Let's look at churches and libraries for a moment. 

I've heard of a faith-based group that gathers each week for a fairly calm and tranquil Sunday worship service. 

Apparently there was a verbal disruption of some kind by an individual during a service. I wasn't there, so I'd rather not go into specifics. 

I understand that the congregation began discussing the disruption in terms of "mental health" context. When a mental health action group was formed, there was even an interest in keeping it closed, perhaps because organizers felt this and similar controversies needed to be addressed.

But I question why group discussions about disruptive behavior would automatically be put into a 'mental disability' context. 

I suggest churches think about the example of libraries for a moment. It could be a lesson to us about putting all or most behavioral disruption issues into the 'mental health' box as a first choice.

Let me explain. 

Obviously, we can all imagine situations where there may be a 'mental label' connected to a disruption, such as in certain circumstances we've all heard about regarding some individuals diagnosed with Tourette's where a person shouts out (recognizing there's a lot of diversity and compmlexity among those with that diagnosis).

But how do we come up with the boundaries of acceptable behavior in the first place?

Consider what has happened at some libraries in the 21st century. Remember, libraries are traditionally the place you hear "Sh-h-h-h-h!"

Some libraries in the USA are increasingly having 'customers' who are homeless, getting in out of the cold, dealing with significant challenges in their daily lives. Libraries are getting more crowded. They're becoming social centers. 

And so some libraries are addressing disruption. And unfortunately some have addressed this as a "mental health" issue. 

But it turns out that this is limiting at a library, and it's fairly easy to see why.:

For instance: 

• Anyone from any walk of life can some day at some time, 'step over the line' of what is acceptable (especially anyone who ever drinks!). 
• Often, when some strange in public steps over the line, we do not know if they have officially received any kind of diagnosis of a 'psychiatric disorder.' But in terms of going over the line, having such a label should not matter. The rules ought to apply to everyone, and not be based on a perceived 'disability.'
• In terms of intervening, yes, of course, we need to be smart, smart, smart, and this might include an individual's mental and emotional challenges. But when it comes to the boundary itself, the rules ought to apply to everyone. 

This complexity can be easier to see at a library, than a church. 

Libraries more and more have a bigger mix of people, including people getting warm... and also those meeting other young friends... or listening to something on headphones on the Internet... etc.

Examples:

• Some libraries have Internet access for a set period of time, to allow sharing. And when one individual is asked to leave after their allotted time, he or she may get grumpy, even loud, and even swear at each other or staff.
• Some libraries may have workers who are walking through a quiet area talking, which doesn't happen as much in a church. 
• Some libraries may have a person talking loudly into their cell phone, and getting belligerent when asked to get off. 

Clearly the above behavior is over the line, but no mental label may necessarily be involved... The person may have a dozen so-called 'reasons' why he or she may be thoughtless or grumpy or rude (though, really, there's no excuse). 

So let's not just jump into the deep end of the mental health pool!

Who Sets the "Norm" in a Church?

This diversity of reasons for disruption can be more difficult to see in a church, where people are often pretty nice, polite, perhaps kind of middle class. 

A so-called 'nice' church will less likely have disruptive behavior from a bunch of marginalized folks talking loudly in cell phones and yelling at each other!

A so-called 'nice' church is even more likely to have so-called 'nice quiet' janitors!

If a church constituency were more like the library, far more diverse, more marginalized, where more people maybe didn't quite 'get' or accept the common acceptable rules of middle class behavior, etc. etc. etc.... 

Then it would be more obvious that this is about BEHAVIOR, and not LABEL. 

Anyone can have that 'bad' day and 'go over an acceptable line.' So the discussion ought to start on things like 'what is that line, how flexible is it.' The line ought to apply to everyone. 

I've read a book about mental disabilities and faith groups, that brought up some thoughtful issues involving 'behavioral' issues, such as people diagnosed with developmental disabilities, or with phobias, etc.

Interesting thoughtful book. But I think this book missed the point. 

One example: 

The book said an 'acceptable' behavior would be an individual questioning the minister's sermon afterwards, during coffee. 

But 'unacceptable' would be calling out during the service - clearly 'over the line.' 

Okay, that makes sense. At first. 

But frequently at a church that has a fairly middle-class population, I'll hear someone call out when the minister is 'on.' However, the comment is typically sweet, acceptable, funny, and quick, in a way that 'knows the dance.' That is, for instance, the comment is correcting important information. Or it's just a little funny.

For instance, I heard a minister say something about turning off all electronic technology to prevent disruption of the sound system, and someone stage-whispered "hearing aids, too?" There was quick gentle laughter at this sweet joke, if it was a joke. In any case, no one got exercised about it, or saw it as over the line or a 'mental disability.'

So it's not as simple as saying "We have zero tolerance for anyone ever speaking out ever when the minister is speaking..." It's obviously more complicated. It has to do when someone else's experience is compromised by someone going over the line, which can be more subtle.

So really, a group needs to figure out its boundaries. 

The acceptable boundary of behavior is not as obvious as some folks might think.... especially middle class folks, who kind of subconsciously "know" what is considered "okay" or not. 

If someone in a congregation disrupts in an unacceptable way... It's 'sanist' to automatically assume that this is from some kind of 'psychiatric disorder.'

There are people who disrupt in the library all the time, who have zero labels... They're just tough enough, or marginalized enough, or distressed enough, or obnoxious enough... That he or she may yell into cell phones and then swear at staff when asked to be silent. 

There's no excuse for that, and that's the point. 

