Concerning 'danger to oneself and/or others' does this label not apply to every human being? Everyone could harm another or them self, the claim here is rather that we believe they are very likely to, so much so that we take away their liberty. Locking someone up because our best guess is that they are going to do something wrong is also highly problematic, and also does away with the presumption we have in the criminal law that people act of their own free will, and can choose whether or not to offend.
Szasz is one of the few people who philosophically consider the intersection between psychology/psychiatry and law, and this in itself is a fascinating topic.
But is it really preferable to wait until they do hurt someone, and then lock them up? That's the essential question.
I am very much on the fence when it comes to a lot of these issues, or at least I'm not entirely "for" or "against" psychiatry in general.
On one hand, I've had mental illness profoundly affect my life in a very negative way, diagnosed of course by multiple doctors.
On the other hand, not a single one of the different medications prescribed to me ever helped my condition. And yes, I was on each one for many months because I was told "it takes time." But no, what little bit of progress I've slowly made over the years has been through learning, hope, and willpower.
(I realize the above is anecdotal. It's not meant to be proof of anything, but simply part of why I don't like or dislike psychiatry.)
On one hand, I hate the current state of drug companies in America. This is one of the few things that when discussed I could actually get angry enough to throw something out the window. I fucking hate it. I honestly think drug companies would be in the list of the top 2 most corrupt things that exist in this country right now. I'm not sure what the other would be. This is not unique to psychiatry, the ridiculous power these companies have and the corruption it causes in the medical field is widespread.
On the other hand, I do believe psychiatry and psychology are legitimate sciences. I hated that YouTube video in the OP because all it did through the entire thing was say "Hey, this so-called science over here isn't the same as that science over there." They complained the whole time of how there was no physical, biological means of diagnosing a mental disorder. To use a meme that I feel fits, different science is different. Seriously, you can't compare two things that aren't the same and state that they're not the same.
I'm sure many years ago most people would say that studying space is not a science. After all, the things we can mix together and test here on earth are a science, but space is not something we can measure or test, therefore it is not a science and we should never try to make it a science. It is just glowy shit in the sky we can't understand.
They complained the whole time of how there was no physical, biological means of diagnosing a mental disorder.
That's a falsehood anyway. There are ways of diagnosing various psychiatric disorders, they're just too expensive (involving specialized MRIs) or too invasive (involving spinal taps and analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid) to be justifiable.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
They complained the whole time of how there was no physical, biological means of diagnosing a mental disorder.
That's a falsehood anyway. There are ways of diagnosing various psychiatric disorders, they're just too expensive (involving specialized MRIs) or too invasive (involving spinal taps and analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid) to be justifiable.
And not to mention that the argument can be made that every mental disorder will eventually be traced back to biological, structural, or chemical problems in the brain. Every single one. We just haven't figured that much out, yet.
They complained the whole time of how there was no physical, biological means of diagnosing a mental disorder.
That's a falsehood anyway. There are ways of diagnosing various psychiatric disorders, they're just too expensive (involving specialized MRIs) or too invasive (involving spinal taps and analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid) to be justifiable.
And not to mention that the argument can be made that every mental disorder will eventually be traced back to biological, structural, or chemical problems in the brain. Every single one. We just haven't figured that much out, yet.
Those Scientologists and their wacky mind-body dichotomy!
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I know two things from personal experience, even if there wasn't a substantial body of medical/scientific evidence to support at least one:
1. Mental illnesses are real, quantifiable things.
2. Sometimes they're treated ineffectively.
As I understand it, one of the main problems with mood disorders and ADHD is that patients self-report incorrectly. Say they're afraid of getting put on those zombifying drugs: they'll lie, or stop short of telling the truth, in order to avoid that. The doctor may misinterpret their reports and prescribe a treatment that's ineffective. Children with ADHD are a little easier to peg than teenagers suffering depression or anxiety, you can read all kinds of telltale signs and run little tests that can narrow the diagnoses.
But say you have a 16-year old who has a really negative attitude about everything and is really lazy. Is he clinically depressed? Is he just acting like it for some reason (be a goth or emo or whatever)? Is it anxiety or is it depression (there are different treatments for each, despite manifesting similar symptoms)? Teenagers and young adults (late teens to early 20s) are less likely to self-report accurate information that mature adults, because of societal pressure or whatever.
