Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Random thoughts on a Tuesday


  • The music director at church is looking for a new cantor. I wish a basso profundo would walk through the doors.  I'd love to hear a voice like this just once. Can you imagine a basso singing "Shine Jesus, Shine?" I sure can't.




  • I was listening to a priest giving an interview who mentioned that many people in America are going and have gone insane. I think he's right. There seem to be more people wandering the streets in desperate need of care in a mental institution. Craziness seems to be everywhere, in the grocery store, at work, among celebrities. Everyday something more gross and disgusting is said or done in public--always in public so we can "celebrate" it, and the priest said it is because we in the West are slaves to appetite and feelings both which will, if not kept in check lead to madness.
  •   I'm starting the St. Monica Novena today.
  • I have an interview today and I am very nervous. I shouldn't be but I am.
  • Louie, Louie, Oh, Oh , he's mad now, oh, oh, oh.....

  • I'm so looking forward to Mass tonight at St. Rita's.

16 comments:

Lola said...

Saying prayers that your interview went well and that you had discernment if you actually want to work there! God Love you Dymphna!

Steve Dalton said...

The reason we have so many "crazies" walking the streets is the bleeding heart liberals thought it was 'cruel' to keep people with mental problems under lock and key. What these misguided idiots refused to recognize is that many mental patients are extremely difficult to treat, even with the best available medical care Many of them have no insight into how sick they really are, and some are too far gone to help. We need to bring back mental hospitals big time to aid these suffering people and their families.

Steve Dalton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"There seem to be more people wandering the streets in desperate need of care in a mental institution."

No, not even my worst enemies are in need of that.

"the bleeding heart liberals thought it was 'cruel' to keep people with mental problems under lock and key."

If it is just "mental problems" as opposed to Classical madness, and for just that as opposed to for instance prison for crimes, it IS cruel.

"What these misguided idiots refused to recognize is that many mental patients are extremely difficult to treat, even with the best available medical care"

What if "medical" treatment was the last thing they either wanted or needed?

Steve Dalton said...

Hans,if someone with a developing case of gangrene insisted that he was alright, even though his flesh was stinking to high heaven, what would you do? In one case, a judge ordered the doctor treating the patient to treat the patient against her will. Sadly, the poor woman's gangrene made it impossible to save the leg, so it had to be amputated. So, it's not a matter of what the patient wants, it's what's best for him. As I've already said, some mentally ill people are too sick to realize how sick they really are.It would be an act of absolute cruelty not to give them treatment, even if it has to be done against their will and wishes.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Unlike gangrene, "mental illness" is not physically killing.

Being "too sick to realise how sick one is" is not comparable to preferring a death from gangrene over a life without a leg.

And if such was that lady's preference, perhaps one should have respected her wishes and allowed her to die.

What "mental" disorders do TO someone, unlike what a gangrene does, depends very much on how that someone is taking it.

And unlike gangrene, a mental disorder is very likely to be diagnosed by doctors and similars having sth like M√ľnchhausen syndrome per proxy.

Steve Dalton said...

Mental illness "not physically killing"? What a uninformed statement! Mamy untreated cases of mental illness drive it's victims to commit acts of violence against themselves or others. The news media has stories about this sort of thing all the time. Your position reminds me of Jesus asking the Pharisees was it good to heal the sick on the Sabbath. It was, of course, good to do so. But you say, let them die if they want to die. This attitude is blatantly satanic, and very Uncatholic. You need to change it before you cause someone to lose their life because you told them they have the right to die.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"Mamy untreated cases of mental illness drive it's victims to commit acts of violence against themselves or others."

1) Does the "untreated illness" drive, or does sth else, like diagnosis and "security measures" linked to it perceived as provocations or as grounds for despair?
2) Are acts against others "driven by mental illness" or by illwill? In case they are against psychiatry and its abettors, I would say they are driven by very well-merited illwill. The word "act of violence" might sometimes rather be "legitimate defense".
3) Supposing for a moment (if you are capable of such empathy with sn else's p o v) this is the case - are you sure psychiatrists would honestly and even lucidly before themselves admit it?

I am not. I am certain the more lucid psychiatrists would be most of them dishonest, and the most "honest" (if wilfully ignorant can be honest) would most often make themselves believe it was after all the "illness".

"The news media has stories about this sort of thing all the time."

Especially official media, right.

If an act of violence was committed by an Arab or a Black or an Immigrant or Muslim, in France there used to be a ban on telling the ethnic fact.

But if there is some diagnosis or hint at such from shrinks, media are never shy of telling that, the usual ones.

In other words, you are letting yourself be driven to hysteria by a media campaign.

Now, as to acts of violence against oneself.

Some such acts are not properly that, like flagellation, like some of the cutting of wrists (the securely non-lethal ones, of course), like fasting, which some nincompoops adverse to Christianity will call "an act of self destruction" or whatever the US term might be (translating from "sjelfdestructiva handlingar").