Just because we have a mental disability label does not 'excuse' going over the line that applies to everyone. We shouldn't demonize someone who goes over the line, but we also ought to have some level of accountability that applies to everyone. 

The above points are more obvious in a diverse setting like a library. However, we've seen libraries address disruptions as a 'mental illness,' too.

We ought to instead address how we all can work better with people who are very distressed or disruptive, for any reason. We ought to look how we can all address those are not following acceptable, fair, clear community guidelines that apply to us all. 

I am not an expert, but this more complex approach would involve things like first figuring out what are our boundaries of behavior, and how we arrived at that. We would also learn de-escalation, and mediation. We would learn when to take care of the problem ourselves, or ignore it, or ask for help. 

We could also learn more about what possible compassionate, smart, but fair intervention might work for different circumstances 

We would finally begin to talk about who forms our 'norm' and how and is it fair and should it be changed?

For instance, I've heard a point raised by a person with what would be considered diverse background... that services at some churches are too tame... "Where is the rocking music, the non-European heritage music, drums....?" Some people even like to have services where it's okay for an individual to jump in the air, call out and even literally roll on the ground. 

At other churches, mosques or synagogues that leaping just is not acceptable. 

In other words, the 'norm' for a church isn't God given! Any group actually creates its norm, either consciously or not, either democratically or not.

And sure, there are obvious guidelines for a group -- no hitting. But there are less obvious ones -- like, say, no crying. Why doesn't anyone hardly ever weep in groups? 

My mom, who is 94, said growing up, at a movie theater, it was as common to see an audience weep as it would be to laugh! 

Now at a movie we hear a chuckle from a crowd... and someone touching a tear from the corner of their eye... and a sniffle....

No one ever wrote down a rule "no crying." But society is following that unwritten rule more and more.

These are all complex questions: 

• What are the boundaries of behavior?
• How can we all work together to decide this. 
• How can we address problems when individuals go over those boundaries?

It's too simple to just immediately go to the "mental health" box and assume that someone who we feel is disruptive would automatically be addressed with a "mental health" approach. 

If we do that, then it means that mental health professionals are the ones primarily in charge of addressing behavior out of the norm. 

While their advice is important for a lot of tasks, it's 'we the people' who ought to be coming up with what is acceptable, or not. 

Our freedom can be at stake. A church that claims to be 'welcoming' may suddenly find it is excluding people from groups simply because they are, say, an activist to change the mental health system!

The "norm" is something that ought to be set with democracy in mind... 

And we all ought to get more hands on in addressing what to do when people go over those boundaries. 

Boycott Normal really is about democracy getting hands on with addressing issues of mental and emotional problems, and differences.

Many people know about the harm caused by careless globalization of enormous corporations in a variety of fields, such as banking, manufacturing, and farming. 

What about the mental health industry?

In the past few months I've made trips to Ghana and Mexico. I've seen first hand how the western style corporate mental health system is headed to the poorest areas of the world. 

The "label label drug drug" approach of the industrialized nations is on its way to the poorest nations. 

So it's ironic that the World Mental Health Day theme for October 10 this year is:

"The Great Push: Investing in Mental Health"

There is a push all right. 

It's a push for a one-size-fits all approach that uses western mental health diagnoses, and over-drugging with powerful synthetic chemicals. And when that doesn't work, there's the increase in electroshock. 

It's time to peacefully push back. 

One way would be to address one of the worst mental and emotional problems to ever visit planet Earth:

What is generally called "normality." (See photo above of a protester at an American Psychiatric Association with an appropriate t-shirt on this topic.)

Poets and philosophers throughout time have questioned what is called "normal."

Now, cutting edge scientists have shown with multiple scientific studies, that environmental catastrophes such as the climate crisis are cased by what is generally considered "normal" behavior. 

Our members diagnosed psychotic, on their worst day, never destroyed a planet.

Let me ask you what could appear more "normal" than the US Chamber of Commerce. There it is, seemingly on every main street of every town and city. Well, the headquarters for the US Chamber is now one of the main entities blocking progress on the climate crisis, banking reform, health care and more. 

Yes, we could peacefully "push back" with another solemn protest in front of a psychiatric institution. And we should never stop that .

But how about a theatrical approach that questions "normal" itself? What about peacefully visiting your local Chamber of Commerce, and ask if they oppose headquarter's plans? 

Those in Lane County Oregon who wish to join us can contact lane (at) mindfreedom (dot) org.

By the way, leaders of the World Federation of Mental Health told me personally that they take psychiatric drug donations, and often put them into their efforts for World Mental Health Day. You will note their theme now is to "integrate" mental and physical health. This may at first sound good -- everyone deserves physical health care, right?

But when we've seen "integration" in action, like in India, it's meant that a clinic that formerly treated physical problems, now gives out hundreds of psychiatric drugs, without adequate information, alternatives and advocacy. 

You can read about WFMH's World Mental Health Day 2011 here:

http://www.wfmh.org/00WorldMentalHealthDay.htm

And to read about efforts by activists to peacefully "push back" against the pathological Normalism by the US Chamber of Commerce, click here:

http://chamber.350.org/

Thank you to disability leaders for asking about the topic of "disasters and disability."

I raise here the danger of the "second disaster" that hits many trauma survivors who become harmed by a deeply flawed mental health system. 

I hope everyone interested in this topic has taken a look at the book by ETHAN WATTERS, "Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche."

In some ways, Mr. Watters does not go far enough. (E.g. he doesn't talk enough about the movement led by mental health consumers/users/psychiatric survivors... he doesn't adequately address domination by the medical model.)

