Mind Freedom and Icarus on ABC

herb Says:

Liz,

Thanks for the heads up on this presentation.

Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com

kimbriel Says:

Yeah, they interviewed me too, but I pulled out of it, when it became clear the producers wanted somebody who was off meds and a total mess, not somebody who was off meds and really doing well. I’m actually relieved that it’s only 28% who think that people should be forced to take drugs… it always seems like a much higher number in the comments section.

j. z. laing Says:

The question is obviously related to the article. Do you simply mean placement of the question? As in: the question should be on page 4 not page 1? On page three you have David Oaks saying it should be a patient’s choice to take medication or not. I’m not sure it’s a false dichotomy either. Mad Pride vs. taking meds is, but their question is not. Their question is about forced meds. I don’t know what yours is about.

Kristin Bell Says:

I think there are certain instances where some people would benefit immensely from forced medication.

Carter Says:

I don’t think the question is irrelevant, though I agree with kimbriel that 28 percent is actually heartening. I would’ve expected a much greater tendency toward ‘the mentally ill are dangerous; shove pills down their throats if that’s what it takes.’

But the other dichotomy seems just as stupid & dangerous. Yeah, it’s an interesting question whether Van Gogh, etc., would’ve been as creative w/o medication. But assuming the answer is ‘no’ is downright ridiculous, at least without serious focus on an opposing question: How do we know Van Gogh wouldn’t have been just as creative but *for longer* if his illness hadn’t killed him when it did?

I really do get it: Many activists see the use of *any* medication as evil, whether forced or not. But that’s a pretty damn bs assumption, at least without seriously solid evidence to support it. Science isn’t evil just b/c we’d like to think it is.

Carter Says:

Meant “with medication” in the first graf.

Carter Says:

Actually, second graf. Stupider than usual today.

an icarista Says:

I agree – the framing is totally flawed, but we knew that going in, it always is. Of course forced medication, especially on juveniles, and informed consent is an issue. But to me the larger question is always, how does society decide what behaviors, attitudes and emotions are “normal” and “healthy” and which ones are “sickness” and “insanity”. Not to mention the larger sociopolitical questions about what actual health care would look like, rather than disease maintenance/treatment, about who profits from the medical model, about why we are so good at treating acute disease and so horrible at dealing with chronic conditions, about why signing up to kill someone in the name of nationalism is totally normal and talking to a tree is totally batshit, etc etc etc.

But that doesn’t push the panic button and sell ads like a crazy person with a gun.

It’s okay, mainstream media will never tell the whole story, but they might point people in directions and towards communities of people they never would have found otherwise, and that’s good enough for me!

an icarista Says:

Re Carter: Also, so many organizations, especially and including The Icarus Project are NOT anti-medication at all. Many of us have found psych meds life saving (and others life destroying, there are still many experiences out there), we simply believe that people have the right to make a decision about what is going into their own body and whether it is making them feel better, whether it is worth the health risks, etc. It’s a total strawman argument to claim that “many” or “most” activists are 100% anti-medication, it’s just not true of the vast vast majority (95%+) I know in the psych rights, consumer rights, mad pride, creative maladjustment, peer care, etc movements.

an icarista Says:

well, that was even worse than expected

Carter Says:

You’re absolutely right, icarist, & I never mean to say most activists are anti-meds, even when I sound that way. Medication is a ridiculously complicated issue, esp. given how much scientific ground there still is to cover. And I *do* agree treatment should be an individual decision. What I’m opposed to is the argument that medication is solely a contribution to capitalist greed & a societal desire for mind control.

And I profoundly believe that mental illness should not be viewed as a “problem” for society; in many, many ways it’s an enormous benefit. I do buy the notion that creativity & mental illness frequently travel together, & I understand that many people hate the idea that it’s “illness” at all.

I do overstate my worries about activists & anti-meds arguments — again, if only in the name of personal freedom, it has to be a choice (except, *possibly,* in the most limited of situations where a person poses a serious risk; though even then there are almost always better alternatives to forced medication, even if they too involve some limits on personal freedom). That said, I strongly believe in treatments that work (as you say, most others do as well).

Gabriel... Says:

From the ABC piece:

“I think often that if DaVinci were alive during our time, would we just dope him up? What would we do?” [music artist Madigan Shive] asked.

It’s a question being asked by a growing grass roots movement about 8,000 members strong — many of whom are rejecting pharmaceutical solutions for psychiatric conditions and fighting the stigmatization and shame of mental illness.

Talk about “straw man arguments”… last art book I checked never listed DaVinci as being a danger to himself or others.

mark p.s.2 Says:

What Gabriel?
“There has been much debate over the years as to the source of Van Gogh’s illness and its effect on his work. Over 150 psychiatrists have attempted to label its root, and some 30 different diagnoses have been suggested”
From wikipedia.

Carter Says:

Gabriel — Making a decision not to medicate is one thing, &, I think, perfectly appropriate if that’s what works best for one person. But trying to push everyone else into making the same decision, whether in an effort to fight stigma or for any other reason, is something else entirely. Just like you have a right to choose not to medicate, I have every right to choose otherwise — & I will, as long as it keeps me alive. My creativity is far more reliable than it ever was when I swung up, down & center; it also doesn’t flee for months or years at a time.

& no, DaVinci was never a danger — but Van Gogh *was* toward the end of his life. The claim that he cut off his ear & mailed it out strictly out of misguided love has been all but completely killed. In reality, it was the result of Van Gogh’s paranoia that his friend Gaguin would abandon him; that paranoia also led Van Gogh to threaten Gauguin with a razor more than once.

And what about the many, many artists with what I call mental illness (I understand you might not, & I respect that, but again, it’s an individual choice) who died long before their times & lost any chance to create more works of genius: Poe, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Van Gogh, etc., etc.? We can’t know at this point whether medication would or wouldn’t have limited their creativity — but that means we can’t know on *either* side.

Presuming that medication exists solely to profit pharma companies (certainly there’s a lot of greed there, but there are also a lot of competent & principled researchers; remember, pharma execs *market* & *sell* medications — they don’t *create* them) doesn’t make sense to me.

I guess my point is that free choice swings both ways — & that too much pushing in either direction can leave a lot of folks with blood on their hands.

Gabriel... Says:

ABC Quote:

“I think often that if DaVinci were alive during our time, would we just dope him up? What would we do?” [music artist Madigan Shive] asked.

It’s a question being asked by a growing grass roots movement about 8,000 members strong — many of whom are rejecting pharmaceutical solutions for psychiatric conditions and fighting the stigmatization and shame of mental illness.

/end ABC quote

I don’t see where I mentioned van Gogh… the reporter did, once — in the lede, and then never mentions him again. In an article which starts off asking us to imagine genius being “forcibly” suppressed, the reporter makes the nearly science fiction sized leap from the names of van Gogh and daVinci to Madigan Shive and Joe Pantoliano in the second sentence… which, in itself, is simply horrible and lazy reporting…

– The lede of the ABC piece is about “forcibly” medicating daVinci and Van Gogh, the rest of the story is about average people with average artistic ability trying to decide (’choosing’) whether to medicate or not.

The reporters never clarify the daVinci point and, almost immediately after making it, the reporters claim the “8,000 members” of a “grass roots movement” are all asking the same thing — the inference being, daVinci would be forcibly medicated today.

Ms. Shive, by bringing up daVinci is creating a “strawman argument”, and the reporters are helping her because it makes the story about someone other than Ms. Shive and Joey Pants.