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

But more than that, in more than one case, the perpetrator is dead, and we cannot ask him if what he felt worst about was sth going on "inside him" or what went on around him through psychiatry.

That goes for the school shootings as well.

EVERY case where you could say "look, he didn't get the treatment he needed", I can say "oh, he did get some treatment or menace of such after all". Klebold and others are dead, we cannot ask them.

Not sure if Klebolds notebooks are uncensoredly available to public - or if access is restricted to ... guess what corps among others? Psychiatrists.

"Your position reminds me of Jesus asking the Pharisees was it good to heal the sick on the Sabbath. It was, of course, good to do so."

Healing and treating are not synonymous.

"But you say, let them die if they want to die."

I was not saying that about preventing an ongoing suicide attempt.

I was saying that about the lady who preferred her two legs over a prolonged life.

"This attitude is blatantly satanic, and very Uncatholic."

I think the definition is one has no right to refuse ORDINARY means of survival. Major operations are not comparable to food, drink, oxygen, sleep, toilets, and perhaps antibacterial things too.

Nor is a life under constant supervision "for one's own good" or someone else's comparable to these either.

Nor is getting off the gallows or the gas chamber through an unwanted excuse of insanity, which after years waiting for appeals one did not perhaps want to be either rejected or heard come a bit closer to becoming if not true, at least a self fulfilling prophecy.

"You need to change it before you cause someone to lose their life because you told them they have the right to die."

I have NOT told anyone he has a right to suicide. Nor will I.

One has a right to reject some means of survival that are offered.

In the case of psychiatry, we are not even reasonably sure (except momentarily with those having tried suicide) it constitutes a means of survival at all.

As you mentioned Pharisees, are you aware that many psychiatrists are if not Pharisaic, at least post-Pharisaic Jews?

And that as Pharisees were extending the criteria for demonic possession to stretches where they could start labelling Our Lord as possessed, post-Pharisees are stretching similar criteria for "mental illness", after abandoning the word "madness" because it is not sufficiently stretchable, or did you never notice, noone ever told you?

Steve Dalton said...

It is quite obvious by your language that you have swallowed the ideology of the anti-psychiatry movement. They're basically nothing more than a bunch of leftist and Marxists who deny mental illnesses even exist. Mary of them, based on what I've read about them, are suffering from serious, untreated illnesses, and are basically using this movement to lash out at their so-called "oppressors" the way others have used deadly force to do the same. They have some support from psychiatrists like Szaz and Breggin, but these and others like them, are driven by ideology, not medical science. Mental illnesses are real and need to be treated. And because the illnesses distort the perception of reality in many sufferers to the point they can no longer distinguish reality from fantasy, they have to be treated against their will. And the consequences of not treating them can be deadly. One only has to read a story in the media about a horrible crime that was commited, and see the phrases " a former mental patient, or was diagnosed as, but refused treatment, or was on medication, but stopped." I hope you never tell anyone to refuse treatment, because you will be guilty of giving somebody a virtual death sentense, when tell could have had many years of life ahead of them.
S

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Madness does exist, but is much rarer than the cases of mental illness that are locked in.

Out of ten or twenty lokced in at a time, about one is mad.

Medical science in this case is ideology.

"Szaz" as you put it (actually Szasz) is a man about as rare as the real madman who is locked in, namely the psychiatrist who is honest.

Or, to put it in another way, whose ideology is more Christian than Pharisaic.

Winehouse did not get her death sentence by being free to drink. She got it by having a release on conditions that meant she was not free. Those made her desperate.

Szasz (RIP, he died on Our Lady's Nativity, which is a good sign), has noted cases when antidepressants have actually triggered murderous behaviour.

As for neuroleptics, they are an instrument of torture.

And sedatives make for dependence, not quite unlike alcoholism and heroinism - apart from being also a party rape drug (not mentioning who used Quaaludes, but the story is known).

"Mental illnesses are real and need to be treated."

Most conditions honestly noted in a diagnosis are NOT in need of treatment. + the very great risk of misdiagnosing symptoms. Like when someone is out of a kind of neurosis (or impatience of frustration, to give a more descriptive and less psychiatric description) I'd like to label Ben Gunn's syndrome talking to absent people, how great is the risk of his being now misdiagnosed as suffering "auditory hallucinations"?

Considering precisely auditory hallucinations are top or among top of hallucination symptome leading to diagnosis of schizophrenia, I'd say the risk is very real.

Or delusion of persecution? How many supposed to suffer from that "delusion" are in fact perfectly lucid about what psychiatry or likeminded is doing about their situation? Not a few, I'd say.

What you feel justified, even obliged in doing, is precisely what the person wants to avoid, and if you frustrate his desire to avoid it over and over again, you might risk driving him mad.

How many prolonged and worsened cases of "mental illness" are really worsening because treatment is prolonged beyond bearable?

