Talk:MindFreedom International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


OK--given the fact that this article might be deleted, I'm turning this back into a stub to make it focus on what Mind Freedom is doing regarding mental health rights--there's plenty of space for people to argue about anti-psychiatry and chemical balances on Peter Breggin's entry so just trying to reduce it to the essentials. -Mcm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcm (talkcontribs) 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

chemical-imbalance theory[edit]

Numerous adjectives seem to contradict neutrality, such as 'dubious' in the description of 'chemical-imbalance theory.' In this case perhaps 'disputed' would be preferable. -Wilhelm Ritter

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The chemical imbalance theory is disputed *because* it is dubious. Therefore, both adjectives are correct. Can you give us 'more' (which is to say 'some') examples of POV that you'd like to have dealt with? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Good recent edits, Ombudsman. I don't know who that user was but he's obviously got a big problem with the anti-psychiatry movement in general. Thanks for restoring this article on MindFreedom International. I'm getting really tired of repeating over and over that anti-psychiatry doesn't equal scientology. The scientologists are but a tiny subset of the anti-psychiatry movement. Unfortunately, they're very rich and very vocal and they get way, way more attention than they deserve. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is Mindfreedom in the "Anti-psychiatry" article? Same here Francesca. I'm repeating over and over again that the "Anti-psychiatry" article is a complete nonsense and put under the labe "anti-psychiatry" every single critics on psychiatry.

I believe that "some people" are interested in putting in discredit all critics to psychiatry. Put it under the label "anti-psychiatry" or "scientology" and everything the Psychiatry is safe as well as all people that are part of this.--Justana (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

removing neutrality tag[edit]

The questionable POV has been removed and so I am removing the neutrality tag. Note that the article contains MindFreedom's POV, which is appropriate as that is what the article is about. The article no longer claims or implies that MF's POV is correct; readers can decide on their own. Therefore, the article is now NPOV. If further editing is deemed necessary to ensure NPOV, please do that rather than replacing the tag. Kriegman 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A neutral article consists of more than not exp,licitly claiming the single POV reported is true. It requires an indication of what the otehre views are and what response has been made. Midgley 18:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Midgley!

Don’t you think this has already been answered in my recent discussion with Joema?:

In September 2003 the American Psychiatry Association itself acknowledged that “brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental disorder or mental disorders as a group […]. Mental disorders will likely be proven [my emphasis] to represent disorders of intracellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry.”

Since this is an official psychiatric pronouncement, I see no reason for the tag. —Cesar Tort 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the first paragraph is not at all neutral, should something be done? Licensedlunacy 22:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Returned POV tag[edit]

This has no reliable third party sources. It's quotations are unreferenced because all the links returned a 404 page not found error message. This organization has an agenda and needs unbiased sourcing. --Mattisse 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Utne reader is a valid third party source. Some of the other 3rd party links look old and may need to be replaced with more current ones if necessary.

re-'all the links returned a 404 page not found error message'-Matisse please state what links are rtning 404- I can find none tonight that rtn 404.

re'This organization has an agenda' Matisse, respectfully, your own profile indicates you are a psychologist, which may indicate you have a professional bias or agenda with the respect to types of psychiatric treatment and the psychiatric survivor movement.
Cheers.Padraic10441 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there an organization on Earth that doesn't have an agenda? 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Many states, including the State of Washington are promoting "recovery" in the mental health system. People that know about recovery do not necessarily rely on the "chemical imbalance" theory. There is not requirement that such "medical model" theory be followed or believed for recovery to happen. Recovery happens because of the innate resiliency that human beings have to heal. While the exact process may remain somewhat mysterious, or even not scientifically proven to be a "chemical imbalance" process, the results of recovery and the reality of recovery are not entirely disputable, since it is a reality. Psychiatry has no real recovery model and their theories are not necessary for recovery to happen. So believe in the "chemical imbalance" theory if you choose, but that is a separate issue from the human right to heal by the recovery model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I made numerous edits to make the article more NPOV. More may be in order. However, everything that is in the article about the org's aims and stated purpose/intentions seems to be substantiated by references to MFI statements/documents. The NY Times reference I added along with the Utne reference documents some of the other facts (e.g., the founding of MFI by David Oaks, when it was founded, its support of Mad Pride). While additional references should be added, if it still has some POV tone/material, it should be correctable without tagging the article, so I am removing the tag. Kriegman (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The need for a "controversy" section[edit]

Many of the positions/beliefs advocated for by MFI are considered to be nonsense by mainstream psychiatry, e.g., that more often than not, standard psychiatric treatment for "madness" does as much if not more harm than good. If a Controversy section were added to this article describing some of the reactions to MFI from mainstream mental health advocates, the NPOV could be better maintained. Kriegman (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I wonder how hard it would be to find NAMI's (and any other front groups for Big Pharma) response to MindFreedom's position. Should point out too that MFI has no problem with people using psychiatric drugs when informed consent is applied. The issue is forced or coerced drugging and misinformation. (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that the World Health Organization found, twice, that long-term outcomes are much better without psychiatric intervention. It would seem that, in the opinion of the WHO at least, standard psychiatric treatment does indeed do more harm than good. (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The new book by Robert Whitaker, "Anatomy of an Epidemic", reports a number of studies supporting the above statement. It does appear possible, even likely, that the long-term course of mental disorders is WORSE with medication than without for a significant proportion of recipients. That this might be considered "nonsense" by mainstream psychiatry is not a point of scientific validity. In 1958, psychiatry believed in frontal lobotomies, which were later shown to be incredibly destructive. In the 60s, psychiatry promoted Benzadrine as a a safe and non-habit-forming antidepressant, and it ended up being extremely addictive. There are many other examples of mainstream medical views being later proven to be nonsense themselves. The science supports MFI's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)