But his chapter about post-tsunami mental health help in Sri Lanka is so important. He wrote his book before the huge tsunami in Japan. So linking his chapter about the Sri Lanka disaster to another chapter in his book about marketing techniques for psychiatric drugs in Japan is especially chilling. 

I talked with a Japanese member who said that many disaster survivors in Japan are experiencing harm from the mental health industry, such as over-prescription of psychiatric drugs. 

Let me hasten to say there are so many people providing amazing services for those caught in many disasters, on many levels. This is not to diminish this contribution for a moment!

However, a key thing to recognize is the absolutely astounding, indescribable power imbalance between those who are considered "seriously mentally ill," and those leading the mental health industry. 

It is a chasm. 

We all know about that, I hope. However, this power gap is so big, that it causes untold problems, such as muting those harmed. 

We say there is a moral imperative to dialogue about this gap, see my chapter in book published by World Psychiatric Association http://www.mindfreedom.org/coercion

Bottom line on "disability and disaster"

After a disaster like a huge tsunami, there can be a second tsunami of trauma and harm caused by inherent harm embedded in a disastrous mental health system. 

So yes, many trauma survivors may find help in ways that are useful. But especially those who experience what are considered severe difficulties - who are not eating or sleeping, or who speak of harming themselves - they can end up with a second wave of harm caused by inappropriate labeling, massive over-drugging, hopelessness from a bullying medical model, discrimination, unregulated involuntary electroshock, etc. 

Note that this applies not just to after disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis.

• For returning veterans traumatized severely by war... many end up severely traumatized by human rights violations in mental health care. 
• For many victims of domestic abuse who experience severe mental and emotional problems... many end up being severely traumatized by mental health system violations. 
• Especially heart-breaking: There are some services for those who have experienced state-sanctioned torture. We have come across instances of wholesale over-drugging at well-meaning clinics to assist torture survivors. 

The chasm that is the power imbalance between those on receiving end of serious psychiatric diagnoses, and the mental health industry, should give us pause, let me take a look at history on this:

I've had contacts in Israel tell me about how after World War II, of course some Holocaust survivors experienced overwhelming mental and emotional problems. Sadly, a number of them ended up in institutions, experiencing still more trauma through labeling, domination, over-drugging, electroshock. 

In one of the few times of dialogue with World Psychiatric Association, we were able to get a keynote by Dorothea Buck from Germany, who is now in her 90's and had experienced involuntary sterilization during the Nazi era. It's interesting that her keynote focused on the lack of DIALOGUE during her subsequent seventy (70) years of psychiatric treatment! She said during her whole 70 years, she did not have a true dialogue with her mental health providers, have the trauma that she experienced. 

Ironically, this moment of hope with the WPA itself has not resulted in any ongoing dialogue.

You can read about the dialogue that Dorothea Buck and others sought with World Psychiatric Association here. 

Just the other day I was talking with a wonderful cross-disability attorney who has dedicated their life to these issues internationally, and has a special concern about mental health. Like many people I speak with, this leader had not heard that one of the very, very first groups targeted in the Holocaust, were children diagnosed with mental disabilities. That's how huge this power imbalance is: Even many of our own wonderful leaders have not heard of the history of atrocities like the Action T4 program. 

And we know what happens when we don't learn from history. 

Back to the question of "disability and disaster," I do not have an easy answer. 

But thank you for asking, and for the opportunity to at least stand at the end of the chasm of this power imbalance with you all, and witness it. 

This is my 35th year working as a grassroots community activist for human rights in mental health. I have still not discovered how deep this chasm is. 

One cool thing about celebrating MindFreedom International's 25th year, and my own 35th year as a community organizer in changing mental health, is I get to 'reflect back.'

I even recently did one of my fasting retreats in Oregon's beautiful wilderness, in this case the rocky coast and coastal mountain creeks, to think back on this. A Youtube video about that is here. 

But at the moment I just want to comment on a strange phenomenon. Weird really, but then isn't everything weird? What is not?

The strange phenomenon is the way our social change movement has ended up in dozens of "islands." 

Now, I'm not talking about people with grudges or anything. 

I'm talking about mainly friendly islands, who all consider themselves striving together in the same challenging social change movement. But one can sense the need for these various communities to connect, to communicate... for "canoes and bridges" between the islands. 

Because MindFreedom International is a coalition, we're in touch with many of these islands, have good relations. Many are actual Sponsor groups in our MindFreedom Support Coalition. So we're privileged to have an eagle eye view... but this view says, "Get out your canoes and build some bridges!"

Quick Tour of a Few Islands?

The following are just a few examples, but I realize even this is getting long!

Probably only a few dozen "canoe" folks are in touch with them all, which is heartbreaking. Everyone ought to work with their own island, but if only we had more bridges and canoes, I think we could emerge as a nonviolent revolution!

Because, you see, our movement truly needs to reach people in the millions. If we just fragment, we literally build our own ghetto, and talk mainly with ourselves. 

Break out of the mad ghetto!

ISEPP: A number of mental health professionals network via a wonderful organization called ISEPP (International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry, formerly ICSPP). I speak at their conference this October. ISEPP is a long-time MFI Sponsor. But a lot of mental health professionals who care are not aware of them. And many psychiatric survivors and mental health consumers seem not to notice ISEPP. 

ISPS: And then there is ISPS, International Society for Psychological Treatments of Schizophrenia, which is a similar group, highly recommended by critical psychotherapists, but at this point is not a Sponsor (some day!). 

INTAR: But let's not forget INTAR, which is also a sponsor group of MindFreedom International, and promotes humane alternatives. Go INTAR!

