Talk:E. Fuller Torrey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Respected voice (?)

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey is the most respected voice in psychiatry today. Because he is a family member of someone with mental illness, Dr. Torrey understands the problems that family members go through. Hi book, Surviving Schizophrenia, has been a godsend to thousands and thousands of famility. And his close association with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill shows he is as mainstream as it gets.--Agiantman 21:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you site some links to your story? I want to see if anything you say is true. I find his book, Surviving Schizophrenia, a good resource for my kind and those around my kind. Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)11:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying yourself as a Mindfreedom extremist. I am a mental health consumer and I have been helped by Dr. Torrey's books. I also don't appreciate the attempts to stigmatize mental illness with remarks such as "fruitcake." Of course, like any responsible person, Torrey advocates for involuntary treatment: some consumers are so ill, they don't have insight and they know they are ill. In cases where seriously mentally ill individuals have become sick, involuntary treatment has saved lives. BTW: NAMI and Torrey still have very strong ties and he is beloved by the NAMI organization.--Agiantman 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

How is MindFreedom extremist? How did the debate get to the people advocating for rights are extremists? I have been put under "emergency detention" three times and forced with drugs. I can tell you that it can never help. In order for someone to help another there first has to be trust. The best way to destroy trust is to bash the other person on the head with your opinions. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You can find info on brain theft here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902923_pf.html And you can find info on the house cat research here: http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/Article5.htm

Funny you're offended at "fruitcake" but you're perfectly comfortable calling me an extremist. What you describe isn't "insight" but rather submission and obedience. As suggested above, I'm sure Torrey is beloved by any organization of families of the mentally ill who want to lock their upstarts up and drug them into submission instead of helping them deal with their problems. However, the Treatment Advocacy Center is in a class by itself when it comes to human rights violations. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

The term "fruitcake" is a pejorative term for individuals with mental illness. I am a mental health consumer and I resent attempts to stigmatize my mental illness. I am especially shocked that an organization that purports to advocate for conumers would use that term. I am living on my own and employed thanks to medication. I am also thankful that Dr. Torrey is studying brains and looking for a cause and a cure for serious mental illness. God bless him. If groups like MindFreedom were serious about helping mental health consumers, they would be spending time fighting for our right to treatment, rather than spending time on our right to refuse it.--Agiantman 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "extremist" is a pejorative term for individuals who hold views that make society uncomfortable. If you resent stigmatization, then start by refraining from committing it yourself. I am shocked that you are shocked by the term "fruitcake" because most crazies that I know are the hippest, most happening people around and regularly refer to themselves as "escaped loonies," "nutbars," etc., etc., etc.

You say you're glad E. Fuller Torrey is studying brains. Are you also glad that he is stealing those brains? And were you impressed with his schizophrenic "research" whereby he attempts to link this socially constructed "disease" to house cats? We don't need some quack to determine the cause of mental illness. The answer is all around us.

Please note that MindFreedomBC is affiliated with but is not a part of MindFreedom International. Our "right" to treatment is not in issue and, in any event, should never be allowed to supercede our fundamental right to refuse treatment. Do whatever you want to do in your own life -- we've got no problem with voluntary psych treatment (even though I doubt very much your consent is informed consent) -- but try to force it on me, or anyone that I love, and you'll find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

MindFreedomBC is not concerned with anyone who calls herself (I'm just guessing) a "mental health consumer" because the word consumer implies freedom of choice. Our concern is upholding the rights of psychiatric prisoners who have fewer rights and remedies available to them than do convicted felons.

-- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Lawsuit? Most people involved with a 5150 are given blanket immunity for whatever they do. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't identify yourself as someone with mental illness so I am not sure why you would fear involuntary treatment. The terms "crazies," "escaped loonies," "nutbars" are all stigmatizing terms and their use leads to more discrimination against individuals with mental illness. People with mental illness have been scarred by those terms. One thing is for sure, you don't speak for me. --Agiantman 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

People have been scarred by all terms. Even the term ignorant can, somehow, be hurtful. How does sugar coating the words help you? Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because I don't apply a psychiatric label to myself doesn't mean that psychiatrists haven't done that to me in the past. Since you asked, I've been called bipolar and schizophrenic. On the basis of those labels, I have been incarcerated, humiliated, tortured, drugged and electroshocked. Contrary to your assertion, it's actually delicate, politically correct terms such as "consumer" and "disabled" that lead to oppressive legislation and associated discrimination. We don't need to fear words -- they're just words. As already stated, I don't presume to speak for you. But perhaps, one day, if you come to see biomedical psychiatry for the fraud that it is, you'll approach us for assistance and we will be happy to help you. Until then, I support your right to make your own decisions and you should support mine.

-- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Francesca Allen I second your comment. Except I have not been forced to undergo ECT. All else remains true about me as well. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your response is exactly as I expected. You are not a person with mental illness. You have only been labeled as such. I am a person with a mental illness and at times it has been a living hell. You are fortunate to have only the label and not the actual illness. The brain is an organ, just like the heart, lung, and kidneys. And just like those other organs, the brain can suffer from disease. Thanks to Dr. Torrey, I now know that I suffer from a neurobiological disorder. With medication, I have been able to obtain good employment (helping others with disabilities) and I will be returning to school this fall (yeah!). I hope for better and less expensive medications (with less side effects) and hopefully, someday, a real cure. I am sorry that you have been treated badly, but please don't stand in the way of those of us who really need the help.--Agiantman 02:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen any evidence that your brain is damaged? Or did someone just tell you that? Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. If I don't have a mental illness, then why was I locked up? Could it be that your beloved E. Fuller Torrey hasn't dealt with the possibility of misdiagnosis and wrongful incarceration? Could it be that mental health legislation is dangerous for exactly that reason?

I agree. Anytime you have one person who can override the rights of another you have a clear case for abuse and real danger. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If I wasn't ill, what were the labels for? It wasn't just one doctor, by the way. It was Drs. Gillespie, Loomer, Ford, Hoffer, Connolly, Ballance, Miller, Atkins, Barale and Milliken and there's a special place in hell reserved for all of them.

Truly, I'm flattered by your "diagnosis" of sanity but I think by society's standards I do in fact have a mental illness. The difference between us, I think, is that I consider it a gift whereas you consider it a burden.

Yes, the brain is an organ just like any other but you don't know much if you think you have a neurobiological disorder. What, pray tell, is the nature of the disorder or chemical imbalance? Next time you're at your legally mandated shrink appointment, ask him/her what a healthy brain looks like in a CAT scan. I promise you, you'll find out more than you want to because the truth is NOBODY KNOWS what a healthy brain is supposed to look like.

Clearly, our experiences were vastly different: it was only after I threw out my medication and walked (actually, sprinted) away from psychiatry that I was able to put my life back together, re-enter the workforce and contemplate returning to school. It wasn't my "illness" that nearly did me in -- it was the psychiatric label and the abuse that flowed from it: seclusion cells, restraints, Haldol injections, all to "correct" an imaginary illness. There's a reason we call ourselves psychiatric survivors.

You want a "real cure"? For what? Being human? And, again, I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone who voluntarily (and with all relevant information) chooses psych treatment. It's your life -- throw it away if you want to, by all means, but don't say we didn't try to warn you that you are being lied to by biomedical psychiatry.

When I read things like "Thanks to Dr. Torrey, I now know that I suffer from a neurobiological disorder." it makes my heart ache.

-- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Mine too. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

e. fuller torrey

Gee...E. Fuller Torrey or Ezra Pound. I can't imagine who's more likely to be right. Carson, Palm Springs

Well, they're both fascists. However, as far as I know, Ezra Pound didn't destroy any lives. Now, E. Fuller Torrey, on the other hand, that's all he lives for. So I would have to say the late Ezra Pound is more likely to be worth reading. Also, despite his own despicable personal beliefs, Ezra Pound did contribute to the world through his work. E. Fuller Torrey, on the other hand, has been a blight. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

At the International Congress on Schizophrenia Research, held in Savannah, Georgia in April 2005, researchers from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois College of Medicine presented data comparing outcomes between treated and untreated schizophrenics. They studied 215 patients over a span of 20 years. The data revealed that those patients not taking antipsychotic drugs (standard treatment for schizophrenia) displayed better global functioning and were more likely to experience episodes of recovery.

There are several other such studies which also conclude that schizophrenics and bipolars have better long range treatment outcomes without psychiatric intervention. Despite such clear scientific evidence that the mentally ill do better without treatment (see also Bob Whitaker's "Mad in America"), E. Fuller Torrey continues to push for increased involuntary treatment of schizophrenics. He wants it to be even easier to lock people up and forcibly drug them. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

recent changes to the torrey article

Thank you to whoever re-organized this article into sections. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make changes without explaining yourself. An anonymous editor just took out my statement that there is no safeguard against wrongful incarceration. This is relevant and correct and the statement has been put back in. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, please don't make drastic edits without discussing your reasons here first. I have re-included the following:

"There is little or no safeguard for a person who has been misdiagnosed as the assumption is that anyone with a psychiatric label is incompetent."

because these are the facts. There is no safeguard for the wrongfully incarcerated. The best one can hope for is to get a court application but it's hard to retain legal counsel when you're being force drugged. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 19:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Attribution please

The treatment for schizophrenia in many cases is worse than the disorder.

