Thread: Treating Mental Disorders

We all know the discussion about ECT Psychosurgery and Chemotherapy in relation to treating mental disorders

Does anybody know what the actual experience is like

I am who I am and I would never go through anything that yo have suggested. It would change me and I don't want to change

I vote yes. I know a woman who attempted suicide about 10 years ago and was given the electroshock therapy. I would say the treatment was successful as she is still alive today, and probably would have killed herself if left untreated.

Are there better treatments available? Maybe, but I think I will leave that to the professionals in that field.

The alternative treatments most likely would involve drugs, which also alter the mind. But if somebody is hell bent on killing themselves, they need to have their mind altered somehow.

But about those that don't harm themselves or others, should these people be forced into a treatment they do not need?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I vote yes. I know a woman who attempted suicide about 10 years ago and was given the electroshock therapy. I would say the treatment was successful as she is still alive today, and probably would have killed herself if left untreated.

Are there better treatments available? Maybe, but I think I will leave that to the professionals in that field.

The alternative treatments most likely would involve drugs, which also alter the mind. But if somebody is hell bent on killing themselves, they need to have their mind altered somehow.

In reflection to Nevyn's comment "I am who I am": Is it possible maybe this person really did want to commit suicide and we are simply being selfish and saying that is wrong and thus zapping her with loads of electricity to "help". Maybe all we have done is created a new person inside of her because we think we somehow know what is best for her.

I recently did a report on euthanasia. The biggest questions I had were about the depressed. Is it ethical to drug a depressed person so that they no longer want euthanasia? Or by doing so are you changing who they actually are and forcing them to not want such treatment.

The question was about the treatment itself, not whether it should be forced upon someone against their will. Does such a thing even happen in this day and age? I would hate to be having a debate about something that doesn't even exist.

DaBob, I hope you never have to make such a decision about a member of your family, but I know what my decision is. I will keep them alive.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The question was about the treatment itself, not whether it should be forced upon someone against their will. Does such a thing even happen in this day and age? I would hate to be having a debate about something that doesn't even exist.

DaBob, I hope you never have to make such a decision about a member of your family, but I know what my decision is. I will keep them alive.

The question was: is it ethical, which suggests a component of force in changing these people. Such things do happen where people are 'treated' for an illness they don't want treating.
You are missing the bigger picture; It's not just one disorder which causes suicide, the topic covered EVERY disorder. Things like autism, schitzophrenia, manic depression etc. What would you do to 'help' these people?

Originally Posted by Nevyn

The question was: is it ethical, which suggests a component of force in changing these people. Such things do happen where people are 'treated' for an illness they don't want treating.
You are missing the bigger picture; It's not just one disorder which causes suicide, the topic covered EVERY disorder. Things like autism, schitzophrenia, manic depression etc. What would you do to 'help' these people?

There is not necessarily a component of force in all cases when the treatments in question are used. Maybe I'm missing the big picture, but if you are going to ask a question about ethics, you need to be specific. It could be ethical in some instances and unethical in others, depending on how it is applied.
If you picked out a healthy individual and strapped them down and gave them electroshock treatment, just for experimental purposes, that's unethical. If you took a raving lunatic and did the same thing, it could be quite ethical. So, what's the question?

what is your opinion on autism, scitzophrenia and other mental disorders of the same characteristics which don't involve harming themselves or others around them? should they be treated too?

Originally Posted by Nevyn

what is your opinion on autism, scitzophrenia and other mental disorders of the same characteristics which don't involve harming themselves or others around them? should they be treated too?

This is still a little bit too generic for me. If you have some actual case studies then we would have something to talk about. What kinds of treatment are autistic people really getting nowadays? Schizophrenia can be very disabling, and I think some drastic measures would be justified. Again, I would probably tend to defer to the professionals in the field, not having any expertise myself.

I hypothetical situation of someone with a mental disorder which poses no threat to themselves or those around them, do they need treating? should they be treated against there will?
I agree with DaBob's statement nostly, people shouldn't be forced to change, dispite their condition

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Nevyn

what is your opinion on autism, scitzophrenia and other mental disorders of the same characteristics which don't involve harming themselves or others around them? should they be treated too?

This is still a little bit too generic for me. If you have some actual case studies then we would have something to talk about. What kinds of treatment are autistic people really getting nowadays? Schizophrenia can be very disabling, and I think some drastic measures would be justified. Again, I would probably tend to defer to the professionals in the field, not having any expertise myself.

True.

Mental disorders are as varied in severity as physical disorders....a wood splinter in the finger is not the same as an arrow through the neck. Specific examples with detailed medical assessments are necessary before any commentary can be made on a course of action (if any) is necessary.

I hypothetical situation of someone with a mental disorder which poses no threat to themselves or those around them, do they need treating? should they be treated against there will?

Is he/she capable of making a decision? alzheimers may be an example here and many people live in ignorant bliss as they progressively know less and less about what is going on around them, and are put into homes. Yet nobody would really want to loose their memory, people would rather (when healthy) remain coherent to others.
A person with alzheimers may however refuse treatment as he/she does not understand why it is necessary ir what is happening.

This is difficult for a doctor as a doctor usually makes decisions based on a well informed patient making an autonomous decision which may not be possible here.