ALTERNATIVES CONFERENCE: But wait, what about the annual Alternatives conference, which for three decades has connected people in the emerging career of "mental health consumer/psychiatric survivors" Peer Delivered Services. I've attended about 10 of these and they have been warm, supportive and given me hope. 

NCMHR: Ah ha, but across the street from Alternatives conferences, don't miss the meeting of the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery, courageously founded by Dan Fisher, at National Empowerment Center (NEC). NCMHR meets separately, because it's doing organizing, and federal-funded of Alternatives won't sanction that inside their own hotel. And there are a few such federally-funded "TA" centers, all with their own networks. 

Icarus Project: Another sponsor group, Icarus has been mainly visible through an enormous web site of thousands of communications via a forum, plus a number of grassroots peer support meetings. More cultural and youth oriented that much of the movement, they've done well connecting with their constituency. 

WNUSP: MindFreedom members played a role in a number of meetings in the 1990's that led to the 2001 launch of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry. 

NARPA: National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy (NARPA) has kept the candle lit at the intersection of legal activism and psychiatric survivor activism. 

PSYCHRIGHTS: Led by the walking coalition Jim Gottstein, PsychRights in Alaska provides a good model of bridging the legal advocacy and activist worlds. 

ENUSP: European Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry. A great group! A few years ago I attende done of their small board meetings, and they decided not to be a sponsor of MFI at that time, but that's okay. But given low resource's it is difficult to for everyone to stay in touch. 

MAD PRIDE groups -- doing Mad Pride activities. 

US State mental health consumer groups -- In most USA states, often focusing on training for Peer Delivered Services, and an annual conference of their consumer/survivors in that state. 

Family members such as moms, dads, brothers, sisters of survivors: There are hundreds of passionate, smart, concerned family members of those harmed by the mental health system, some who have loved ones who have died in the mental health system. They quietly network by phone and e-mail, but have not developed many sustained organizations... yet. MindFreedom is launching an initiative to help network them. 

Hearing Voices: In Europe there's quite a network of folks who use peer support to manage distressing voices they hear, and they even have an annual conference.

Cross-Disability Activism: Bear in mind there are quite a few great disability groups (USICD, NCIL, DRI, etc.) that have connections to mental health, and to MindFreedom International. But often consumer/survivor groups don't know about them. An example of an island: AAPD and NCMHR also have a cross-disability outreach, but not quite enough bridges are connecting up. Now, remember within the cross-disability movement, there are also a lot of friendly islands that sometimes don't connect! [Update: And now there's National Disability Leadership Alliance (NDLA) which we've heard about, but is apparently a friendly island that has not contacted our network yet.]

Prison Justice: At the start of the 'mad movement' in the 1970's, we considered ourselves part of the "prison justice movement." We need to reconnect to that important island. Because changing the mental health system requires massive changes in the whole criminal justice system. We need to build bridges with prison justice, similar to what we've built with cross-disability.

Environmental Movement: Yes, one of the movements we need to connect up with more are the folks seeking deep change in how we as human beings handle our Mother Earth. There is a field called ecopsychology. Some of these caring mental health professionals are even helping to create safe time and space for people to begin to experience the unprecedented "eco-grief" that is inherent in the dawning realization that "normal" is wrecking ecological fabric of our beloved planet. This connection means we are actually all in the same boat, with one island: Earth.

Academia and Scientists: It is telling that after more than 40 years, no university has an archive related to the psychiatric survivor movement! Something is wrong in there. But there are quite a few individual researchers, academics, instructors, professors, graduate students who are pursuing the field of changing the mental health system. Unfortunately, because of the 'island' phenomenon, many grad students don't even know about each other. MindFreedom has an Academic Alliance to at least try to network more leaders in academia, click here. MindFreedom also has a Scientific Advisory Board, which is a good example of working with clinicians and leaders in the field.

MindFreedom Sponsor and Affiliate Groups. While many of above are officially linked in our coalition, MFI could do a lot more via e-mail lists and teleconferences to connect everyone up. We'll try harder! In meantime, the public list of MFI Sponsor (using their own name) and Affiliates (using local geographically and using MindFreedom name), is now updated and available, click here.

And That Was The Quick Tour!

Bear in mind above is just a fast motorboat cruise of a few islands... 

Since we are serious about the 'crazy' vision of a global nonviolent revolution in mental health, social justice, and the environment... Of course there would be many more islands to unite!

You could also add for example:

• the general human rights community
• those working to eradicate poverty
• homeless groups (such as those street newspapers, that are willing to cover us if people wrote articles)
• vets and their allies
• legal advocacy systems, such as the USA-funded "protection and advocacy" agencies connected through the National Disability Rights Network. Perhaps because of taxpayer funding, legal advocacy bridge building to more activist approaches (such as NARPA) needs special help
• the wholistic health care movement, nutritional and orthomolecular approaches, and what some might call 'new age' alternative approaches for wellness of mind, body and spirit.
• other constituencies that are especially targeted by psychiatric abuse: youth, women, seniors
• individual authors and researchers and artists and attorneys and leaders. 
• [update: Occupy Movement!]
• and many more, you get the idea! 

Please understand if your own 'island' is not listed, though you are welcome to email a paragraph about that to news@mindfreedom.org

Where's Your Canoe? What Bridges Are You Building?

The above "island" phenomenon can be quite strange to those who know about it!

Example:

In New York, recently, there was a small but dedicated psychOUT conference of activists, that got rave views. Overlapping dates, not far away, there was a larger, effective "Peer Delivered Service" conference, that of course had far more attendees because it held the promise of those three magic words: jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Only a few 'super activists' like Darby Penney and Celia Brown and a few others were actually in both. These activists really know how to paddle that canoe!

