Last week I attended a monthly staffing for a client at Elgin Mental Health Center, and I made it a point to bring copies of three recent articles for the psychiatrist in charge (I'll just call her Dr. R).
Dr. R has told her patient (my client) repeatedly that I (being her pro bono attorney for several years) am really bad for her, that she should watch out for me, that members of my church hurt people... just common, ordinary, vague, stupid negative generalizations like that...
But it occurred to me that I should give Dr. R a little more insight into what my influence on her patient really is, if I could. The three articles I brought were pieces I had sent to my client, who is a very bright woman with a law school education. She's chronically bored with the "treatment" routine that is worse than useless for her, and she appreciates decent reading material.
I told my client that I would bet her, dollars to donuts, that Dr. R would never read the three articles. This seemed to me an easy prediction, partly because I'm not even sure whether Dr. R can really read anything. She's old and I've occasionally wondered whether she's a little way along toward dementia. But even more of a problem for her, the articles very effectively challenge an orthodoxy of psychiatry as "medical help" for mental-illness-as-brain-disease. This psychiatrist simply cannot afford to consider such a challenge. Given her life-long career wholly within a failing paradigm that will be indicted by history as an atrocity, the cognitive dissonance would surely overwhelm her emotionally.
Yesterday Dr. R admitted to my client that as I predicted, she did not read the articles. It's too bad.
The first article of three is "A Veteran's Letter to Congress" by Dave Cope, a former Navy Lieutenant. My client is also a veteran, and she had similar experiences to the author's with harmful effects of SSRI's. The reason Dr. R would never be able to deal with this is that Lt. Cope clearly states the truth: no physiological dysfunction of the brain has ever been found to be characteristic of any mental illness, and psychiatric drugs disrupt normal brain functioning.
Dr. R has spent her life putting people on psychiatric drugs and lying to them about what the drugs really do. She has deceived countless patients into submitting to iatrogenic mental and physical disability. She is a criminal against humanity; her career could be compared to Mengele's. She can't confront that.
The second article is "From neuroleptics to neuroscience and from Pavlov to psychotherapy: more than just 'the emperor's new treatments' for mental illnesses?" by two German psychologists who argue that psychiatric drugs just don't work, the orthodox concept of mental illness and treatment is deeply flawed, and psychiatry has altered the course of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and ADHD for the worse.
Dr. R is a psychiatrist, perhaps in the habit of summarily dismissing views of mere psychologists (members of a decidedly junior profession from an MD's perspective). But these authors are respected scientists writing in a mainline publication. Again, there's no question that their article could seriously threaten Dr. R's fragile self esteem by tweaking her guilty conscience. No way she would ever read it!
The third article is a discussion by Bruce Levine, Ph.D., about whether psychiatry should most properly be considered fraud or bullshit. It points out that the pillars of the establishment have now invalidated the "chemical imbalance" theory and the DSM. He explains with subtle but tragic humor that most psychiatrists have never been truth seekers, and it hasn't been in their interest to know what is true or false.
This explanation fits Dr. R perfectly. But her problem would be that it's no excuse, it's an indictment. She cannot ever read this one, either. It's terrifying to be assaulted by the truth of one's own evil.
My client hates the forensic mental health system. But I suspect her doctor ultimately suffers, as the perpetrator, even more than her victims.