It is a nosocomial condition. Hebephrenia leading to paranoia is nosocomial or pre-nosocomial in so far as some hebephrenes do get rightly suspicious and thus un-hebephrene due to all efforts to push the hebephrene into some kind of treatment. Paranoia leading to a kind of dementia which is not that of alzheimer but "praecox" is also nosocomial - since all efforts of protecting oneself from mental care failed.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Bleuler was right on the one point of rapid discharge - but his view on remaining schizophrenia has led to discharge being not final and therefore to reinternment after reinternment, at about any conflict a person suffers with others.

And he was an Eugenicist, something which Pope Pius XI condemned. Casti connubii.

In that way, his abettors are fulfilling the prophecy of St Paul.

1 Timothy 4:3 with previous and following verses: [1] Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, [3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. [4] For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: [5] For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

To Bleuler, apparently the body of a mental patient is not good for reproduction.

And even thinking of such a thing as calling "delusions" a symptom! Suspicions which are untrue in 99% of 100 may be true about the guys pushing someone to psychiatry. Delusion "of grandeur" was the criterium when Hemingway was hospitalised - because he thought he was Hemingway. Delusions apart from that seem very often since Marxism to be their code word for heresies against DiaMat.

Thank God there was a Thomas Szasz!

Steve Dalton said...

Yep, just as I thought, a member of the anti-psychiatry movement. Don't bother me with your nonsense anymore Hans. Medical research has proven mental illnesses are real and can be treated with various types of therapy. People like you are harmful to the mentally ill, for you and your fellow anti's try to persuade the sick and their loved ones not to get help. To con a sick person not to get help for somerthing that might cripple or even kill him is UnChristian. Stop this b.s. before you do just that.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"a member of the anti-psychiatry movement."

You can say that again.

"Don't bother me with your nonsense anymore Hans."

Then the rest is for the general public.

"Medical research has proven mental illnesses are real and can be treated with various types of therapy."

Proven insofar as research "proves" more than the good logic which would be involved in the case and the common sense which would bar some idiotic conclusions.

The THREE major symptoms of Asperger are rubber definitions.

Lack of empathy - depends on who measures sompeone's empathy and who that someone is supposed to be empathetic to, according to measurer.

Abstruse interests - depends on who is judging the interests. Usually the "patient" can find fellow geeks sharing them, at least by internet.

Not seeing the big picture by being too bound up with details - that is a HUGE invitation for docctors using rubber yardsticks.

Often, however, the states described really do exists, what is doubtful is only:

1) whether they constitute illnesses (most European Christians would disagree on very many of them)
2) whether they can be objectively verified from outside the real or supposed sufferer.

However, with schizophrenia, that is not even "a state", it's a portmanteau word for very different states.

From hebephrenia, which is enjoyable, to dementia praecox, or whatever the modern word for it is, which is nosocomial.

And symptom "auditory hallucinations" are routinely "verified" by irritated blurtings out to non-present people which the patient is supposed to hallucinate as being there. There are neurotic and non-hallucinatory reasons for such behaviour.

Responding to treatment? If you torture someone with neuroleptics, he will, for instance, think twice before blurting out something. Whips were also a "cure" very inviting to responses from slaves "suffering" from "drapetomania".

Yes, I sure got that historic detail from anti-psychiatric movement.

"People like you are harmful to the mentally ill, for you and your fellow anti's try to persuade the sick and their loved ones not to get help."

I try to persuade loved ones not to be too responsive to alarmist shrinks and not too bound up with hopes about "help" which can turn to nightmares much worse than what the person had to deal with from start.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

If someone wants to get therapy himself, I don't encourage it, but unless I love the person, it's not my business.

"To con a sick person not to get help for somerthing that might cripple or even kill him is UnChristian."

Not in all cases, even when it's verified it CAN by itself (irrespective of human wills and responses) kill, like gangrene.

One can prefer dying from gangrene over living as a maimed cripple.

When it comes to "mental illnesses", that is not even the case, we are usually dealing with things where the real killing is done through human wills and hopes and fears - which would be there in situations sometimes induced by "treatment" even without any specific prior illness.

The con men are you. The killers and slave hunters are you.

"Stop this b.s. before you do just that."

Have you counted how many babies you have aborted with that criterium?

Miss X gets into hospital and gets a neuroleptic which lowers her chastity, her resistance to seduction. Mr Y does not get a neuroleptic which would lower his virility, he gets a sedative. They do it, unprotected, the next day hospital finds out and miss X is offered a day after pill.

Miss Z quarrels with her boyfriend, she behaves somewhat "erratically", she comes to hospital, they tell her, if she goes through with pregnancy, the baby WILL be taken away from her, since she is NOT in a state to take care of it, she is so upset and flustered by the situation she gives up and lets them give her an abortificient or a surgical abortion.

As long as YOU say Miss X and Z and Mr Y SHOULD be in hospital and SHOULD get the treatements and prognoses they give them, you are on exactly same logic culpable of these things.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

treatements = treatments