Here at MindFreedom we get to connect with and see all these various islands. 

A "human rights framework" has also helped provide some amount of bridge building, and you can read my chapter against psychiatric coercion published in a World Psychiatric Association book, that also makes some of these points. 

I totally understand why someone would want to focus on their own 'island.' 

There's a sense of excitement, ownership, passion in building one's own group, with one's own board and one's own community. It's fun. In fact, the word origin of "party" derives from the way a group celebrates its identity "a-part" from others. 

This is often called the very natural "competing interests" found in any kind of coalition-building (as opposed to unethical "conflicts of interest").

With scarce resources, once you start your own group you have to keep it all going -- web site updates, funding appeals, communications, training, board development, etc. -- and that can be like juggling 10 balls in the air, which makes it difficult to also canoe and build bridges. 

But with modern technology, it should be more possible to at least weave us all together to be aware of one another, and to connect now and again, with information, informal ad hoc alliances and formal coalitions. 

What I'm becoming aware of in 2011, after 35 years, is that all the new computer technology actually lays bare a challenge in our inner souls. 

Because you see, in 2011, most of us can just hit a button and -- using Facebook, Skype, e-mail lists, web sites -- we can at least connect up with others, and be our own journalists. So to the extent we forget to do this... the challenge is nearly entirely internal, what some might call spiritual or psychosocial.

We all have an inner bridge builder. 

We all have an inner canoe paddler.

It is mutual support that can encourage those inner community organizers, which can in turn help create more mutual support.

So connect up the islands. Once we do, we don't know what to expect. 

But by making our intent clear for truly major change in mental health, there may be an emergent phenomenon - a "Cairo moment" - that could surprise everyone! 

Remember, it's not a question of, "Can we do this?" 

It's a fact: "We must do this."

[updated 7 Aug. 2011 and 17 Jan. 2012]

Below are photos from tonight's opening panel discussion about changing the mental health system, at the First Unitarian Church in Portland, Oregon, at an event called Rethinking Psychiatry. 

The big news is that some of the participants, such as Gina Nikkel (on far right of right side of panel) is on a the new Foundation for Excellence in Mental Health, that a few weeks ago won a $2 million dollar grant to help exchange information and support studies about humane and effective alternatives in mental health. 

Author Robert Whitaker, also at the panel (on left of left panel photo) has blogged about their successful grant here. 

Listen on Saturday, 14 May 2011 (or hear the archive) as we web broadcast live from the event. 

Left to right: Robert Whitaker (journalist and author of Anatomy of an Epidemic), Terry Danielson (mom of psychiatric survivors, and one of organizers of event), Satyanarayana Chandragiri, M.D. (psychiatrist at Oregon State Hospital, President of Oregon Psychiatric Association).

American Psychiatric Association Challenged on Revision of its "Label Bible" by MindFreedom International

On Monday, 2 May, 2011, the American Psychiatric Association held a second invitation-only teleconference about the future of their "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (DSM). 

Once more, the APA is inviting comments on their "DSM" web site, with a deadline for comments by 15 June. 

And once more, MindFreedom made sure to have representatives on the call, this time with a three-person delegation of activists: Paula Caplan, David Oaks, Frank Blankenship.

The APA is holding these events and launching web sites because they have experienced fierce opposition about their proposed revisions, including from the leadership of the past version of the DSM, Allen Francis. 

Joining the APA teleconference was a three-person delegation from MindFreedom International:

* Psychologist and author Paula J. Caplan

* Frank Blankenship of MindFreedom Florida

* David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International

What I suggested on the call was that the APA indefinitely halt any future progress on the flawed DSM, because the power behind the DSM itself was harmful. Also, to address that harm, the APA ought to put out a disclaimer -- a cautionary note -- that says that nothing in the DSM is meant to be used in any way, shape or form that that could lead to loss of liberty or property or discrimination. 

Frank and Paula have also commented about the phone call in their blogs:

~~~~~~~~~

Frank Blankenship is blogging about the event on his blog. 

You can find the LUNATICKFRINGE BLOG post on DSM here.

or use this link:

http://bit.ly/mfi-apa-dsm

~~~~~~~~~

Psychologist and longtime critic of psychiatric diagnosis, Paula J. Caplan, is blogging about the meeting at Psychology Today's web site.

Her latest essay -- which is called "What?! Psychiatrists Now Define 'Openness'?! (Part 1)" -- is about the ongoing secrecy involved in the creation of such diagnoses and of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the fifth edition of which is now in preparation and scheduled for 2013 publication:

or use this link:

http://bit.ly/caplan-dsm-1

In Part 2, she reports the inside story of last Monday's conference call with the those crafting the new DSM-5, in which she participated with David Oaks and Frank Blankenship as representatives of MindFreedom International:

 or use this link:

http://bit.ly/caplan-dsm2 

Cautionary Tale of DSM?

So what do you think? 

For instance, what should be the wording by the APA of a truly strong warning and truthful disclaimer about any DSM? 

Would it matter? 

Would an attorney defending someone's rights be able to make use of that in court, for example?

Here's DSM IV current and weak 'cautionary':

DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR Cautionary Statement

The specified diagnostic criteria for each mental disorder are offered as guidelines for making diagnoses, because it has been demonstrated that the use of such criteria enhances agreement among clinicians and investigators. The proper use of these criteria requires specialized clinical training that provides both a body of knowledge and clinical skills.