I suspect that there is a not-insignificant number of cases where a mental disorder is improperly treated due to the patient self-reporting poorly. Obviously, this is going to sour those patients on the idea of pharmacopsychiatry in general. I know it did to me for a while.
Add to this the inconsistency of diagnoses within certain demographics. Schoolchildren have a big issue with this, as my mother (who has spent a long time working in public education) is all too happy to relate. Some kids get Adderall or Ritalin for mild symptoms of ADHD, and perform markedly better socially and in school. Some kids are rambunctious as hell and get nothing, despite recommendations from the school nurse, teachers, and any other qualified adult that the kid should see a doctor.
The difference? Some parents will seek help for their kids. Some parents won't, under the false assumption that pharmacopsychiatry is a scam, or that it's just "kids being kids" because they, too, were like that when they were kids (back before ADHD became a real diagnosis and wouldn't have seemed like a problem, mind you). The cycle repeats: when those kids who weren't treated become adults they may see the symptoms of ADHD as just "kids being kids" while those who were treated may go one way or the other. They may resent the treatment (adolescent rebelliousness and all that) or they might appreciate it, it's tough to tell.
TL;DR: the problem isn't pharmacopsychiatry, it's people and poor cultural perceptions of what mental illness is and how to treat it. Also people lie to doctors.
1. Can a psychiatric diagnosis be real at all? Is there any validity to the whole thing? Does it extend in purpose beyond Szasz's accusation that it's just a label? My answer is yes, of course.
The biological component, yes, although difficult as you are talking about brain chemicals which is difficult to actually test for, to my understanding. Psychological diagnoses are a little harder. You're getting more into a discussion of the philosophy of science here, one the argument being that the only true logic is deductive logic, which most psychological diagnoses wouldn't fall into.
2. Are the conspiracy theories valid? My answer is, in a nutshell, that there may be some measure of validity to the suspicion of such behaviors and policies, but that it's a problem with all medicine that's not exclusive to psychiatry, and that it's a problem that can be remedied by reform, transperency, and effective oversight.
There's probably a grain of truth to most conspiracy theories, anyway. I think you've hit the nail on the head that fraud isn't limited to psychiatry, but at the same time I think that psychiatry probably lends itself and is more open to these frauds than most other medical sciences.
3. What's your opinion on psychiatric pharmaceuticals? My opinion is that it's helpful and effective, but is most effective when paired well with other forms of behavioral or talk therapy, and also that is certainly not a panacea for all that ails your brain. My opinion is substantiated by numerous studies.
They're valid and helpful in cases that actually need them, but over-prescribed and relied on too heavily, making people more dependent on the medication than actually learning how to solve their problems or deal with difficult on their own. I might as well smoke weed or drink heavily.
4. Are our children being overmedicated and drugged into near-comatose states by the evil psychiatric industry in an effort to make a quick buck? I think that conspiracy theories are more harmful than helpful, and that while there are problems, it's not nearly as far-reaching as Dee and others would have you believe.
Yes. Similar to Question 3, there are cases that really do need the medications to functions, but generally the medication seems to be given to kids because they're acting like kids, whereas people seem to think they should be acting like little adults. Face it, kids have energy and they act up. It's part of their nature.
Do you have any evidence for those last two bits? They're pretty egregiously wrong based on all the research I've done, which albeit isn't exhaustive, but I've been doing this kind of thing for six or seven years now.
2. I agree with your assesment of the problem; however, I do not agree with your analysis concerning a remedy. Other than administering all prescription drugs under qualified supervision, how can you stop the misuse?
Are you talking about individual patient misuse or misuse by the profession? It seems like the former.
3. The point of those is to limit the variation of emotional response, yes? They seem like instant-zombie drugs. In my opinion, they tend to dull the points that characterize the persons individual nature, as well as dull the supposed cause of depression or hyper-activity. I'm really not a fan of them.
I don't think you've actually seen very many people on treatment for depression and ADD. In practice, what the medications do is let the person's personality flourish beyond the fact that they feel like shit all the time or can't maintain a steady attention or whatever. They're not made to limit emotions. There are some people that don't respond well to various types of treatment, that much is true, but that indicates that it's time to change the treatment either by reducing the dosage or changing the medication used.
4. Are our children being overmedicated and drugged into near-comatose states by the evil psychiatric industry in an effort to make a quick buck? Yes
It has always been business first, patient second.
Dee, is that you? This is horseshit, plain and simple. The number of good psychiatrists I've known alone is enough to counter this assertion.