Please give a correct attribution for this sentence - as it is, it expresses a strong opinion without attributing it to anyone, which is not NPOV. --Irmgard 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. My reference was to tardive dyskinesia, which is a permanent, disfiguring and agonizing neurological disorder. Estimates on its occurrence run as high as 50% of long-term neuroleptic users. The "tardive" portion of its name refers to the fact that it can come on long after neuroleptic use has ended. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, most of these drugs has no desirable effect but many side effects (ill effects). They basically just anesthetize you - so you are a dumber, more bumbling/fumbling, forgetful, lost, emotionless former version of yourself. That is from personal experience too. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

65.87.105.2 and 24.55.228.56 have been reported for vandalism

If you're going to make major edits, you should be discussing them here first. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you identify yourself with a group with an extreme POV negative position on psychiatry (e.g., Mindfreedom.org), you have no business editing a page related to psychiatry. --24.55.228.56 03:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Who says? And how is his view EXTREME POV NEGATIVE? Plus if his view is such, and yours is opposite, doesn't that just make you EXTREME POV POSITIVE? Does that not, then, exclude you on the same grounds? Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We have no problem with voluntary psychiatry. It's forced psychiatry that we oppose. And you have no business telling anybody what they can or cannot do. That is up to the administrators of the board. You've been reported for vandalism because you're making unwarranted edits. Discuss them here first, please. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You associate yourself with an extreme POV organization (Mindfreedom.org). You refer to Dr. Torrey on this page as a "fascist" and a "blight" but you continue to edit his bio page. You have repeatedly violated wiki's NPOV policy as recently noted by another editor, whose comments you deleted from your talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francesca_Allan_of_MindFreedomBC&oldid=28455583 One does not need to discuss an edit on this page first before editing out your extreme POV. I welcome an administrative review of your behavior.--24.55.228.56 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

By definition Torrey is a "fascist". He advocates for the merging of state and psychiatry institutions by law. Look it up. Fascist. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing extreme about human rights in psychiatry. Yes, Torrey is a fascist and he certainly is a blight to the people whose lives he is destroying. Torrey is also a proven liar. As for my talk page, that was deleted in error and I had already requested that it be reinstalled (I tried to do so but was unable to). I also purposely responded to that editor by moving the discussion onto HIS talk page. I certainly haven't hidden anything. If you check the JDW talk page out, you'll see we've made pretty good progress in terms of seeing eye to eye. Yes, in fact, you do have to discuss major edits before making them if you want your edits to stick. I find your contributions extremely POV, however, I don't dismiss them out of hand. Your tone is offensive. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You change "civil libertarians" to "Scientologists" and then you accuse me of POV. You're a joke. Hope you're suspended soon. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Everything against psychiatry is extremist in psychiatry's view.. It is even a disorder in the DSM. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I was just pulled in to this discussion, I'd like to help offer a third viewpoint here. Adjectives such as very controversial serve to do nothing but add POV to the article -- the same for noted though its not quite as severe. There is a way to add multiple viewpoints to the article, but this is not it. It seems that both sides of this debate are attempting to add their own spin at opposite extremes. Due to the fact that all parties have made more than three reverts, I would suggest everyone take a breather, get a cup of coffee (or other beverage of choice) and come back here to try to reach a consensus before making any more revisions. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jareth, but could we agree in the meantime that major edits require discussion first? I'm guilty of the "very controversial" but it was in reaction to some of these editors more egregious actions. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's precisely the idea, I would suggest that no one involved in the current edit war make any changes to the article until you can agree on the wording. Please do not make any more reversions, anyone making three reverts to the same article in 24 hours can be blocked and you have all gone for far more than three at this time. Please let me know if I can be of any help mediating. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

But they don't give explanations. So how can I come to a consensus with them? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like both of these editors to have their contributions reviewed for POV. I consider them wiki-vandals. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please try to discuss the subject without using attacks. As I have tried to point out before, your edits are just as strongly POV, though the opposite viewpoint. Typically when trying to write in a neutral tone, its best to avoid using adjectives if possible. Please take the time to review the pages I have suggested. I would also like to note that 24.55.228.56 did respond above and may do so again -- please remember to give some time for a response -- we can't all edit all day :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jareth, I'm not just an opposing POV. These editors are making changes like substituting "scientologists" for "civil libertarians." They do so in an attempt to discredit the substantial anti-psychiatry movement. Anything psychiatry feeds them is the truth (despite the appalling scandals that psychiatry has suffered) and anything questioning psychiatry must be a fringe subversive element. These editors are about as NPOV as a Zoloft commercial. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a civil libertarian and I support Torrey, like the rest of mainstream America, the medical community, etc. To suggest "civil libertarians" oppose Torrey in a blanket statement is POV. Perhaps we could say "pychiatric survivors" oppose Torrey or even "some civil libertarians" oppose him. Also, actual citation is needed for negative things like "leaving NAMI" (did he?) or brain lawsuit settlements.--24.55.228.56 07:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a civil libertarian but you support forced drugging of people with psychiatric labels? I see. Despite your own hypocrisy, many true civil libertarians are very troubled by Torrey's extreme position but I see you're graciously offering to admit that we could "even" say that "some" civil libertarians oppose him. Yes, Torrey certainly did part ways unhappily with NAMI and the Stanley Research Institute certainly did settle several lawsuits out of court. I'd be happy to provide links to sources but I am wondering why this requirement only applies to people who question psychiatry. Most editors on these pages are happy to write things like "mental illness is a brain disorder" without any attribution. The only reason "mainstream America" allows travesties like Kendra's Law in New York is because they are relying on false information put out by Torrey and the Treatment Advocacy Center. Torrey is a proven liar and a fascist and his philosophy destroys lives. You can find info on TAC's brain theft here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902923_pf.html In the article's list of groups who oppose forced treatment, why must scientologists be listed first? Because you and others try to discredit the entire anti-psychiatry movement by labelling us all scientologists! Scientologists happen to be wealthy and vocal and get a lot of press because several Hollywood celebrities are in their ranks. Despite this, they are not spokespeople for the anti-psychiatry movement. Some of us consider them an embarrassment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ideas on making article more neutral

I noticed that yet again, all the content was reverted. Please stop for a moment to discuss things before making any further changes. I understand that both of you feel differently about the article, but lets work toward an article that both of you can be satisfied with instead of constantly changing the article. Here's some suggestions (based on the current article):

In the leading paragraph

• Torrey is considered by some as perhaps the United States' premier psychiatrist. - Remove - this seems to be a bit over the top and doesn't add value to the opening.
• as well as [Scientologists]] and critics of the pharmaceutical industry. - Remove or cite - I didn't find any reference to either of these in the external links provided, is there a source?

The Stanley Medical Research Institute

• The institute has been sued for taking brains for use in research without families' consent. - Cite or Remove - We really need to cite a source for this, I didn't see it in any of the links provided. Citation provided [1]

The Treatment Advocacy Center

• AC was credited by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others with helping pass Kendra's Law in the state. - Cite or Remove - this could really use a source as well.

Critics - this is the place to add the opposing POV instead of scattering it throughout the article.

External links - we really need better links

• MindFreedom.org - Remove - very POV organization, article linked suggests time release medication is synonomous with brain control devices.
• DBSAlliance.org - Remove - Another website which would appear to be rather slanted in their reporting. Would be interesting to find the 60 minutes interview they reference and find another credible news source which describes the response to that interview from mental health groups. For instance, this article is written in a slightly less POV tone, yet still describes the incident.
• NAMI.org - Fix - link is currently incorrect, should be http://www.nami.org/
• Psychlaws.org - Remove or move - both links which have no more information than the article itself, the first link could be moved to a References section as source data, the second is uncessary.
• Schizophrenia.com - Change - I found the original NYTimes article this was taken from [2], I think it would be better to link directly to the Times.

General Style issues - I think Education and early career, The Stanley Medical Research Institute, The Treatment Advocacy Center and NAMI sections could be combined into one larger Education and Career section since they're so small on their own. Otherwise, they could all use some expansion. Also, Cat research would be better as Research with discussion of more than just this one method, I gather from the links I read that he does more than just this. The Books section would look better if the entire list was formatted in the same manner.

Alright, so there it is. What are your thoughts on those suggestions? With a bit of elbow grease and some more material, this article has the potential to be excellent. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jareth. I just saw this now. Thanks. I agree with your comments above except for one -- that mindfreedom.org has to be tossed because they compare antipsychotic implants with brain control devices. That is actually accurate, although it's not "control" in the sense that someone could direct another's thoughts. Psychiatrists intend to implant these devices into people, with or without their consent, and antipsychotic medication has horrible effects on the brain. "Antipsychotic" is actually a misnomer -- what they are is actually major tranquillizers, primarily used to subdue people whose behaviour we find troubling or offensive. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint. Could we find other articles or sources to support their position? Perhaps we could add something about their views in the Critics section so that the link would be in context? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I'd recommend www.icspp.org which is the website of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Now, many members of ICSPP are also members of MindFreedom, however, ICSPP has been fundamental in attacking the bogus science of psychiatry while MF mostly concentrates on human rights violations. By the way, nice working with you. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a start. I'm concerned though that if the membership intersects, they might not be considered a seperate source. Also, I've been looking at other contested articles and noticed that in some, they split the links by those in support and those in disagreement -- perhaps that would help here? We could then clearly identify to readers the two points of view. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Jareth's points are excellent. I have no problem with the mindfreedom.org site listed as an opposition group link. It is an extremist organization, but sometimes opposition comes from extremist organizations. I know Torrey continues to be held in a very positive light in NAMI. NAMI also has supported outpatient commitment, so it can't be a reason for a disassociation, if any. If there has been a split between Torrey and NAMI --and the reason for the split--should be cited or removed.--65.87.105.2 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why MindFreedom is an "extremist" organization, please? We support human rights in psychiatry. We adamantly oppose forced psychiatry but many of our members are actually voluntary psychiatric patients. What exactly do you find "extreme" about such a position? As for Torrey and NAMI, I'll happily provide the source but, again, you will dismiss it because it's probably written by an anti-psychiatrist. Can you not see your own double standard at work here? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that indeed NAMI does support outpatient commitment, as do most pro-psychiatry organizations. However, Torrey's brand of outpatient commitment borders on fascism and that was the reason for the split. I will post my source. Torrey makes up figures to suit his purpose and tries to paint a negative picture of the mentally ill. The mentally ill are stigmatized enough without Torrey who, sickeningly, pretends to care about these people.