Originally Posted by Robbie

I hypothetical situation of someone with a mental disorder which poses no threat to themselves or those around them, do they need treating? should they be treated against there will?

Is he/she capable of making a decision? alzheimers may be an example here and many people live in ignorant bliss as they progressively know less and less about what is going on around them, and are put into homes. Yet nobody would really want to loose their memory, people would rather (when healthy) remain coherent to others.
A person with alzheimers may however refuse treatment as he/she does not understand why it is necessary ir what is happening.

This is difficult for a doctor as a doctor usually makes decisions based on a well informed patient making an autonomous decision which may not be possible here.

yes they can make disisions. But like what DaBob said with the electroshock therapy, should we force them to change?

Autonomy and informed concent are problomatic. Esspecially because we tend to think that someone with a mental disorder such as depression, schizo., alzheimer's, etc. is not in a mental state in which they can give informed consent.

Let's just say hypothetically that ghosts exist and only you can see them. Do other people have a right to say that you are not compotent to make your own decisions because you are "obviously" delusional? Do they then have the right or should they then treat you?

Now maybe that sounds like a silly example but it is not irrelevant.

e.i. Maybe, for whatever reason, you really do want to die and you aren't just making a delusional decision.
Or maybe... your doctor is using experimental drugs on you but when you tell people they just think you are delusional or paranoid.

Mental disorder is defined by deviations from the norm. The norm is a self reinforcing, artifical construct. Consequently perfectly sane individuals whose behavioural patterns stray to far from the norm may well be judged mentally ill by the community. That is unsettling. I suppose it is why at heart I am an anarchist.

Mental disorder is defined by deviations from the norm. The norm is a self reinforcing, artifical construct. Consequently perfectly sane individuals whose behavioural patterns stray to far from the norm may well be judged mentally ill by the community.

I agree, but isn't your definition of "perfectly sane" just as arbitrary?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Mental disorder is defined by deviations from the norm. The norm is a self reinforcing, artifical construct. Consequently perfectly sane individuals whose behavioural patterns stray to far from the norm may well be judged mentally ill by the community. That is unsettling. I suppose it is why at heart I am an anarchist.

I think anybody would find it unsettling, which is why there are legal processes to go through for committing someone to a mental institution. What do anarchists believe? That all mental patients should be released?

You are illegal if and only if you vaporise or contribute to vaporising beyondless parts that like yourself makes no entity.

In all other cases the givos ****os principles are engaged.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

which is why there are legal processes to go through for committing someone to a mental institution.

And these processes have been abused, ignored, distorted and corrupted in the past in democracies and dictatorships, to fit the prevailing 'world view'.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What do anarchists believe?

I have no idea. Anarchists tend not to hold meetings. You can't pick up a copy of the Anarchist Manifesto at Anarchists 'R' Us.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What do anarchists believe? That all mental patients should be released?

I certainly do not believe that. I am surprised you even ask the question, since nothing in my posts in any way suggests this be considered an option.
To clarify what seems to be unclear to you. I believe some individuals whom society claims to be insane are perfectly sane, but simply differ from the norm by too large an amount for the comfort of the conservative, middle of the roaders, who constitute the bulk of society. By classifying them as insane they can take more comfort in their own bland belief and behavioural system.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

And these processes have been abused, ignored, distorted and corrupted in the past in democracies and dictatorships, to fit the prevailing 'world view'.

Are there any processes that haven't?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Anarchists tend not to hold meetings. You can't pick up a copy of the Anarchist Manifesto at Anarchists 'R' Us.

I just wondered how being an anarchist relates to ones opinion on committing a person to a mental hospital. I supposed if a state of anarchy was achieved that there would be no police to round up the crazy people and throw them in the loony bin. OTOH there wouldn't be any courts to keep you from calling the men in white coats to haul off your crazy uncle.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What do anarchists believe? That all mental patients should be released?

I certainly do not believe that. I am surprised you even ask the question, since nothing in my posts in any way suggests this be considered an option.

I assumed you were responding to the poll question about the ethics of using of certain procedures. I thought you were suggesting the procedures should not be used because nobody was crazy, they were just eccentric. But if you were not answering the poll question, it wouldn't be the first time someone veered off topic.

To clarify what seems to be unclear to you...

It was clear enough. I just didn't see how it related to the thread topic. What is your answer to the poll question, by the way, yes or no.[/quote]

In situations where a person was likely to cause self harm or harm to others and/or when someones quality of life is seriously compromised by a mental disorder, then I think it would be at least inhumane not to offer treatment.

I'll qualify the above by saying that I don't believe in enforced medication unless the person has been declared unable to give informed consent.
I think a panel of not less than 3 qualified practioners should be required to make a judgement of non competence.

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

You are illegal if and only if you vaporise or contribute to vaporising beyondless parts that like yourself makes no entity.

In all other cases the givos ****os principles are engaged.

Yet again....another 31 random words pretending to be a meaningful post...must be computer hour at the funny farm again.

Back on topic...

Do they still use ECT? I thought that shit went out with Beatle boots and poodle skirts. I was under the impression it was about as effective as drinking radium-infused water for good health.