There's a huge amount of conflating axis I and axis II in this thread, as well as just general ignorance of what the difference is between axis I and axis II, and the usual ignorance altogether of what axis II is.
Yes, you're all right, this is incredibly open-shut if you want to focus on axis I disorders where the neuroscience is not just usually the cause but also the only possible solution. The waters get muddied, though, when you move to axis II -- affective and pervasive 'disorders' where medication is often there to ease symptoms, and not the condition itself. Axis II, where therapy is the end-all be-all and only possible solution ... but where medication may or may not be prescribed along the way.
Well, part of the problem is that many of the Axis II disorder patients may not be "suffering" from their disorder. They don't recognize their actions as causing suffering, and don't see a problem with the way they behave. Traditionally, this is the part where Szasz comes in, and I completely understand why, but I think there must be some allowance for a person that causes suffering all around them.
I once met a woman who was diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder (this is one that seems awfully tenuous to me), and whenever she sat down to talk to somebody, she'd clap her hands together and say "showtime" under her breath. What followed was basically a mishmash of Lucille Ball and Greta Garbo. How the fuck do you "treat" that, and what do you actually treat? She didn't think she was a famous actress. She didn't actually think she was walking on stage.
So, from there, it becomes about trying to show the person either that their behaviors are not normal (Szasz again), or that they are actively causing problems in their relationships. This woman was very, very lonely, but would never openly admit to that. I think she had four kids, and last time I saw her, they hadn't spoken to her in something like three years. Is there a problem there needing to be treated? I think most definitely, but for some of the more educated in the anti-psychiatry movement it is, as Feral has noted, all about will, and her will is to continue living her life like that, unwilling to change and allow people back into her life. Is that just her, or is there more there that's being blocked by the PD?
Could we be setting up our classrooms and our workplaces in such a way that people with ADD could flourish without medication? Do we refuse to do so out of a lack of funds in the education system (or out of a need to maximize corporate profits)? Are we de facto forcing people to medicate themselves through cultural pressure?
I guess another question could be whether or not ADD went undetected before, or if our society is the cause of it. I have seen good adaptive programs that are made specifically for ADD and ADHD kids, and they work well, but only for the kids with the disorders. "Normal" children don't do well at all, mostly because the other kids in the class are so all over the place. So, at that point, I guess it's a game of numbers. Presumably, "normal" kids make up the majority. If we can't find a way to let both flourish in the same environment, then we adapt to the needs of the majority by necessity.
No.
There are some children who are being given psychopharmaceuticals who do not need them.
There are also children who need psychopharmaceuticals but are not getting them.
Every reasoned analysis of the subject has come to the conclusion that the second group vastly outnumber the first.
On an individual level, the consequences the second situation are significantly more deleterious than the consequences of the first.
That's something else I've noticed. Kids, or just people in general, that get medicatios but don't necessarily need them, in the case of the more mild disorders (I'm not talking non-shizophrenic patients getting treated with dopamine, here), don't actually seem to have that much of a reaction to them. They'll probably feel the difference, but it wouldn't be much more than unpleasent.
Well, part of the problem is that many of the Axis II disorder patients may not be "suffering" from their disorder. They don't recognize their actions as causing suffering, and don't see a problem with the way they behave. Traditionally, this is the part where Szasz comes in, and I completely understand why, but I think there must be some allowance for a person that causes suffering all around them.
I once met a woman who was diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder (this is one that seems awfully tenuous to me), and whenever she sat down to talk to somebody, she'd clap her hands together and say "showtime" under her breath. What followed was basically a mishmash of Lucille Ball and Greta Garbo. How the fuck do you "treat" that, and what do you actually treat? She didn't think she was a famous actress. She didn't actually think she was walking on stage.
So, from there, it becomes about trying to show the person either that their behaviors are not normal (Szasz again), or that they are actively causing problems in their relationships. This woman was very, very lonely, but would never openly admit to that. I think she had four kids, and last time I saw her, they hadn't spoken to her in something like three years. Is there a problem there needing to be treated? I think most definitely, but for some of the more educated in the anti-psychiatry movement it is, as Feral has noted, all about will, and her will is to continue living her life like that, unwilling to change and allow people back into her life. Is that just her, or is there more there that's being blocked by the PD?