The mentally ill are no more likely to be violent towards others than any other group. They are also very likely to be assaulted, mostly by the psychiatric establishment. Torrey seems to feel that every schizophrenic and bipolar is a ticking time bomb, just waiting to explode. He takes the very few cases where someone with a psychiatric label commits a crime and wildly extrapolates and applies his draconian point of view on the vast majority of the mentally ill who have never shown any signs of violence and are never going to.

His piece de resistance was Kendra's Law. What the public doesn't usually know about Kendra's killer is that he had just been turned away from mental health treatment before he committed his crime. In fact, right after he pushed her in front of the subway, he turned to a bystander and commented that perhaps now he would get the help he needed. It's bordering on comical that Torrey and TAC twisted this around in order to further their sick agenda. Poor Kendra. She would be horrified if she knew. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

use of the word "forced"

The editor is quite correct that TAC doesn't use that word. TAC prefers the socially palatable "timely access to care" however that is merely a euphemism. I've corresponded with TAC and it's quite clear what their agenda is. They can dress it up any way they want but the bottom line is they want it to be even easier to coerce people into taking drugs and, if the coercion doesn't work, they will force them, even if that includes incarceration and physical assault. They are a disgusting organization run by a disgusting man. The word forced stays in the article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets go ahead and continue to assemble those citations and discuss changes before we make them. We've had some really good discussion today. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the threatening message left on my discussion page by Jareth. If I have made an inappropriate edit on the Torrey page, I want Jareth to cite it here.--24.55.228.56 02:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt that was threatening. I wanted to point out that the behavior both you and Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC engaged in yesterday violated policy -- I also wanted to encourage you to look at the above compromise we have been working on today and offer your suggestions. I hope you will take a look. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote that "If either you or 24.55.228.56 continue with the edit wars and reversions today, you will be blocked from editing."[3] In fact, you have no authority to block anyone. I thought you were being helpful here at first, but you went overboard tonight. It looks like you may become an admin. Please don't let the power go to you head.--24.55.228.56 03:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That is correct, I am not an admin, but like any member of Wikipedia, I can contact one when violations occur. I did not do so yesterday because I thought everyone could work together to better the article. Constantly reverting each others content simply isn't helpful or productive. If you cannot resolve your differences, perhaps inviting some more outside views would be appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am crazy, but I was expecting a "whoops, I goofed! I'm sorry" message from Jareth. I thought progress was being made here until those threatening messages appeared.--24.55.228.56 03:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

They weren't threatening. She just wants us both to cool off and I agree that'd be a good idea. I like the idea of more outside views. What's Limegreen up to? He/she is pretty cool. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we're still having a difficult time coming to agreement on how to NPOV the article, I went ahead put the article on RfC to get some more eyes and other opinions. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC Opinions

Just came here from RfC. I think this article would be improved by an edit from someone who has no particular stake in Torrey one way or the other. Concerns: Torrey is considered by some as perhaps the United States' premier psychiatrist. Citations? Also, not worded properly.

Dr. Torrey’s sister, Rhoda, has schizophrenia. This is dealt with later in the article. Also, the sentence just hangs there.

Dr. Torrey stands in opposition to the anti-psychiatry views of Thomas Szasz, a libertarian psychiatrist who asserts mental illness is a myth, and the late R. D. Laing, a British psychiatrist who suggested schizophrenia may offer a chance to grow, as well as survivors of involuntary psychiatric treatment, anti-psychiatry advocates, many civil libertarians, critics of the pharmaceutical industry and Scientologists. This graf is not written in WP style, doesn't belong at the top of the article, and is confusing. Dr. Torrey stands in opposition to? Meaning what? I picture Torrey standing in his lab, rubbing his hands together as he plots revenge against Szasz, et al. The whole graf needs to be moved to another section, perhaps under "Controversy." Also, I agree with the suggestion above that cites be divided into pro, con, and neutral. IronDuke 19:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, IronDuke. Torrey really is the most visible psychiatrist in the USA, with the possible exception of Sally Satel. I don't think anyone's going to dispute that. Google "schizophrenia" and his name will come up first or close to it. What about starting the article with a description of Torrey's books, schizoviral research and the Treatment Advocacy Center (because those are what he is most famous for). Then we can have a substantial "critics" section to follow. Torrey is very extreme in his pro-forced treatment views and the civil libertarian implications of that must be discussed in any article about him. Just my two cents worth. Thanks for stepping in. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Fran. I Googled him, he is indeed all over psych pages (although I saw the name "Meltzer" a lot, too). Neverthless, being an expert on schizophrenia does not necessarily make him "the United States premier psychiatrist." I'm not even sure what being the "premier" would mean. The smartest? The most well-known? The most well-respected? Maybe you could provide a reputable citation for it. I think that would alleviate that particular concern. IronDuke 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate the man like poison so you should probably have one of the pro-psychiatry editors do this task. He's probably the most well-known (infamous, some might even say) due to his radical pro-forced treatment stance. I don't think "premier" was ever meant to be a scientific designation.  :) How about "well-known" or "visible"? Or take out the adjectives altogether. They don't add much. But, now you've got me curious. I've got to go check out this Meltzer character. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey IronDuke! How come you're letting them hack at the article again? I thought the page was frozen. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I didn't even know the page was frozen. I see no record of it ever having been. And it isn't up to me, alas, to freeze or unfreeze pages, as I am not an admin. Just here as per RfC. Regarding the above point, I might just say "well-known" in reference to schizophrenia and leave it at that. IronDuke 03:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Torrey's split from NAMI

That a pro-psychiatry group like NAMI actually disagreed (strongly) with Torrey's views is worthy of mention here. I'll find the source. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be very worthy of mention if it were true. But Torrey remains a beloved icon in NAMI. There is no evidence that NAMI forced in out after its 1998 convention. (Sorry but mindfreedom.org is not a credible source on NAMI's positions.) NAMI participated in TAC's awareness campaign the very next year[4] and this year a tribute to Torrey was included in NAMI's 25th Anniversary Celebratory Donor Wall. If you can find a press relaese or reputable news story quoting NAMI, let's include it with the citation.--24.55.228.56 02:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

He may still be beloved in NAMI but there is indeed good evidence (in fact a letter from Torrey) regarding his split. No need to apologize but you do have to explain why mindfreedom.org is not a credible source if that is your assertion. That is simply not a unilateral decision that you (an anonymous wikipedian) are entitled to make. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56, you've been reported. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully the people to whom you report me will also look at your constant POV edits of psych articles. Mindfreedom.org is an authority on mindfreedom.org, not NAMI. Also, it may be a good source of "psychiatric survivor" stories, but it does not have a membership of scientists and doctors. If you can link to the letter from Torrey regarding the split, I think that would be a great addition to this article. --24.55.228.56 11:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

MindFreedom International's got a lot more going on than psychiatric survivor stories (no snotty quotes needed, thanks). They have several scientists and doctors on board. Your derision is really something. Is there any particular reason you have such a hatred of anyone opposing your rigidly pro-drug pro-psychiatry POV? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56, I provided my source but you chose to delete it. Please be reasonable on this. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 19:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

From the source that 24.55.228.56 unilaterally deleted:

"Quite a few members and nonmembers of NAMI worked together on the effort to split up NAMI-TAC. Inside NAMI, the "Consumer Council" and state affiliate leaders officially criticized NAMI-TAC. Outside NAMI, groups such as MadNation and Support Coalition mobilized people through publishing, an e-mail campaign to dozens of NAMI leaders, a national protest in Washington, D.C. on May 2, and more.

When the dust cleared, E. Fuller Torrey was furious about the divorce between his pet project, TAC, and NAMI. Without the official support of NAMI's grassroots numbers, TAC is just an eccentric think tank. An incredibly insulting letter from Torrey to NAMI Consumer Council President Wesley Alcorn was by Dendron. In it, Torrey blasted Alcorn and claimed that the cause of this mysterious rebellion was that Alcorn was acting grandiose and needed his medication adjusted!"

Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 19:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Since my posting the above, you have stated that you are still waiting for documentation. You have the documentation but you choose to reject it. You apparently are as thick as you are offensive. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Howdy folks. Saw this in the RfCs and decided to jump in. I'm an Information & Library Science student, so a lot of this way out of my field, but this claim of documentation is right up my alley. Francesca: you need to cite sources properly for it to be considered documentation. The key problem here is verifiability. Before you jump on me: there are examples of people going overboard on all sides. Also, you do clearly have important points that need to be made, but your tone and energy in expressing them have clearly upset people. Could you provide us with some links to sources that everybody can agree are valid? This is interesting stuff. I'm gonna keep reading. Tarheelcoxn 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tarheelcoxn. Thanks for your note here and also on my talk page. I've provided sources before but they've been denied. This is the typical double standard encountered when one tries to break away from the herd mentality of mainstream psychiatry. I'm really sorry for my earlier outbursts but I've taken enough crap from 24.55 and I'm done with that loser. The problem, as I see it, is not documentation. I could quote www.icspp.org and www.mindfreedom.org and www.psychrights.org and www.breggin.com and various other sources until I'm blue in the face. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey again. having given each of those sites you mention a cursory glance, it looks like they're advocacy sites. You need something that meets NPOV standards that documents this split if you want to include it. That said, even if he did split with that organization, does it really belong in its own section? Isn't that giving it undue weight? Tarheelcoxn 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "advocacy sites." Peter Breggin is a practising psychiatrist. ICSPP is a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals. PsychRights promotes human rights in psychiatry, as does MindFreedom. ALL sites advocate something or other. NAMI, for instances, advocates the medical model and drugging, both voluntary and forced. I don't see why my references fail the NPOV test if others don't. The fact that a pro-forced treatment group like NAMI (who obtain major funding by pharmaceutical companies) couldn't stomach Torrey's extreme pro-forced treatment views is indeed worthy of comment although perhaps not its own section in the article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The article on advocacy groups pretty well describes what I'm talking about. From the "about" page on the icspp site one can easily tell that the site is a portal for a group that engages in single-issue politics. Also, Breggin was the group's founder, so breggin.com has similar problems. This doesn't mean that what is found on these site can't have bearing on this article. However, it does mean that their site cannot possibly be an NPOV source for information on Torrey's history and affiliations since, by your own admition, they advocate policies contrary to those that Torrey advocates. The other sites you named have similar problems. If you find someting from another newspaper (like that NJ paper quoted below), that would be an NPOV source documenting a split between NAMI and Torrey. Other examples would include press releases on the NAMI site critical of Torrey, a published interview with Torrey in which he criticizes NAMI, etc. Good luck! Tarheelcoxn 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neglected to mention: where on the TAC website (psychlaws.org) did you find an indication of a split? I poked around briefly but didn't see one. Given that Torrey is TAC's president, documentation there would clearly pass the bar. Tarheelcoxn 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand. NAMI is also an advocacy group that engages in single-issue politics. So why is a cite from NAMI acceptable? I think this is an absurd standard. It's like saying in order to criticize Nazism I have to find a pro-Nazi website to support my case. The TAC/NAMI split is not a huge issue in this article but I assume your comments refer to the entire article. The TAC/NAMI split was played down as it was an embarrassment to Torrey. It's hardly surprising he didn't advertise it on the TAC website. Somebody kindly got the NJ source. Why isn't that good enough for now? I'm mystified by the double standard here. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were discussing the whole article, it would be a double standard, but we're not. We're discussing the section that is now called NAMI in the article. I think it looks much better now. I don't know if you have any objection to the way it's currently worded.

Let me give a quick hypothetical that should clear up what my objection was. Suppose there are two close friends, Dick and Jane. Dick and Jane get in a big argument, and now Dick hates Jane. Jane says she's an active member of her school's chapter of FFA. She's very proud of this. The teacher who leads FFA happens to hate Dick. Dick claims that Jane has been kicked out of FFA. If you wanted to write an article on Jane, who would you ask about Jane's membership in FFA? Dick? Jane? The teacher who leads FFA? Somebody else? The sites you gave are like talking to Dick and Dick's close friends. Tarheelcoxn 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

MindFreedom represents a varied group of people, including those who agree with their diagnoses, actively seek treatment and are concurrently members of NAMI. Writing off the entire organization does both you and them a disservice. It's not quite as "Dick and Jane" as your analogy suggests. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiho.. just dropping in from the RfC link as well. Francesca, from what I've read here it appears that the problem with using MindFreedom for this reference is that the issue in question (whether Torrey and NAMI had a split) appears to be one of the supporting arguments for some of the positions which MindFreedom advocates. Given this, whether this statement is true or not would have an impact on MindFreedom's own positions, and thus they have a conflict of interest when reporting this issue. A conflict of interest is not necessarily a bad thing (it happens to everyone on many occasions), and does not necessarily mean the information is wrong, but any organization with a conflict of interest regarding a given piece of information cannot be used by itself as a reliable source for that information. I believe it was suggested that a quote from either Torrey or NAMI would be sufficient, because there is no reason to believe that either of those sources would have a conflict of interest in stating that particular piece of information (if they did not have a split, what advantage would there be to either Torrey or NAMI to say they did?).

Please note that this does not actually have anything to do with whether the organizations are advocacy groups or not, it only has to do with how their apparent goals relate to the specific peice of information people are attempting to verify. It should also be noted that nobody here has said that NAMI is the only source which would be acceptable, it was only given as an example which would be particularly good if it can be found, and which one would logically expect to be findable if this is indeed correct. Any other organization which does not have an apparent conflict of interest in reporting this particular information would theoretically work also. (I should also point out, by way of introduction, that I do not personally have any opinions one way or the other on this issue, but I would be very interested to see whether we can find a source for this which will be considered acceptable to all involved.) -- Foogod 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your statement: "(whether Torrey and NAMI had a split) appears to be one of the supporting arguments for some of the positions which MindFreedom advocates." MindFreedom supports choices in psychiatric treatment, i.e. is opposed to involuntary treatment. Whatever happened between Torrey and NAMI is pretty much irrelevant to MindFreedom's goals. Torrey, TAC and NAMI are all pro-forced treatment. I do understand what you are saying, however, this conflict of interest guideline doesn't seem to run both ways. For instance, Torrey's organization is cited (elsewhere) as "proof" of Torrey's beliefs but, by the standard you lay out above, Torrey's organization would not be a valid cite for the pro-psychiatry editors to use. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

MindFreedom is opposed to involuntary treatment. Torrey supports involuntary treatment. Torrey's positions, therefore, are in opposition to MindFreedom's goals (as you have indicated yourself). A split between Torrey and NAMI would suggest that Torrey's positions may not be in line with NAMI's, which reduces the strength of his position, thus supporting the opposing position of MindFreedom. Thus a split between Torrey and NAMI helps to support MindFreedom's position, so they have reason to desire this to be the case. This is the source of the conflict. Or are you saying that Torrey's split with NAMI does not matter and should not be considered in the discussion about involuntary treatment (which appears to be contrary to what you said earlier)?

Regarding citing Torrey's organization regarding Torrey's beliefs, I have not read through the article thoroughly so I'm not sure which specific passages you're referring to, but I assume that these are referring to Torrey's stated beliefs (since nobody can pretend to know his actual beliefs besides him). Are you suggesting that Torrey's own organization has some reason to desire to incorrectly state Torrey's stated beliefs, when the organization would appear to have been created speifically to promote those beliefs? This does not make logical sense to me. I do not see a reason why they would have a conflict regarding those particular pieces of information. Again, the point here is not whether the organization advocates one particular position or another, but how that position relates to the particular information in question that is important. If somebody were to cite Torrey's organization when making statements about MindFreedom, I would also consider that to be an inappropriate source for that particular information, and would ask for a better source. In general, any statement about one person or organization made by a person or organization which opposes them cannot be considered a reliable source (by itself), no matter who is on what side of the issue. -- Foogod 08:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Institute Lawsuits

I'm taking out "with SMRI admitting no wrongdoing" as that is the case with virtually all civil lawsuits and is no reflection of guilt or innocence. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If that's true, I am sure you wont have trouble finding a credible source to cite. --24.55.228.56 11:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of the law will know that in a civil settlement liability is almost always denied in exchange for monetary compensation. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wording Issues