These diagnostic criteria and the DSM-IV Classification of mental disorders reflect a consensus of current formulations of evolving knowledge in our field. They do not encompass, however, all the conditions for which people may be treated or that may be appropriate topics for research efforts.

The purpose of DSM-IV is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat people with various mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as Pathological Gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder, or mental disability. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgments, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination, and competency.

Reprinted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association

Visit to Ghana

by David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International

Thank you to everyone who assisted the recent trip to Ghana by a MindFreedom International delegation. 

We spent about 9 days working with MindFreedom Ghana leaders, doing sites visits -- such as Accra Psychiatric Hospital, and holding training workshops.

Initial photographs from the visit are available on Facebook in both the MindFreedom International and MindFreedom Ghana sections. Just go to Facebook, search for those groups, and view the photographs.

One reason to visit community organizing efforts in a poor, developing country, is that this is the future of the mental health system. Numerous international organizations such as World Bank, World Health Organization, World Federation for Mental Health and others, have stated that a top goal of the international mental health system is to increase the amount of mental health care in poor countries.

At first this can sound like a great idea, similar to, say, getting low-cost anti-malarial drugs into poor, developing tropical nations.

But with the mental health industry, it's not quite that simple.

Remember, the World Health Organization had done two major studies showing that people living in poor developing countries had the best recovery rate following a diagnosis of "schizophrenia." In other words, there may be something about the community, style of interaction, tolerance in a poorer country, that does better with people who are considered very different.

Yes, we need to remember that many people in Ghana to this day are actually chained in the backyard.

But the answer is not to eliminate those metal chains, by replacing them with chemical chains that harm 100 times more people.

Whenever I say this, I have to hurry and point out that MindFreedom is pro-choice about taking prescribed psychiatric medications, and many of our members choose mental health pharmaceuticals as part of their recovery.

But we need to be clear: The western-style simplistic way of looking at mental and emotional problems as some kind of mechanical imbalance, is spreading. In Ghana we saw a kind of worship of these western theories that is not based on fact. Already we are seeing people hurt in Ghana by the rapid spread of powerful psychiatric drugs, without the provision of full information and alternatives.

We'll have more information about Ghana, but in the meantime, please keep in mind that globalization of the powerful and profitable psychiatric industry is proceeding quickly. We need to mobilize and organize among everyone who cares not just for people with mental health labels, but for all poor, marginalized and disempowered people who deserve housing, jobs, community, support and freedom.

(Photo: MindFreedom Ghana 2010 march for ratification of UN treaty on disability rights.)

16 February 2011 

David Oaks, director of MindFreedom International, was one of three presenters on a teleconference today entitled, "National Coalition Special Topic Teleconference on Leadership."

Here are David Oaks' "Top Ten" points about how the movement led by mental health consumers and psychiatric survivors can create an "Egyptian" movement.

By coincidence, a few hours after this teleconference, the MindFreedom office received news that Elizabeth Ellis, 67, may be taken from her home to a psychiatric institution, for refusing to report for another involuntary outpatient electroshock. What a perfect illustration of the need for not just reform, but a nonviolent revolution. For more info about the Elizabeth Campaign, click here.

AT BOTTOM is "Live Blogging" by David Oaks during the teleconference. 

How Can the Mental Health System Have an Egyptian Moment?

by David W. Oaks

"Imagine the mental health system -- in the USA and internationally -- experiences a moment, some day soon, similar to what happened recently in Egypt. What is your role?"

How can we resist the human rights violations in the mental health system - such as forced electroshock and forced drugging - and promote humane alternatives?

Below are my top ten suggestions:

1. Everyone is a leader, and the first job of a leader is supporting more leaders! In a community organizing model, you may have the role of a coach more than a traditional leader. What is your role in helping the mental health system have an "Egyptian" moment? (A shameless plug: For two decades, I've given workshops on Community Organizing for Independent Systems Change.)
2. Inside/outside strategy: Government and corporate funding is necessary for some important activities. But government and corporate funding tends NOT to fund certain things: Direct action, protest, civil disobedience, activism, and addressing controversial subjects like the power of the pharmaceutical industry. These are the things we need! See our independent statement created at a SAMHSA summit last year. See how MindFreedom helped at last minute to prevent forced drugging from being top SAMHSA initiative, and instead helped voice and choice win out.
3. Role of youth and other emerging leaders: Newly emerging leaders can be of any age, and ought to be encouraged and supported. I've been a leader for 35 years, and this is a multi-generational effort. 
4. "Complex cultural competency": Our movement has a very special diversity. I wrote my college senior paper on it. Today I work with disability groups in a workshop called "Amplify" about this. We need to include diversity, starting with language. Let's stop using the term "mental illness." We need to seek the 'edge' between individual and group organizing, with 'just enough' organizing.'
5. Reform is not enough! Leaders are bold! Since Arizona, we have heard about more funding for mental health in general. Disaster has always built the mental health system. We need to stop promoting simply "more money." "More money" often simply means more forced psychiatry, and more over-drugging. We need to STOP lobbying for more money for forced treatment, and lack of choice. Example: MindFreedom helped get public pressure to make sure Whitaker spoke at last year's Alternatives 2010 conference. 
6. Leaders include allies: We need to break out of the 'mad ghetto.' Remember the disability movement. Plug: We now have an "Amplify" workshop that connects up with 'physical' disability movement (click to download flyer from a past Amplify workshop). Plus, we are now working with mothers and family members who speak out for supporting psychiatric survivors. 
7. Unite in a spirit of mutual cooperation: We psychiatric survivors are often especially hurt over power issues, on a deep level. Sometimes we're overly critical of each other, without supplying mutual support. So we need to be especially sensitive to that, and maintain our principles in the way we work with one another. Hold one another accountable to our principles, but then: Make up, move on.
8. We are our own media! In the era of Web 2.0 each and every one of us is not only a leader, but also the media. In fact, to get mainstream media, we often need to first cover an event itself. Two examples: Alerts -- putting out a summary of a problem and a solution you are encouraging through activism. And news: Cover an event yourself like a journalist, with at least one good photo or video. One example of MFI's use of web 2.0 is our international alert system, which people can join for free here. 
9. This is a global effort! We are now working on a handbook for international leadership, and doing a training in Accra, Ghana. International efforts are the main arena in mental health, and we need to be part of that. 
10. We need both dialogue and peaceful direct action! We at MindFreedom have sought dialogue with representatives of organizations of mental health professionals about human rights violations. This offer has not been reciprocated. We need to look into significant activism. For instance, we are suggesting 5 May 2012 for a "Million Mad March."