The trend now, though, is to handle these diagnoses and the investigation of these [axis II] disorders from a much more multi-dimensional perspective. Schizoid personality disorder, for example, is sort of a catch-22 from the therapist's point of view -- it describes a patient which, were they drawn to the 'T' of the diagnosis, would not ever end up in the therapist's office! With the growing field though, there's a much wider pool from which the studies are being drawn, and so you have growing diagnoses to match ... the thorough investigation of both covert and overt symptoms, along with looping causation and rationalization into the diagnosis. Now, if the professional is willing to stray from the DSM-IV to a larger library of texts, they'd very easily see that the overt symptoms the DSM focuses [solely] on don't really do justice to schizoid p.d., or any axis II disorder for that matter.
This is all something I've had to grapple with since I've been bouncing between professionals for ages now and the best they can tell me is that the situation is too complicated for them to treat without my full-on compliance and dedication. Without pinpointing whatever is going on in axis II, they don't feel safe prescribing to treat anything which appears to be going on in axis I -- and dealing with axis II seems to be asking too much from most therapists, or at least most in my price range, who did the bare minimum to get their credentials and basically expect to consort with depressed housewives for all of their career.
I turn out more scorched earth in my life than the Cretacious extinction events. Covertly, there are things I want to accomplish and even just day-to-day there are things I want to do but I end up acting completely opposite overtly. It's very convenient to blame this on a 'disorder' of mine, or any number of contributing 'disorders;' convenience aside though, I don't know how truthful that is. No professional can get inside of my head in the way I'd like he or she to.
The hardest part of dealing with the opinion that psychiatry -- pharmo or non -- is harmful, and wants to harm me by 'changing' my 'natural personality,' is that it's just downright ignorant. If this is my natural personality, and it is to remain unchanged, I will die. If I was born even five years earlier, I would likely be dead. If you roll the clock back another decade or two it becomes almost a sure thing. Implicitly, those who would decry the professionals who want to help me by fighting me are wishing a 'fitting death' upon me.
Implicitly, too, it is an admission that I am not right. I'm okay with that, though ... there is not necessarily any baggage that comes with being different. That baggage is hauled in by the population at large, and regrettable as it is, I do honestly believe that changing cultural values will make me less of a pariah on, like, the eight or so levels of which I already am one. :V
Confronting the problems in one's life is difficult. The will takes a long time to bubble over, and for some people the cycle they get drawn into almost ensures that they will not force themselves into that confrontation before a massive amount of damage is done. Unfortunately, I can't honestly say I feel the remedy for this is to loosen the strings on non-consensual commitment; it comes back to my pet project, then, the changing cultural tides and swapping the demented face of psychiatry for something a bit more publicly-appealing.
I wish, wish, wish there were magic solutions, and one of the hardest parts of therapy for me -- and apparently, for many others -- is accepting that there are not. The solutions we do have available to use are gritty and uncut; the addendum that the world at large will think of you as a Less-Than can be the straw that breaks the camel's back ... and keeps him from reaching the doctor to receive care for his stomachache ... for some.
Some kids get Adderall or Ritalin for mild symptoms of ADHD, and perform markedly better socially and in school.
I've been thinking about making a thread about that: cosmetic neurology (as in cosmetic surgery, but for the brain). Read an article recently about how some academics start taking Adderall (without having a diagnose), and it helping them focus more intently on their research and getting lots more done.
Posts
But is it really preferable to wait until they do hurt someone, and then lock them up? That's the essential question.
On one hand, I've had mental illness profoundly affect my life in a very negative way, diagnosed of course by multiple doctors.
On the other hand, not a single one of the different medications prescribed to me ever helped my condition. And yes, I was on each one for many months because I was told "it takes time." But no, what little bit of progress I've slowly made over the years has been through learning, hope, and willpower.
(I realize the above is anecdotal. It's not meant to be proof of anything, but simply part of why I don't like or dislike psychiatry.)
On one hand, I hate the current state of drug companies in America. This is one of the few things that when discussed I could actually get angry enough to throw something out the window. I fucking hate it. I honestly think drug companies would be in the list of the top 2 most corrupt things that exist in this country right now. I'm not sure what the other would be. This is not unique to psychiatry, the ridiculous power these companies have and the corruption it causes in the medical field is widespread.
On the other hand, I do believe psychiatry and psychology are legitimate sciences. I hated that YouTube video in the OP because all it did through the entire thing was say "Hey, this so-called science over here isn't the same as that science over there." They complained the whole time of how there was no physical, biological means of diagnosing a mental disorder. To use a meme that I feel fits, different science is different. Seriously, you can't compare two things that aren't the same and state that they're not the same.