"Forced drugging" stays and "when appropriate" is out because forced drugging is *never* appropriate. Involuntary psychiatric treatment is a serious human rights violation. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that's extreme POV. Some people with serious mental illness who stop taking their medication don't realize they are sick (they don't have insight). Family members often have to step step in and ask the state to treat their loved one involuntarily. Guess what? It's back in!--24.55.228.56 11:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And some people who aren't mentally ill also refuse their drugs and display lack of insight. There is no safeguard for wrongful diagnosis. And some people who are mentally ill just don't want to be treated, because of the horrendous side effects of psychiatric drugs. This doesn't mean that they don't admit their illness. I've only changed part of the wording because indeed some deluded family members believe that they are acting in their loved ones' best interests. "Insight" is just a word used to mean "agree with what your psychiatrist says." "Insight" could be better referred to as "submission" or "compliance" or "obedience." Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out "other than clinical diagnosis" because clinical diagnosis is manifestly not an objective diagnostic test. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement, "there is no safeguard for wrongful diagnosis." In fact, there are numerous safeguards in place in the US to prevent unwarranted involuntary treatment. If a qualified medical professional believes involuntary treatment is necessary, a judge hears the case and the patient is provided with legal counsel. Much to the dismay of many families, it is very difficult to get a psychotic family member the help he or she needs. Perhaps in Canada, where there is no bill of rights, there are not adequate protections. But there are adequate safegaurds in the USA.--24.55.228.56 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, legal representation is notoriously poor in the USA for involuntary mental patients (see www.psychrights.org). The presumption is that the psychiatrist is right and it's up to the patient to prove him wrong. It is quite easy to get a mentally ill person treated against their will anywhere in North America. There are not adequate safeguards. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 19:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You can add "Alzheimers" to the list of illnesses with no blood test or DNA test. Doctors use objective clinical criteria, just as with schizophrenia, clinical depression, and bipolar disorder. --24.55.228.56 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Objective clinical" is a contradiction in terms. What it comes down to is a psychiatrist's judgment. And that judgment is often clouded in sexism and classism, among other isms. There is now quite good MRI technology to assist in diagnosis for Alzheimer's. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 19:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The term is "objective criteria" and is applied by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist must use the objective criteria and cannot subsitute subjective criteria. If you know of a way you can diagnose Alzheimers through MRI, I am sure you will have no problem in finding a citation. While you are at, please update the wiki alzheimers article, because the editors there (and the rest of the world) don't know about your scientific discovery.--24.55.228.56 20:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the pulled adjectives "objective clinical" were *your* words found in *your* edit. Secondly, just because a psychiatrist uses a term doesn't make it legitimate. There is no objective criteria for any mental illness. The issue of real time magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer's documentation was presented at a recent presentation at the University of British Columbia, sponsored by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I am not claiming any sort of scientific discovery. And, lastly, I would urge you to take a look at the tone of your postings on these talk pages. You are really offensive. You would be a lot more credible if you (1) got a Wiki account and (2) tried to be a little civil. Readers will assume that your sneering and your derision simply cover up a basic and entirely appropriate insecurity on your facts. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences here on the talk page, with a healthy dose of wikilove and good faith. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Katefan0. Ball's in your court, 24.55.228.56. What have you got to say for yourself now? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would note that protection shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of the protected version of the page over another version. Everybody, please try to be civil. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As soon as it is uprotected, I will restore NPOV. I can wait.--24.55.228.56 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, does the above post show you that 24.55.228.56 has no interest in a co-operative approach? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd encourage both editors to try to use this time to come to some sort of productive collaboration. If the article is unprotected only to see edit warring resume, it'll just be protected again. What exactly are the issues you have, 24? Also, will you please consider signing up for an account? Wikipedia's policies encourage signing up for an account before making major edits to established articles. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I have tried to engage 24.55.228.56 in civil debate on these issues. He's clearly not interested. Because I'm an activist for the psychiatrically labelled, 24.55.228.56 feels I should be silenced. As a former patient who has suffered human rights violations under the guise of psychiatric "treatment," I feel I have something to offer this article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's try not to put words in other peoples' mouths. Comment on content, not contributors -- that goes for everyone. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no other conclusion to draw. 24.55.228.56 said that as a member of my organization I shouldn't be allowed to contribute. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone may edit Wikipedia if they follow the rules. It's always useful to be mindful of our own biases, and others may give our edits extra scrutiny because of those biases, but they don't mean a person should be excluded from editing. Also, please don't dump the protection request into this page. Anyone interested may see it at WP:RFP. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I copied it here because I realized too late that the article wasn't supposed to be discussed there. My intention was to delete the extra material from request page protection. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Just leave it as is, it's not harming anything being on that page, I just didn't want the discussion to continue there. Admins monitor that page for protection requests, so content disputes that run on and on are distracting sometimes. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56, please participate in a discussion about how to improve this article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I am justifiably concerned that 24.55.228.56 has no intention of cooperating here. I believe he will just keep checking the page until it's unlocked and then he'll ruin it again. I've asked JDWolff to join us here. He's of a similar viewpoint as 24.55.228.56 however he's reasonable and genuinely wants to improve articles. Is there a way to invite other editors over? Torrey is an important player in the field of psychiatry. It's really important that this article clearly describes him. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have opened a request for comments from other editors (WP:RFC). Sometimes they attract the attention of other editors, and sometimes they don't. But that's the best option for getting more eyes on the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've invited DocJohnny to join us too. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I was asked by Francesca to offer my views[5]. As I can see from looking through some diffs, there are a few points in this edit war:

1. Use of the term "forced drugging"
2. It is unclear whether NAMI and Torrey/TAC are still closely aligned
3. "There is still no objective diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any other mental illness"

If I had to choose between "involuntary treatment" and "forced drugging", the former is less charged and probably preferable. "Forced drugging" is not a departure from the truth, but it has a negative ring to it.

Until sources are brought on the split between Torrey & the NAMI, this page cannot state with confidence whether they are alligned. I suggest the offending passage is removed until we have source backup for either view.

I have to agree with 24.55.228.56 that "clinical diagnosis" (diagnosis through impression) is very common in all branches of medicine. If we were to wait for every patient with a cough and fever to grow pneumococcus in a sputum culture before treating with antibiotics, there would be marked loss of health. Some conditions have no gold standard diagnostic test (such as Alzheimer's), and the diagnosis is only made by the summation of various clues that individually would be meaningless, but together point in a general direction. Often, only response to treatment is truly diagnostic. Psychiatry has the handicap that diagnosis is by definition subjective (similar to several other branches of medicine). It lacks the microscope, the chemical laboratory and the X-rays. The whole aim of the DSM was to standardise psychiatric diagnosis, and in many conditions the interobserver variability is fairly low, suggesting that good application of DSM criteria leads to good consensus of diagnosis.

To observe that mental disorders have no objective diagnostic tests does not mean the criteria are not a good approximation of objectivity. It would also create the (IMHO false) impression that only psychiatry has to live with diagnostic uncertainty, quod non. JFW | T@lk 04:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

JFW, thanks a lot for stopping by. Francesca, do you have some sourcing for the second point? · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It does appear that "involuntary treatment" is the preferred clinical term. A completely unscientific Google search for "forced drugging" = 27.5k hits [6]; "involuntary treatment" = 82.1k [7]. Nexis for "forced drugging" = 210, "involuntary treatment" is in excess of 1,000. This is perhaps an ignorant question, but is "involuntary treatment" always forced drugging? If so this seems to be a more commonsensical, if a bit pejorative, descriptor. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, JFW. With respect to point 1, I understand that "forced drugging" sounds more negative but I believe it's more accurate. "Involuntary treatment" is more palatable but it seems to me that much of psychiatry involves palatable terms for troubling concepts, e.g. "timely access to care" is a bit misleading. With respect to point 2, I did provide this already but it was rejected as it came from www.mindfreedom.org. Although MindFreedom's website is very much against forced psychiatry, as far as I know they have never been shown to publish an untruth. Could my cite be put back in? I don't think anyone would contest that NAMI, as a pro-forced treatment group, is still aligned with Torrey. Lastly, although I can certainly agree with many of your points re clinical diagnosis in other fields, would you agree that in most cases clinical diagnosis substitutes until accurate diagnostics are available in the future? Psychiatry has *never* been able to come up with an objective test for any psychiatric disorder. I do think the issue of forced psychiatry based on subjective criteria is an element that has to be addressed here. Torrey is really extremely pro-forced treatment and many psychiatrists are troubled by his views. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

MindFreedom must get its information from a reliable source. Why can't we quote that source instead. JFW | T@lk 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've asked MindFreedom International to provide this and am hoping to hear from them soon. I note, however, that other editors aren't required to double back like this. In most cases, you provide the source and that's the end of it. Not so for people who question psychiatry, however, it would appear. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Katefan0, no, involuntary treatment can also include electroshock and psychosurgery. In the case of outpatient commitment, however, it almost always means forced drugging. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

JFW, I've got a serious problem with your comment above: "Often, only response to treatment is truly diagnostic." That seems very circular. If a patient responds positively to an SSRI, ought that to be construed as proof that her depression was biochemical? What about response to placebo? Would that constitute counter-proof? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Empirical treatment does probably happen in psychiatry, but I've seen most examples in general hospital medicine (e.g. infections). You are correct that if one were to treat empirically for mental conditions, the thing becomes circular. See Steven Rose in his latest book. JFW | T@lk 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

One last thing about your example above, JFW, is that pneumococcus *could* be grown in a culture to establish proof after the fact whereas psychiatry has no such double check available. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I conceded to that point by stating that psychiatry is inherently subjective, and that DSM/ICD criteria have been introduced to minimise this, and with a fair bit of success. JFW | T@lk 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the DSM has made psychiatry any less subjective. What it mostly appears to have done is lend a ring of legitimacy to judgments about people's unwanted behaviours. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Another edit war was over the criteria for falling into the Treatment Advocacy Center's program. The other editor seemed content to leave the mistaken impression that untreated mental patients were dangerous, relative to the general population. That hasn't been established and, even if it *were* established, it would be appropriate to take note of the conditions that a lot of these people live in. Being saddled with a psychiatric label means you're under the scrutiny of your family, doctors and the police and it usually means you're more likely to live in poverty and be shunned and stigmatized. All of these factors would have to be looked at. On a related point, whenever a schizophrenic commits a crime, it's automatically assumed that it only occured due to the person's mental disorder. Why is that? People commit crimes all the times. Why must it be assumed that schizophrenia was what caused a schizophrenic to commit a crime? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to label every untreated mental patient as a danger to society. On the whole, people are better at destroying themselves than destroying society, as the latter is much more resilient :-). JFW | T@lk 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite correct on that. However, Torrey and the Treatment Advocacy Center make a point of playing on society's fears about the mentally ill. Torrey claims that an untreated bipolar or schizophrenic is like someone with active tuberculosis sitting in a crowded movie theater. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the status of real time magnetic resonance imaging on diagnosing Alzheimer's? A recent presentation at the University of British Columbia suggested that this was an incredibly helpful tool. Amyloid plaques and tangles were clearly visible on the MRI and easily distinguishable from a healthy brain's MRI. Is that being pursued further? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Heavens, it sounds jolly interesting. JFW | T@lk 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The presentation was fascinating. Based on what was presented, I assumed that accurate Alzheimer's diagnosis was now possible but that doesn't appear to be the case. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

At the same presentation, outcomes from SSRIs versus psychotherapy were compared for depressive patients. The findings were clear. SSRIs tend to work better in the very short term but psychotherapy leads to lasting improvement with far less chance of relapse. What do studies like these do to the biochemical imbalance theory of mental illness? And why aren't more psychiatrists interested in them? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the editor above accurately states 3 of the more frequent areas of dispute:

1. Use of the term "forced drugging"
2. It is unclear whether NAMI and Torrey/TAC are still closely aligned
3. "There is still no objective diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any other mental illness"

"Forced drugging" is not a term used in the medical community or encyclopedias. It isn't used by Torrey or NAMI. It is a POV term used by groups aligned with anti-psychiatry. If we are describing what Torrey stands for, we have his many books from which to pull quotes. "Involuntary treatment" is the appropriate term. In addition to medication, it can also mean confinement in a secure environment or required counseling and case management. Torrey and the general psychiatric community believe the least restrictive environment is best.