Live blogging during teleconference by David Oaks:

11:15 am Pacific Time: I've just done my presentation with the BELOW 'TOP TEN POINTS." I simply ask: How we can have an "Egypt" in today's mental health system?

I am 'live blogging' during the rest of today's teleconference with updates if any, so check back, hit 'refresh.' If you want to dialogue during or after today's event, e-mailaction@mindfreedom.org. 

Keris Jän Myrick is next speaker, talking about moving from "I' to "We" organizing. Good point about need for more leadership by people of color. MindFreedom International board president is the wonderful Celia Brown, African American psychiatric survivor. 

11:21 am PT: Pam Hyde, SAMHSA Administrator is third speaker: Pam included a candid discussion about how she was once an "outside" leader-attorney fighting against the current mental health system to change it. She pointed out that sometimes when she was an "outside" leader some of her best allies were inside the system. She pointed out that the Egyptian peaceful revolution was only 18 days long, but in a way this is just the start -- and there will be months and years of incremental work if democracy truly is brought to the country.

11:30 am PT: Discussion about to especially encourage leadership among marginalized groups, such as women of color. David mentioned special outreach to neglected groups, such as homeless and ex-homeless among the homeless newspapers all over the US. Keris points out that priorities may be different among leaders, but we need to welcome that diversity. Example: The Homeless Marathon is reaching homeless activists via radio & web.

11:45 am PT: There is discussion about looming mental health budget cutbacks. David and Keris agree that 'more money' in general for the mental health system is not enough, that we need to focus on specific items like peer-delivered services and advocacy. Pat talked about using Supported Decision Making so that "forced treatment is not necessary, or certainly not the first thing people think of." 

11:50 am PT: There's a question about how to divert some of the 'gold' from the medical model approach, to peer-run programs. David suggested Lauren Spiro comment, since she was able to shake out more than a million more dollars for peer-run programs. Moderator Jim McNulty talked about the sheer number of lobbiests for the medical model approach in Washington, D.C. 

Pam said, "Often people lobby in a "way too generic' way, such as 'we want more money for peer run programs.' But legislators then say, 'I don't know what to do with that, it's too generic.' So we as leaders need to get very specific, and it's not always Congress. For instance, CMS -- which funds Medicaid and Medicare -- is more flexible than I've ever seen them for funding non-medical approaches. We have to be very specific in advocacy efforts."

And be sure to JOIN MindFreedom International! Be part of a 25-year-old international independent coalition working for human rights and alternatives in mental health system, open to the public, and led by psychiatric survivors. 

To join click the 'big red button' on the upper right hand corner of this web site, or click here:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/join-donate

That's right, forced electroshock continues in the so-called developed world, including in Ireland. 

But MindFreedom Ireland has been speaking out!

Here's their brief report, from Jim Maddock, one of the founders of MindFreedom Ireland:

Irish Senate Debates Electroshock

by Jim Maddock

Members of MindFreedom Ireland, many of them shock survivors, were present in the public gallery of Seanad Eireann (Irish Senate) on Wednesday December 2nd to witness the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill to outlaw forced electroshock.

The Bill was proposed by Senators Dan Boyle and Deirdre de Burca of the Green Party, the junior coalition government partner.

Approximately twelve Senators spoke in the debate representing the pros and cons which, conventionally, surround the issue.

The debate was adjourned until March 2010.  In the meantime, the Minister with Responsibility for Mental Health promised to invite submissions from all with an interest in the area with a view to making a final decision on the progress of the next stage of the Bill then.

MindFreedom Ireland has already had informal talks with the Minister and will be accepting his offer to formally meet him early in 2010.

26 January 2011

Bias By the Numbers: Mass Media Bigotry in Mental Health is Clear

It's been 18 days since the nightmarish shootings in Tucson. 

The numbers are in. 

Please, I hope someone tells us we're wrong. But the data we have proves the bigotry of mainstream media about mental health consumers and psychiatric survivors.

Compare these numbers: 

20 to 2. 

That's a ten-to-one ratio.

Twenty (20): 

Twenty is the number of times some of the largest media outlets in the nation - such as CBS, CNN, New York Times, Reuters, USA Today - have quoted or based pieces on Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) supporters, including TAC board members and their extremist director psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey. 

That is about one major media quote every day.

TAC's single-minded, simplistic focus is on vastly increasing the use of forced psychiatric drugging, including on an outpatient basis (though the controversial practice was already legal in Arizona, as it is in most states). 

Apparently corporate media likes single-minded, simplistic solutions. For TAC's media list click here.