I'm sure many years ago most people would say that studying space is not a science. After all, the things we can mix together and test here on earth are a science, but space is not something we can measure or test, therefore it is not a science and we should never try to make it a science. It is just glowy shit in the sky we can't understand.
So yeah, I have mixed feelings.
That's a falsehood anyway. There are ways of diagnosing various psychiatric disorders, they're just too expensive (involving specialized MRIs) or too invasive (involving spinal taps and analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid) to be justifiable.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And not to mention that the argument can be made that every mental disorder will eventually be traced back to biological, structural, or chemical problems in the brain. Every single one. We just haven't figured that much out, yet.
Those Scientologists and their wacky mind-body dichotomy!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
1. Mental illnesses are real, quantifiable things.
2. Sometimes they're treated ineffectively.
As I understand it, one of the main problems with mood disorders and ADHD is that patients self-report incorrectly. Say they're afraid of getting put on those zombifying drugs: they'll lie, or stop short of telling the truth, in order to avoid that. The doctor may misinterpret their reports and prescribe a treatment that's ineffective. Children with ADHD are a little easier to peg than teenagers suffering depression or anxiety, you can read all kinds of telltale signs and run little tests that can narrow the diagnoses.
But say you have a 16-year old who has a really negative attitude about everything and is really lazy. Is he clinically depressed? Is he just acting like it for some reason (be a goth or emo or whatever)? Is it anxiety or is it depression (there are different treatments for each, despite manifesting similar symptoms)? Teenagers and young adults (late teens to early 20s) are less likely to self-report accurate information that mature adults, because of societal pressure or whatever.
I suspect that there is a not-insignificant number of cases where a mental disorder is improperly treated due to the patient self-reporting poorly. Obviously, this is going to sour those patients on the idea of pharmacopsychiatry in general. I know it did to me for a while.
Add to this the inconsistency of diagnoses within certain demographics. Schoolchildren have a big issue with this, as my mother (who has spent a long time working in public education) is all too happy to relate. Some kids get Adderall or Ritalin for mild symptoms of ADHD, and perform markedly better socially and in school. Some kids are rambunctious as hell and get nothing, despite recommendations from the school nurse, teachers, and any other qualified adult that the kid should see a doctor.
The difference? Some parents will seek help for their kids. Some parents won't, under the false assumption that pharmacopsychiatry is a scam, or that it's just "kids being kids" because they, too, were like that when they were kids (back before ADHD became a real diagnosis and wouldn't have seemed like a problem, mind you). The cycle repeats: when those kids who weren't treated become adults they may see the symptoms of ADHD as just "kids being kids" while those who were treated may go one way or the other. They may resent the treatment (adolescent rebelliousness and all that) or they might appreciate it, it's tough to tell.
TL;DR: the problem isn't pharmacopsychiatry, it's people and poor cultural perceptions of what mental illness is and how to treat it. Also people lie to doctors.
There's probably a grain of truth to most conspiracy theories, anyway. I think you've hit the nail on the head that fraud isn't limited to psychiatry, but at the same time I think that psychiatry probably lends itself and is more open to these frauds than most other medical sciences.
They're valid and helpful in cases that actually need them, but over-prescribed and relied on too heavily, making people more dependent on the medication than actually learning how to solve their problems or deal with difficult on their own. I might as well smoke weed or drink heavily.
Yes. Similar to Question 3, there are cases that really do need the medications to functions, but generally the medication seems to be given to kids because they're acting like kids, whereas people seem to think they should be acting like little adults. Face it, kids have energy and they act up. It's part of their nature.
Are you talking about individual patient misuse or misuse by the profession? It seems like the former.
I don't think you've actually seen very many people on treatment for depression and ADD. In practice, what the medications do is let the person's personality flourish beyond the fact that they feel like shit all the time or can't maintain a steady attention or whatever. They're not made to limit emotions. There are some people that don't respond well to various types of treatment, that much is true, but that indicates that it's time to change the treatment either by reducing the dosage or changing the medication used.
Dee, is that you? This is horseshit, plain and simple. The number of good psychiatrists I've known alone is enough to counter this assertion.