As for a NAMI/Torrey split, if it can be documented, I think it would be important to include in the article. Surely a public split would be documented through a press release or statement from Torrey or NAMI. A citation to an opposition organization's blog is not an encyclopedic reference. Moreover, the proposed mindfreedom.org cite didn't even speak to the topic.

"There is still no objective diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any other mental illness." This is the main mantra of anti-pyschiatry activists and Scientologists to suggest that mental illness really doesn't exist and medication is therefore unnecessary. It is true that there is no blood test, DNA test, or pre-mortem imaging test to detect mental illness as of yet. But that is no different than Alzheimers and autism as well as a vast number of general physical disorders. As it was pointed out already, DSM set out to establish standardized objective criteria to use in diagnosing mental illness.--24.55.228.56 12:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you came back, 24.55.228.56. With respect to your points, it's not surprising that the words forced drugging aren't used. However, it is not a POV term. I believe psychiatrists don't like to use it because it alerts the public to what involuntary treatment really means. Forced drugging is an accurate term. It is a simple statement of fact. Patients are coerced into drugs on the basis that if they don't submit, they will be incarcerated and force drugged. There is no other accurate way to describe what is happening here. The words involuntary treatment sound more benign but they aren't more accurate. The word treatment presupposes that a patient is better off with care and that's very often not the case.

You already know where I stand on the NAMI/Torrey split. The cite I provided did indeed speak to the topic. You need to read it again if you didn't find it. You seem to want to disregard MindFreedom as a resource because they oppose forced psychiatry. That doesn't seem reason enough to throw them out entirely.

Again, the critical difference between physical and mental illness is that physical illness is not treated by locking people up and force drugging and electroshock. Physical patients are not threatened and coerced into treatment. The DSM certainly did a good job of listing symptoms together but there is vast disparity in how those symptoms are interpreted clinically. An angry in-patient demanding legal counsel is usually called manic. The DSM is a quasi-legal document and a label from it has profound consequences. That's why it's doubly important to ensure that psychiatry is held to a very high standard. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, many activists (such as myself) do believe that mental illness exists but we dispute the origin of it and what constitutes effective treatment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone is talking. Some of these points are quickly going beyond the realm of my personal knowledge (and therefore hampers my ability to contribute to consensus), but I do believe that considering that "involuntary treatment" can mean things other than "forced drugging," it is clear to me that the clinical term should be used, if only because it is more inclusive. Perhaps the answer is to do something like "involuntary treatment (such as electroshock therapy)" -- that's an example that everybody can agree with that carries no necessarily pejorative connotation, yet removes some of the clinical, sanitizing distance a phrase like that necessarily imparts. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good solution. We can use the standard terminology "involuntary treatment" followed by "usually drugging" or even "usually forced drugging" in brackets to confirm what is meant. The focus should be on psychiatric drugs, as opposed to electroshock, because Torrey is renowned for implementing outpatient commitment programs which almost always involve drugs. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather use "medication" than "drugging". The latter still has that same ring to it... So that would make it "involuntary treatment (generally with medication)". Confinement and admission to closed units can probably be grouped under involuntary measures as well.

Francesca wants to know why MindFreedom is not accepted as a source for the split between Torrey and NAMI. As 24.55.228.56 points out, blogs are notoriously inaccurate, and a split should either be public (in case there are press reports) or there are other strong indicators that the love affair is over. To state that there is a split without good evidence would amount to original research.

Regarding the accuracy of psychiatric diagnosis: Francesca counters that the DSM criteria are not effective for diagnosis and rather serve to stigmatise. I cannot disagree that every psychiatric diagnosis is potentially stigmatising, but there is simply a good lot of evidence that DSM has decreased interobserver variability in psychiatric diagnosis. In that sense, it is a necessary evil. Of course it is imperfect, as is virtually every other diagnosis (even pathologists diagnosing cancer from microscopy do occasionally make errors). No single test has a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Medication" and "drugs" are the same thing. The word "drugs" has a ring to it because it's a nasty subject. We can't get around that. On the Torrey/NAMI issue, that wasn't a blog. It was a public statement and, as I've said, I'm asking for further details from MindFreedom International. The "love affair" is by no means over but the vehement reaction to Torrey's extreme pro-forced treatment views did necessitate the split of TAC from NAMI-TAC. The stigma isn't merely "potential" but rather all too real. In BC, the police continue to flag anybody who has been involuntarily hospitalized. That means if my apartment is broken into and I call for assistance an "MHA" warning flag appears on the police computer. In the future, if I suffer a physical illness, it means that any doctor that gets wind of my psychiatric history will focus on that instead. If I have an underactive thyroid, I'll be treated with SSRIs. If I'm distressed, I'll be called schizoaffective. If I'm belligerent, I'll be called manic. Decreasing interobserver variability is obviously a good thing but the problem is that psychiatry only focuses on symptoms and not causes. The DSM isn't going to help that. And, again, of course any human endeavour will never reach 100% accuracy. But the point is that's a very good reason to be very, very cautious with psychiatric diagnosis and *especially* forced drugging. Unfortunately, that caution isn't apparent in practice. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about the BC police; I do not want to justify this policy, but EFT has nothing to do with it. Good doctors know all too well that people with mental illness get the roughest deal when they develop unrelated medical problems. That, too, is not E. Fuller Torrey's fault.

The bottom line is that psychiatric diagnosis, like any medical diagnosis, remains an art as much as a science. I don't disagree with your point that objective measures are hard to come by, but to isolate this to psychiatry is a misrepresentation of somatic medicine. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Torrey does have something to do with it. He's a prominent psychiatrist and people listen to what he says. I am sure that Torrey would support the MHA flagging program 100%. Ditto ignoring physical problems. Torrey contributes to that too when he publishes statements such as schizophrenics are completely incompetent and delusional and can't make decisions. Yes, I know much of medicine isn't a science. But psychiatry does deserve to be isolated and scrutinized because, as I have said approximately 300 times on wikipedia already, it's the only branch of medicine that gets inflicted on unwilling patients. We have a Mental Health Act but we don't have a Cancer Act or a Diabetes Act. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here via the RFC.... I skimmed the above two sections....

One thought I have is- what term do they use in the literature for "forced drugging?"

Another thought is- can we call it involuntary medicating- which sounds more neutral to me. peace,Sethie 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Supporters call it "involuntary medication" while critics call it "forced drugging." The terms are equivalent but, obviously, the connotations are not. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Supporters call it "Assisted Treatment", critics call it "forced drugging". I think Involuntary Treatment or involuntary medication clearly communicates the issue in a value neutral way. I do agree that the connotations are not equivalent. --DocJohnny 01:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Assisted." :) That's got to be the euphemism to end all euphemisms. God bless psychiatry! Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A true story

Once upon a time I was on the advisory committee of a mental health center which served several hundred chronically mentally ill people. One day one of our clients approached a man who had a blue coat on and stabbed him. He later gave as his reason that he believed that the man, by wearing a blue coat, was trying to disguise himself as his social worker. Could you who believe mental illness is a myth, explain that event? Fred Bauder 17:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe mental illness is a myth. However, I do believe that it's not a neurobiological disorder. Nor do I believe that incarceration, forced drugging and electroshock are ethical, humane or effective. As for your true story, I certainly believe that this patient was in terrible shape but you're not looking at the whole picture. Did anybody investigate why this man would want to harm his social worker? I've been on the receiving end of much abuse from social workers. Was this the case here? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is indicative of the kind of bias against anyone who questions psychiatry. You're assuming (very wrongly) that I don't believe in mental illness. People do this all the time. They often refer to the entire anti-psychiatry movement as "Scientology." Please read more carefully. I have never denied the existence of mental illness. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is more to the story. The man had earlier gone that day to Denver General Hospital's Psychiatric unit and begged to be admitted as he knew he was having trouble. He liked his social worker, but thought that the stranger in the blue coat was a threat to him as he believed he was disguising himself. The subtext was that the staff of the center was trying to get authority to more closely monitor clients that they thought were dangerous. To relate this all to E. Fuller Torrey, my thought is that he has tried to find solutions to practical problems he has encountered. Fred Bauder 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So you're telling me this man was *denied* psychiatric treatment? What's that got to do with Torrey? Torrey believes in treating people who don't *want* to be treated. This man that you speak of *did* want to be treated. Torrey and TAC promote using ever more force to fit unwilling people into the system. Unfortunately, the result is that patients use ever more force to get out. Each round gets more and more violent. Then somebody gets killed. It happens all the time. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What I worked on was trying to increase community acceptance of our clients in the neighborhood. As most of them were harmless enough, the tiny minority that were occasionally dangerous posed a serious problem as we wanted people to be welcome in the community and not be unreasonably feared. Fred Bauder 18:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a worthy cause. The stigma of psychiatric labels is the most painful part of psychiatry. And, as you suggest, the tiny minority of dangerous lunatics just inflames society's fears. It's terribly unfair. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

the difficulty in distinguishing the insane from the sane

"I remember seeing a front-page story in the Boston Globe about a woman who cut a bagel in half and saw the face of Jesus in the bagel. There was a pilgrimage to the bakery, of people wanting to see Jesus. I have nothing against Jesus — or against bagels, for that matter. But I thought this was kind of crazy. Yet it was accepted. None of the people waiting to see Jesus in a bagel were hauled off to the hospital."