Two (2): 

Two is the number of times - as far as we know - that a representative of a mental health consumer/psychiatric survivor organization has been quoted in mainstream media about these mental health controversies. 

That's twice, or about once every 10 days since the Arizona shooting. If you've heard of others, let us know at news@mindfreedom.org.

We're not saying these two examples speak for our whole movement, but at least they put a human face on people with psychiatric disabilities, who are being demonized as never before.

Specifically:

Boston Globe, 13 January: A columnist did quote one of the founders of NCMHR, psychiatrist Dan Fisher, here.

National Public Radio, 24 January: Joseph Rogers was included in a piece about Arizona and forced mental health care, which also included an individual promoting more forced psychiatry, here.

Let's Learn From This

Mainstream media is carrying one side of the forced psychiatric drugging debate. This debate is about our lives and our liberty. 

January 2011 should be the month that our social change movement wakes up and realizes that the psychiatric industry is not the only corporate offender in the mental health field: 

Mainstream media itself is a significant part of a mental health crisis we face in the USA.

ACTION: Speak out! 

Write letters and guest columns to your local newspaper about this media bias.

And remember: In 2011, each and every one of us is our own media, especially by using the Internet. Use your own media to speak out about media bias!

Because of the web, mainstream news media are struggling economically to even hire enough reporters, which is one reason editors act as cheerleaders for pre-digested news releases by extremist organizations promoting bumper-sticker agendas. 

But the media have handed us our own laser-focused sound bite, and this one is true:

Nothing About Us Without Us!

Other comments on MindFreedom web site about post-Arizona media bias about mental health:

Martin Luther King Day MindFreedom article about media bias.

Martin Luther King Day blog entry by David Oaks.

22 January Oaks blog entry on media pushing forced drugging.

MindFreedom has already reported about how mainstream media are ignoring a key perspective after the Tucson tragedy: The perspective of groups of mental health consumers and psychiatric survivors. You can read the article here, as well as my earlier blog about the topic here.

Meanwhile, the same big media ignoring the voice of mental health clients, has been lapping up the simplistic hate speech of E. Fuller Torrey and his extremist group Treatment Advocacy Center, who is pushing a forced drugging agenda that is universally opposed by all mental health consumer and psychiatric survivor groups.

I've been encouraging people to contact media, since the only media I've seen quoting anyone in our movement -- moderate or radical -- has been Boston Globe. (Anyone have another example?) And there are a few other possibilities.

But in the meantime....

It's quite a huge sweep for D. Fuller Torrey's group Treatment Advocacy Center, as they exploit the Arizona shooting with big media coverage.

Tonight, 22 January 2011, I noticed  CBS-TV news did a report about use of prisons/jails for people diagnosed with psychiatric problems. There on the screen was a graphic promoting the Treatment Advocacy Center's logo, citing it as the source regarding blaming deinstitutionalization for many of our society's mental and emotional problems.

I had already noticed one of the New York Times main conservative columnists (David Brooks) quoting Torrey as "the answer".....

I've mentioned to members about a Newsweek cover story that matter of factly quotes made up statistics by Torrey about our constituency's alleged "violence" rate....

So (ugh!) I took a look at Treatment Advocacy Center web page just now. 

And sure enough TAC is experiencing a hate-speech avalanche of mass media coverage... 

Here's the current list from TAC's home page..... as they continue to exploit the Arizona tragedy with their bumper sticker simplistic solution:

~~~~~~~~~~

From Treatment Advocacy Center Home Page on both 22 and 26 January 2011

~~~~~~~~~~

After Arizona - Headline news featuring the Treatment Advocacy Center

1. CBS Evening News: Role of Mental Illness in Tucson Shooting Unclear - with Dr. E. Fuller Torrey 
2. CNN: Was Tucson Gunman Mentally Ill? - with Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
3. CNN: Living With Schizophrenia - with Dr. Fred Frese
4. CNN: Examining Mental Illness in America - with Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
5. PBS NewsHour: In Loughner Case, Missed Signalsand a Troubled Mental Past – panel discussion with policy director Brian Stettin
6. National Review: A Lesson from Loughner - editorial
7. New York Daily News: Arizona Massacre’s Real Lesson – by policy director Brian Stettin
8. New York Times: Red Flags at a College, but Tied Hands - news quoting Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
9. New York Times: The Politicized Mind – columnist David Brooks quoting Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
10. Reuters: Before Tucson Rampage, a Powerful Law Went Unused - news quoting board member Jon Stanley
11. Time magazine: If You Think Someone is Mentally Ill: Loughner's Six Warning Signs - analysis quoting the Treatment Advocacy Center
12. USA Today: Time to Mandate Reporting of Mental Health Concerns - co-authored by board member Dr. Jeffrey Geller
13. USA Today: Arizona Aftermath - editorial with comments by deputy executive director Rosanna Esposito
14. Wall Street Journal: A Predictable Tragedy in Arizona– op-ed by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
15. Wall Street Journal: Loughner's Sickness - editorial with reference to Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
16. WashingtonPost.com: Tucson Shooting: The Mental State of Jared Lee Loughner - live chat with legislative counsel Kristina Ragosta
17. Washington Post: Others Could Have Sought Evaluation for Arizona Suspect - news quoting policy director Brian Stettin
18. San Diego Union Tribune: How San Diego County Can Respond to Tragedy in Tucson - op-ed by board member Carla Jacobs
19. The Current on CBC Radio: Dangerously Mentally Ill - with Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
20. Madeleine Brand on Southern California Public Radio:Shooter's Rampage, Parent's Nightmare – with parent Nick Wilcox