Freeman Rutkin: Yes, they are a patients` and a psychotherapist`s nightmare unleashed.....but there is wheat amidst the chaff; try to realise the system is not geared for people who think for themselves or it would be an outright free-for-all.LOL.
Oren Eskelsen: The good people in the field are there, but the incompetant ones do more damage than you could imagine. Problem is, the stigma of 'mental illness' keeps people from reporting the true quacks, and worse, allows these fools to blow thru any complaint based on patient history. I know of one psychiatrist whose bizarre and incompetant behavior is widely known by his patients, almost 100 %whom are on SSD or are awaiting it. When I had a breakdown a few years ago, I QUITE stupidly went to the clinic run by this goofball. I accepted I'd need to be 'interviewed' by this man. I know the routine: clerical worker interview, pychiatric eval for meds and therapist referral. What a joke. I had 3 clerical 'interviews'-the! most detailed one the worker gave me IN THE WAITING ROOM (the one asking verbally for my SS # and medical history). Ahem-why did the patient have to point out the ethical dilemna to a clinic worker?My initial meeting with the chief quack went like this-I kid you not-HIM: Why are you here? ME: Im depressed and want short term meds and therapy. HIM: (rolling his eyes) What makes YOU expert enough to know that? ME: Ive had recurring depression for 30 years, I can tell when Im depressed. HIM: So, you have a degree now? How do YOU know its depression?ME: Im...depressed, I feel numb, a friend died and my sadness is interfering with my ability to do ANYTHING. HIM: But what makes you qualified to believe its DEPRESSION? ME (thinking) You know, maybe you're right. What do YOU think it is? HIM: How should I know? You tell ME! I had two more med appts with this psychiatrist, both of which he had a collegue sit in while they exchanged smirks to everything Id say.When I asked for a the! rapist at the clinic I was told to do it on my own. When I did! that, I was refused because I did not have a referal. When I gave the doc paperwork for medical leave, he asked me how do I fill it out? Turns out the clinic was at the time being investigated for gross negligance over 2 deaths. The paper reported that the clinic had diverted something like millions of $ into secret accounts for a private school downstate. The state tried to revoke its licence but was unsucessful. The head psychiatrist still has his job there. Yourr and mine taxpayer dollars at 'work', eh?...Show more
Marion Wieboldt: @ Jesere: Im not in an institution or whacked. IF you have nothing to contribute but some trollish BS, then just leave
Jade Ohno: When you have insurance you get to see a psychiatrist. ($__$)When your on medicare, you get to see a therapist. (¢__¢)
Idell Mulliniks: You seem a bit too "touchy" with Jesere and the reasonable aspect of his/her question to the effect:-In what institution/s did you make your alleged "observat! ion"/(s). So, if you've made actual observations of "the whole mental health service", it was a reasonable question.But to answer your question, since I have had some experiences in/with my "mental health system", in Canada, in relation to a legal proceeding where 2 different Crown prosecutors, on 2 separate occasions, insisted that I required a psychiatric assessment to determine my "fitness" or "unfitness" to stand trial. On both occasions their requested "psych assessment" orders were granted --- the 1st time on an "outpatient basis" for 30 days and the 2nd time [about 1.5 months later] on an incarcerated inpatient basis for 30 days.Personally, I didn't find that mental health service workers were "quacks" in general. To the contrary, most were both reasonable and professional --- which doesn't mitigate your criticisms at all. Many, if not most of your criticisms are valid and accurate, with more complex reasons than just "blame the workers" for the problems you not! e.I found that 1 psychiatric resident was a gullible and legally ignora! nt person who knew a reasonable amount of medicine, less psychiatry and almost nothing about law. He knew how to "bow" in the direction of the Bench, when entering a court. And he made equivocal "psychiatric findings" in accordance with what Crown prosecutors directed/instructed him to "find". By "equivocal" I mean his psychiatric "findings" from 1 short interview at Court, were "may have" this or that problem which could just as likely mean "may not have" it as well (equi - vocal; maybe yes; maybe no.) e.g. "KB may have persecutory delusions, since he seems to think everyone is against him." So on that basis I was ordered to take a psychiatric assessment and report to Forensic Assessment outpatient services, which amused me because everyone who came to my "legal trial" was AGAINST me. But their disclosed evidence was contradictory and both myself and the "Crown" knew it.I began my "assessment" with a 1st PHILOSOPHICAL REPORT to such experts ---encountering a charte! red psychologist to whom I presented my 1st report, knowing that I was presumed both sane and innocent by the "forensic" (legal-medical) system. One of your points was proved by him. He took a copy of the "Court's" order to have me assessed but refused to take a copy of my 1st "philosophical report". He, thereby proved that he'd rather hear "Court Orders" than what patients write as "reports" about policemen, court clerks, prosecutors and judges. So the legally ignorant psych resident (different guy) was "on a witness stand", making provably false statements, related to "questions of law", before either he or a real psychiatrist had read my first report.My 2nd "philosophical report" to the "forensic" people detailed the resident's legal ignorance in terms of both Canadian Statutes and the psychology of the "Major Socratics", primarily Aristotle's and Aquinas's brand of psychology, which share's some points with Freudian "analytic". That 2nd report in concert with the 1! st seemed to "tongue tie" them, because after I served them my 2nd repo! rt, no one called me to attend for an actual "assessment". So "the Crown" had to think up another illegal/irrelevant request, AFTER the psychiatrists DISOBEYED the 1st Court order!Being lawyers, they got the inpatient assessment order as well. So I was incarcerated as an inpatient for 30 days and "discovered" that: (1) Most patients were "faking mental health problems" to either "beat" or "mitigate" their legal problems. Hence the majority (not all) of patients were lying to their "care givers". (2) Some, perhaps most, of the doctors were "taken in" by the lying. When I had my final "psych interview" one of the doctors said he had not read all of my "philosophical reports" and the other doctor proved by his quizzical look that he hadn't read any of them. The arguably "lying" doctor did not lie. He had read the first 2 reports, but not the 3rd, because that was addressed to his "Chief" thanking them for not saying anything derogatory about my "mental health" on the d! ay they had been ordered to say something about it. So the basic problems are:- (1) Lying or confused patients, (2) inconsistent philosophical theories of the psyche/soul/mind which become inconsistent "psychologies" and (3) ulterior motives for suggesting, implying or asserting "mental issues" by so-called "corollaries" [i.e. neither doctors, nor patients --- in my case, they were prosecutors, policemen, court clerks and 2 judges who'd "goofed" on certain legal procedures]. In one word, "lying" for different reasons causes confusion.Kevin...Show more
No comments:
Post a Comment