Laurie Ahern, 2002 NARPA Convention, Portland Oregon, November 2002

I have no idea why this snippet of information is suddenly useful in the development of this article. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Don't you think it kind of speaks to what's crazy about the whole notion of psychiatric labelling? I think it's brilliantly insightful. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The story is of course hilarious, but drawing parallels between a presumed religious experience and mental illness is insulting to both sides. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it insulting? It's an accurate depiction. Society says it's okay for me to believe that there's a guy up there in the sky watching everything that we do but it's not okay to believe that I can make it rain. The evidence for both propositions is equally compelling but the former is deemed religion and the latter is deemed delusion. The distinction is completely arbitrary. If this anecdote insults any of the bagel worshippers, sorry, but it's funny as hell and it illustrates beautifully what's wrong with psychiatric labelling. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on one contended point?

So, can we all agree to language something like ... "involuntary treatment (such as forced medication or electroshock therapy)" ? That seems to incorporate aspects of both sides. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to incorporate both the benign and the horrorific Fred Bauder 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe you think either electroshock or psychotropic drugs are benign. I'm guessing you're referring to the drugs but the evidence is that they tend to be even more damaging than electroshock. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if electroshock should get such prominence. Even catatonic depression is not managed with first-line ECT anymore. I think involuntary hospitalisation is much more of an issue than ECT. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would much rather receive ECT than haldol.--DocJohnny 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Electroshock is experiencing something of a resurgence. It's certainly very popular with psychiatrists in my part of the world. I think we should stick with the forced drugging issue because that's Torrey's pet project. With outpatient commitment, patients are released from hospital on certain conditions such as taking x number of y pills every day. They don't have the option of stopping their meds without being returned to hospital or threatened with same. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whichever, picking another example is fine, as long as it's representative. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for using drugging as the example, because that's by far the most common treatment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we can agree on medication, but another example (I'd say involuntary admission) would be welcome together with the "drugging". JFW | T@lk 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay. I just hope I don't get kicked out of the lunatics' union for agreeing with you too much.  :) Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I knew I was very persuasive. :-) JFW | T@lk 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Electroshock?! First, the encyclopedic term is "electro-convulsive therapy" or ECT. Second, I can find no reference in any of Torrey's books or the Treatment Advocacy Center website to indicate that Torrey supports or endorses ECT. --24.55.228.56 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. There is nothing encyclopaedic or scientific about the words "electro-convulsive therapy." It's electric shocks being applied to your brain and it's not therapeutic. Torrey may not have made a public statement on electroshock as his speciality is torturing schizophrenics. Electroshock is mostly used with mood disorders. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And why would we ever use the word "drugging" in an article about Torrey? Torrey never uses the word "drugging." And TAC stands for treatment advocacy center, not drugging advocacy center.--24.55.228.56 04:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which palatable words Torrey whitewashes his agenda with. When we're talking about what Torrey stands for, we should use plain English. I'm sure a wikipedia article on Nazism wouldn't insist on using Hitler's terminology. Now that you mention it, TAC might just as well be DAC as Torrey has made it plain that he wants every bipolar and schizophrenic on meds, lest they, you know, go bonkers and start sacrificing children as usual. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think if you'll look closely back over the conversation, most folks here prefer something more along the lines of "forced medication." · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The critical word is forced. This insistence on "medication" as opposed to "drugs" is just silly so in the spirit of compromise "forced medication" is fine with me. However, if the phrase comes up repeatedly, could we have just one instance of "forced drugging" in there? Medication = drugs = medicine. Dare we unlock the page now? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither Torrey nor TAC wants to "force" medication on someone who doesn't need it. I prefer the terms used in the medical community (e.g., involuntary treatment and involuntary medication). Regardless of whether the word forced or involuntary is used, it should be made clear that Torrey and TAC only support such treatment when necessary and appropriate.--24.55.228.56 04:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately they also feel that every severely mentally ill person *needs* drugs so "only when necessary and appropriate" isn't very reassuring in the circumstances. It's a slippery slope they're standing on. First, it's the severely mentally ill. Then it's those in danger of *becoming* severely mentally ill. "Involuntary" is just a prettier word for "coerced" or "forced" and there is absolutely no reason to dignify this practice with pretty words. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think the solution to this one is to use the clinical term, since it is inclusive and well-defined (by the medical community), but then give some examples. In that manner, it both uses the recognizable clinical term, and also gives some layman's examples anybody could understand. In other words ... "involuntary treatment (such as forced medication or electroshock treatments). · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To take your reasoning to an extreme, should we just quote verbatim the Treatment Advocacy Center's press releases? Not tolerate any debate on what's actually being said? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Involuntary treatment saves lives and gives meaning to countless others. Most people recognize the need to medically treat someone with a neurobiological disorder when that disorder prevents them from caring for themselves (as evidenced by the recent wave of states approving outpatient commitment laws). Terms like "drugging" and "electroshock" are loaded nonencyclopedic terms and connote extreme disapproval with those treatments.--24.55.228.56 12:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Involuntary treatment also destroys lives. There is no evidence that mental illness is a "neurobiological disorder." Reputable studies show that patients do better in the long term without psychiatric intervention (drugging). "Drugging" and "electroshock" aren't loaded terms. They are truthful terms and people are uncomfortable with them because they're troubling concepts and rightfully so. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Using the Treatment Advocacy Center's press releases is a good start when writing about the Treatment Advocacy Center's positions. It certainly is better than substituting one's own opinion about what TAC advocates. I think Wikipedia recognizes the value of using primary sources for its articles.--24.55.228.56 12:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but I didn't substitute my own opinion. I'm just trying to stress to wikipedia readers what TAC's soothing language is trying to hide. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

User:24.55.228.56 sounds suspiciously sane, probably Dr. Torrey or some flunky. However his point is made, what is advocated is involuntary treatment which may include involuntary medication but only when needed. I guess I should look at TAC's website and press releases. However, you can't write your own article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Fred Bauder 13:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Involuntary treatment almost always refers to forced drugging. "Only when needed" is of no reassurance as most psychiatrists want their patients on drugs. They appear to want them compliant, docile and disabled. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd paradox here, people who can't be trusted trying to treat people who have problems with trusting. Fred Bauder 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

another contentious issue in the edit war

In various revisions, this article said things like "before they become violent" as if violence was an expected outcome for anybody not reaping the wonderful benefits of outpatient commitment. I'd like the article to be clear that only a tiny minority of mental patients become violent and also that being medicated is no guarantee of diminishing violence. SSRIs, for instance, are known to bring on both homicidal and suicidal feelings in some patients. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the context of the section, but in general I would point out that this article is about a discrete psychiatrist, not the whole of psychiatry, so we need to be careful not to stray too far afield. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. However in a sense Torrey does speak for the entire field of psychiatry. His organization, the Treatment Advocacy Center, is at the forefront of the outpatient commitment program. One option might be to just link to the TAC article and only discuss Torrey and his books and schizoviral theory, etc. What do you think about that idea? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"I'd like the article to be clear that only a tiny minority of mental patients become violent and also that being medicated is no guarantee of diminishing violence."

This is a good point, as while spectacular incidents occur, it would be very misleading to imply that those incidents justify mass institutionalization. I doubt that is Torry's position anyway. He would probably agree that creating a public impression of that nature is counterproductive. As to medication reducing violence, it certainly does while they are on it and for some people it allows them to be outside when they could not be if they were not. I think you can find a good source that only a tiny minority of outpatients are potentially violent; on the other hand, I doubt you could find a credible source that medication does not reduce violence. They didn't call it the violent ward for nothing. I doubt they use that language now, wonder if they do? Fred Bauder 14:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I did some research and find that Torrey does concentrate on violence when justifying his solutions, see http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/fact2.htm (section "Violence Real Issue for Untreated Severe Brain Disorders").

Actually Torrey and TAC are quite clear on this. Those very few incidents are in fact used to justify outpatient programs, where patients are coerced into taking psychotropic drugs. Torrey is very clear on the need to exploit society's fears. Torrey himself creates a very negative picture of the mentally ill when he claims that an untreated bipolar person is akin to somebody with active tuberculosis sitting in a crowded movie theater. It's not clear that medication reduces violence overall (see SSRI warning labels) and you're neglecting to consider that forced drugging IS violence, only it's acceptable because it's directed towards mental patients. The term used now is locked ward or psychiatric intensive care, at least around here. Frankly, given the abuse that psych patients suffer, I'm amazed at how few of them resort to violence. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not all psychiatry critics are Scientologists

I notice in passing that one or two people above are attacking critics of psychiatry by labeling them "Scientologists". This is unfortunate and probably quite wrong.

It's true that the Church of Scientology attacks psychiatry, largely because they see themselves as being in competition with it. But there are lots of people who object to specific psychiatric practices -- involuntary commitment being one of them! -- who have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology, and thoroughly resent the implication.

(To make an analogy -- It's true that there are some dangerous cults that propound vegetarianism. But it isn't true that everyone who's a vegetarian is a member of a dangerous cult.)

To show good faith, it would be a good idea to avoid accusing anyone of being a Scientologist -- or a member of any other generally discredited group -- without something resembling evidence.