Well, part of the problem is that many of the Axis II disorder patients may not be "suffering" from their disorder. They don't recognize their actions as causing suffering, and don't see a problem with the way they behave. Traditionally, this is the part where Szasz comes in, and I completely understand why, but I think there must be some allowance for a person that causes suffering all around them.
I once met a woman who was diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder (this is one that seems awfully tenuous to me), and whenever she sat down to talk to somebody, she'd clap her hands together and say "showtime" under her breath. What followed was basically a mishmash of Lucille Ball and Greta Garbo. How the fuck do you "treat" that, and what do you actually treat? She didn't think she was a famous actress. She didn't actually think she was walking on stage.
So, from there, it becomes about trying to show the person either that their behaviors are not normal (Szasz again), or that they are actively causing problems in their relationships. This woman was very, very lonely, but would never openly admit to that. I think she had four kids, and last time I saw her, they hadn't spoken to her in something like three years. Is there a problem there needing to be treated? I think most definitely, but for some of the more educated in the anti-psychiatry movement it is, as Feral has noted, all about will, and her will is to continue living her life like that, unwilling to change and allow people back into her life. Is that just her, or is there more there that's being blocked by the PD?
I guess another question could be whether or not ADD went undetected before, or if our society is the cause of it. I have seen good adaptive programs that are made specifically for ADD and ADHD kids, and they work well, but only for the kids with the disorders. "Normal" children don't do well at all, mostly because the other kids in the class are so all over the place. So, at that point, I guess it's a game of numbers. Presumably, "normal" kids make up the majority. If we can't find a way to let both flourish in the same environment, then we adapt to the needs of the majority by necessity.
That's something else I've noticed. Kids, or just people in general, that get medicatios but don't necessarily need them, in the case of the more mild disorders (I'm not talking non-shizophrenic patients getting treated with dopamine, here), don't actually seem to have that much of a reaction to them. They'll probably feel the difference, but it wouldn't be much more than unpleasent.
This is all something I've had to grapple with since I've been bouncing between professionals for ages now and the best they can tell me is that the situation is too complicated for them to treat without my full-on compliance and dedication. Without pinpointing whatever is going on in axis II, they don't feel safe prescribing to treat anything which appears to be going on in axis I -- and dealing with axis II seems to be asking too much from most therapists, or at least most in my price range, who did the bare minimum to get their credentials and basically expect to consort with depressed housewives for all of their career.
I turn out more scorched earth in my life than the Cretacious extinction events. Covertly, there are things I want to accomplish and even just day-to-day there are things I want to do but I end up acting completely opposite overtly. It's very convenient to blame this on a 'disorder' of mine, or any number of contributing 'disorders;' convenience aside though, I don't know how truthful that is. No professional can get inside of my head in the way I'd like he or she to.
The hardest part of dealing with the opinion that psychiatry -- pharmo or non -- is harmful, and wants to harm me by 'changing' my 'natural personality,' is that it's just downright ignorant. If this is my natural personality, and it is to remain unchanged, I will die. If I was born even five years earlier, I would likely be dead. If you roll the clock back another decade or two it becomes almost a sure thing. Implicitly, those who would decry the professionals who want to help me by fighting me are wishing a 'fitting death' upon me.
Implicitly, too, it is an admission that I am not right. I'm okay with that, though ... there is not necessarily any baggage that comes with being different. That baggage is hauled in by the population at large, and regrettable as it is, I do honestly believe that changing cultural values will make me less of a pariah on, like, the eight or so levels of which I already am one. :V
Confronting the problems in one's life is difficult. The will takes a long time to bubble over, and for some people the cycle they get drawn into almost ensures that they will not force themselves into that confrontation before a massive amount of damage is done. Unfortunately, I can't honestly say I feel the remedy for this is to loosen the strings on non-consensual commitment; it comes back to my pet project, then, the changing cultural tides and swapping the demented face of psychiatry for something a bit more publicly-appealing.
I wish, wish, wish there were magic solutions, and one of the hardest parts of therapy for me -- and apparently, for many others -- is accepting that there are not. The solutions we do have available to use are gritty and uncut; the addendum that the world at large will think of you as a Less-Than can be the straw that breaks the camel's back ... and keeps him from reaching the doctor to receive care for his stomachache ... for some.
I've been thinking about making a thread about that: cosmetic neurology (as in cosmetic surgery, but for the brain). Read an article recently about how some academics start taking Adderall (without having a diagnose), and it helping them focus more intently on their research and getting lots more done.