It's worth noting, by the way, that Scientology perpetrates its own form of involuntary commitment. Lisa McPherson died that way. --FOo

FOo, I don't think this accusation has been leveled here during our discussion. I think all disputants are aware that anti-psychiatry != Scientology != psychiatry survivors != psychiatry human rights movement etc etc. JFW | T@lk 09:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't seen anything like that. Maybe some folks in the past had, but so far at least nobody active in this discussion has suggested such a thing. It's a good point, though, Foo. What do you think about the rest of the dispute? · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Assisted outpatient treatment

Assisted outpatient treatment seems to be one solution Torrey is pushing and its seems to have been adopted by most states. We use that phrase in the article, but it is not a link. When the article is unprotected I'll make that a link and work on an article (as if I had time), see http://www.psychlaws.org/BriefingPapers/BP4.htm Fred Bauder 14:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Last I heard (October 2005), 43 states had such programs in place. And the only reason these states passed these programs into law is because they were lied to by Torrey and his ilk. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

a little sample of torrey-speak

The following is direct from TAC's website:

"Assisted outpatient treatment is not the same as forced drugging. It is court-ordered treatment that relies on individuals to comply with treatment orders. The majority of people who refuse medication subsequently agree to take it in oral form when informed that they must. 'Forced drugging' is a phrase used by those who oppose AOT to scare people into believing that people under orders will be held down and injected. This is not the case."

This was my favourite part: "The majority of people who refuse medication subsequently agree to take it in oral form when informed that they must."

Ah, so the patients *agree* to take their meds. No coercion there. Good grief! What TAC fails to point out here is that for those that *don't* "agree," it's off to the psych ward they go and Hello, Mr. Hypodermic! Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for settling the issue on whether to use the terms "forced" and "drugging" in the article. Torrey is clearly against forced drugging. The terms should not be attributed to him and do not belong in the article. Thanks, Francesca!!!--24.55.228.56 11:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Torrey supports coercion, backed up by the threat of force. Thus he supports force. If patients don't submit, they're forced drugged. Only a psychiatrist (or possibly a politician) would try to claim that treatment under these conditions wasn't forced. We can change it to "coerced" if you like, however, I should warn you that term is even more of a warning flag to the public than "forced." Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

TAC/NAMI Connections

Evidence of NAMI's continuing links to TAC can be found on their board of directors.[8] One individual, Frederick Frese, is presently on both the NAMI and TAC boards. TAC has two other former NAMI board members on their board and Laurie Flynn, the longtime NAMI exec director up until this year is part of the Honorary Advisory Committee. --24.55.228.56 11:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be guilt by association. Fred Bauder 13:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming that they're not linked. But the reason TAC is its own separate entity (as opposed to the earlier NAMI-TAC) is because of Torrey's extreme pro-forced treatment views. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A roundup

Okay, I've created this section in an attempt to focus discussions again. I think we've closed in on an agreement on point one (drugging/involuntary treatment) raised above, but how about the other two points?

1. It is unclear whether NAMI and Torrey/TAC are still closely aligned
2. "There is still no objective diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any other mental illness"

Let's take one of them at a time. The second one seems to invite some philosophical debate, which isn't necessarily bad, but the first one may be easier to tackle. Does anyone have actual sourcing they can bring to the table on point one? I gather from past discussions that Francesca's view is that NAMI split from TAC over Torrey's views on forced medication, but the anon argues that the two are in fact still significantly aligned? · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I found this in the March 20, 2000 issue of The Record (Bergen Co. NJ)

When children are ill, their parents or caregivers make decisions about the course of treatment.

Adults, should they become incapacitated, have either spelled out

their wishes in a legal document, or have typically left those decisions

to a family member.

But who, if anyone, should decide whether people who have a mental

illness should be forced to take medication or risk commitment to a

psychiatric hospital?

It's a controversial issue that will be explored Saturday during a conference at Hackensack University Medical Center.

"What we really want is for someone who can't make a judgment but

needs treatment to get treatment,"said Sylvia Axelrod, executive director of the state arm of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,

or NAMI New Jersey.

"The problem is, who makes those decisions?"Axelrod said, noting

that NAMI supports the establishment of treatment standards for mentally

ill people whose judgment is impaired.

Disagreement over the issue by some NAMI members who favor more

stringent laws to force treatment caused them to split from the

organization and form the Treatment Advocacy Center.

That's the only published reference I can find. It's still not terribly clear. But it at least allows us a source to use to say that, in any case, there was a split over the issue. This doesn't allow anyone to say it was specifically Torrey's fault though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Katefan0. What about referring to TAC splitting off but not specifically saying Torrey? I think it's clear enough that Torrey is pro-forced treatment and that's he's integral to TAC. I have somebody at MindFreedom International trying to round up Torrey's letter to NAMI, in the meantime. The word "forced" is still an issue. Please see section above. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Supporters will frame the question as "involuntary treatment" Activist critics as "forced drugging". It is like use of the phrase "partial birth abortion". Fred Bauder 17:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, supporters call it "assisted treatment", those opposed call it "forced drugging". "Involuntary treatment" seems fairly neutral to me. It conveys the information without a value judgment. --DocJohnny 01:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but Katefan0's suggestion is a good one. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Until Katefan froze the article in Francesca's version, twenty minutes before it read: "Torrey, the Treatment Advocacy Center, and NAMI remain closely aligned." If there are any doubts, visit the NY NAMI site: http://www.naminys.org/. As you can see, NAMI NY shares the same position on Kendra's law (outpatient commitment) as TAC, the same position on the biological basis of serious mental illness, and they even include links to TAC and the Stanley Foundation! There doesn't appear to be any division as far as I can see. NAMI's positions and TAC's positions are the same. Please show me where they are different.--24.55.228.56 04:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You're drawing conclusions basedon inferences that may well be true, taken separately. But the issue at this point is that what you suggest as the sum total of these inferences is in direct opposition to a published source I posted above. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 04:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We also have the www.MindFreedom.org reference. Realistically, 24.55.228.56, if the two organizations are exactly the same, why are there two of them? Why wouldn't Torrey just stay with NAMI? A tour around the TAC and NAMI websites quickly shows their very differing approaches to these issues. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

TAC was founded by NAMI advisors, executives and board members. They wanted it to be part of NAMI (they would call it NTAC). The small consumer wing of NAMI did not want TAC to be part of NAMI. You can read about the disageement here: "Debate Over Outpatient Commitment, Involuntary Care," Psychiatric Times, July 1998. To appease the dissident consumer council, NAMI's advisors, executives and board members thought it would be best to spin TAC off as its own independent organization, perhaps to the chagrin of Dr. Torrey. Your local community newspaper in NJ does not cite its source and is simply incorrect. Ron Honberg, who is identified as NAMI's director of legal affairs and a founding board member of NTAC in the 1998 Psychiatric Times article, remains today as NAMI's National Director for Policy and Legal Affairs. He did not "split" from NAMI as the Bergan Record wrongly suggests.--24.55.228.56 13:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is good. Now we have sources from both "sides." It's obviously a source of some dispute and this confirms it. This way we can characterize that dispute using published sources from both sides. In the end it's a win-win for the article and its readers. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - Your NJ newspaper should be aware that the NJ branch of NAMI, like TAC, also supports involuntary treatment and outpatient commitment. [9] To the best of my knowledge, the national NAMI organization and every state NAMI chapter supports the same involuntary treatment and outpatient commitment laws for which TAC advocates. I stand by my statement that "Torrey, the Treatment Advocacy Center, and NAMI remain closely aligned." Please show me a primary_source to the contrary.--24.55.228.56 13:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56, why are you referring to the "small consumer wing of NAMI"? NAMI was ostensibly set up to help mental health consumers. If the consumers themselves disagree with forced drugging, that disagreement should be explored. "Dissident consumer council" is another example of your bias. Your source is no more credible than Katefan0's. NAMI nationally has become just a front for the pharmaceutical industry so their own press releases are unlikely to be a reliable source. They are little more than advertorials on the glories of forced drugging. Not all NAMI chapters support Torrey's extreme views. NAMI-SCC has many concerns about the Treatment Advocacy Center. Do you mind me asking why you have such obvious disdain for the mentally ill? Are you a mental health professional? Do you realize that I am eligible for a forced drugging program? I work full-time and pursue an active life but, according to Torrey, I'm pretty much a ticking time bomb. Doesn't it concern you that Torrey's draconian solution would make me permanently disabled, put me in social housing and have my life revolve around daily visits from the drug team? Forcing psychiatric drugs on people is just not the answer. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"small consumer wing of NAMI" does say it all. I rather imagine that if an attempt was made to control 24.55.228.56 so that the risk that he did not kill or injure someone was minimized his tune would change rather dramatically. Fred Bauder 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true. Experiencing involuntary treatment firsthand kind of changes your outlook. It could happen to anybody. Truly. All that's required is a psychiatric label. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, NAMI started as a support organization for families of individuals with mental illness. Obtaining direct input from consumers came 15 years later after it started. Twenty-five years after its inception, NAMI's consumer wing remains relatively small. And don't assume that you know what I have been through, Mr. Fred Bauder.--24.55.228.56 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit of critisism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Fuller_Torrey#Criticism

changing critisism to factual evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

revert

"Eversince" rewrote the entire wiki entry. Did not post anything here. I don't approve. I'm going to try reverting.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Um I didn't so much rewrite the entry as added a whole load of sourced stuff to what was quite a shortish entry. Had to make rewords to intro and some parts for balance & to reflect the article. I wondered should I post here but there didnt' seem to be much going on and I didnt' intend to do quite as much as I did - just got into it, he's a committed guy who causes a lot of the vital issues in this area to be raised, whether agree with him or not. I'm not sure why you've chosen to revert to where you have. EverSince (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Btw I'm not sure either why you've put my username in quote marks... EverSince (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What say ye? Any objections to the particular content that was added, or any particular prior wording that you object to being changed? EverSince (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of further particulars, I'll warily restore the extra edits (& redo the ones since then). EverSince (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to his brain collection?(in criticism)--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

you moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Fuller_Torrey#Stanley_Medical_Research_Institute. Ok --Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1