 |
| (source) |
This week a friend and I visited the Los Angeles, CA, anti-psychiatry museum called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum. This was our second visit to the museum as we had set foot inside it a year ago. I wrote about my experience at that time. To view my post, entitled, Why I Do Not Support the Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum, click here.
I am a clinical social worker and I work under the title of psychiatric social worker. I work inside a long term psychiatric hospital. Mental health and psychology have been of interest me for a long time. In fact I knew at the age of 15 that I wanted to be a therapist. I studied psychology during my undergrad years and then moved on to studying psychology and mental health throughout my grad school years.
Being that I've invested so much into the area of mental health I felt intrigued by the idea that there was a museum dedicated to the opposition certain aspects of its advocacy.
 |
| (source) |
The museum is under the organization, Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), and was co-founded by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szaz. The CCHR was formed in 1969 as an organization which investigates human rights violations within the mental health field. CCHR was founded by the Church of Scientology and Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus Dr. Thomas Szasz.
Those who have even a vague understanding of Scientology know that Scientologists do not approve of medication use.
I am familiar with the work of Dr. Thomas Szaz. One of the many things he is known for is this famous quote.
If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.
--Thomas S. Szasz, The Second Sin,
Anchor/Doubleday, Garden City, NY. 1973, Page 113.
Szaz has written books since the 1970s about his distaste for medications and other aspects of mental health and continues to write books till' this day. Some of his most famous books include The Myth of Mental Illness (1960), The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (1970) and Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared (2009).
Szaz has a lot of good points within his theories which I will delve into a bit later.
 |
| (source) |
When you step inside the building you are greeted by staff members who ask you to sign in. Signing in, means that you jot down your name, profession, and how you were referred to the museum. I listed a fake name, I said that I was unemployed, and I said I had discovered the museum online.
To the left of the room is the entrance to the museum. The door looks like a door to a dungeon. The door has been made to appear rusted and decayed. Above the door are the words Psychiatry An Industry of Death. Underneath that heading is the quote, "Through me the way into the suffered city, through me the way to the eternal pain, through me the way that turns among the lost. Before me, nothing but eternal things were made, and I endure eternally. Abandon every hope, ye who enter here."
The quote is from Dante's Inferno, Canto 1.
All of this gives you an idea as to the dramatized presentation of the museum. All of this, before actually stepping foot into the museum.
The museum is a self guided tour. The staff person who lead my friend and I to the entrance door informed us that what we were about to see was graphic in nature. Before we were let in we were asked what we studied in school. I lied about my psychology background and muttered, "sociology."
When entering the museum you find yourself inside a padded room.
 |
| (source) |
The room is meant to resemble padded room within a psychiatric hospital and it does feel somewhat confining. I suppose that's the point. We've all seen films where a straight jacketed person is trapped inside a room just like this one.
Inside the room is a large screen which offers a 7 minute introduction to the supposed horrors of psychiatry.
 | |
| (source) |
After leaving the padded room, another door leads into the exhibit.
A brief tour of the Psychiatry: An Industry of Death museum
The museum offers important aspects of history. I will be the first to admit that a large portion of psychiatric history is brutal. A lot of it down right sickens me. I think it is helpful that the museum revealed many of the terrible practices that existed and the psychiatrists who lead, practiced, advocated for, and made money off of such cruelty.
It is a fact that those who were considered undesirable and those who may have been actually acutely mentally ill, were treated as though they were less than human. They were placed in cages, starved, whipped, experimented on, and cast aside.
I think it is fair to say that many of the psychiatrists probably thought what they were doing was actually helping. The blood letting, the dumping of bodies into cold water, the stress positions, and so much more. There were theories behind each action. We know now that many of these practices were wrong and traumatic.
The museum displays tools used to inflict pain, to keep wounds open, to drain blood. Other harsh contraptions were used to cure "hysteria" in women by squeezing a woman's ovaries. A straight jacket was displayed as well as a body bag which was supposedly used on occasion in lieu of a straight jacket.
Positioned at each specific section of the museum are brief documentaries which speak to the topic presented at each location. Each documentary features a narrator who speaks in a booming and intimidating voice which enhances the dramatics.
The documentaries showed disturbing images of individuals "treated" by producing insulin induced seizures and comas, individuals receiving electroshock therapy, individuals receiving lobotomies and many more horrendous practices.
There is a lot of reading involved at the museum. In addition to displays and documentaries, were wall plaques with information posted onto them.
One section focused on Nazi eugenics and experiments conducted on African slaves. I found this to be one of the most painful section of the museum to witness.
While I find it extremely important to acknowledge and inform museum attendees of the cruel history of psychiatry, I found it disappointing that that was the main focus. It was towards the end of the museum that the present day was addressed.
This section focused on children and adolescents who experience ADHD (attention deficit disorder). When entering this portion of the museum, I was met with a room that resembled a school classroom. I passed through a fake metal detector which was no doubt meant to replicate metal detectors that are now stationed inside most schools. The main reason being an increase in school shootings.
Inside the "classroom" were school chairs with desks attached. Just like the kind you will most likely find in any school. On either side of the room were lockers, some of which were open. The open locker doors had information posted on the inside.
Part of one of the walls inside that room displayed a large sized black and white image of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. If you are not familiar with those names just google "Columbine" and their names will pop up. The museum insists that the active rage within those two young boys was due to the medications they were taking at the time.
This upset me. I am no expert on the Columbine High School shootings but the events left an impact on me as I know others have experienced. If you want a closer look at the events and insight into the minds (based on interviews and the journals of both Klebold and Harris) I highly suggest you read the book Columbine by Dave Cullen. It is the most comprehensive book on the subject I have found thus far.
Even if medications had an impact on the boys, I find it arrogant, that CCHR would insist that their downfall was initiated by meds. The assumption that medications wrongfully affected specific individuals was again presented at the final station within the museum.
As mentioned in my prior post, part of the exhibit featured a memorial of deceased, well known individuals, who supposedly died due to psychotropic medications. Under each picture portrait was a blurb about why medications supposedly contributed to their passing. Included in the display were, Billie Holiday, Earnest Hemingway, Charlie Parker, Judy Garland, Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain and many more. Under each photo portrait was the birth date and death date of each person. I remembered this section of the museum clearly as Steve Nicks was one of the individuals posted on the memorial wall. I found this to be entirely arrogant as Nicks is still very much alive. Nicks' birth date was listed under her portrait and the death date was left blank. It is amazing to me that the museum would insist that Stevie Nicks will one day die due to her intake of medication.
I could kick myself as I had meant to ask museum staff as to why they had displayed her picture and if they truly believe that one day she will die, all because of medications.
After my friend I existed the exhibit I intended to ask questions about the museum. The woman who greeted us was the same woman who had spoken with us a year ago when we made our first trek to the museum.
I don't know what her official title is but it seemed that it was her job to ask museum goers if they had any questions and then to adamantly push and probe the ideas of anti-psychiatry.
I never learned the woman's name but she seemed to remember me. Perhaps this was a lie and a marketing tool but she said that she had indeed remembered me. I asked her a couple of the same questions I had asked the time before. I wanted to compare her answers to see if they had changed any.
1) I asked if CCHR believes that mental illness exists.
I was informed that, yes, they do believe mental illness exists. I was also told that although some do have real problems, some may have changes in mood due to diet, or due to the fact that an unskilled doctor tells a person that they are ill. This is the information I was given at the time of my last visit, one year ago.
2) I asked how a person with Schizophrenia should be assisted and treated if not with medications.
Just like last time, I was told that individuals with schizophrenia should be given proper diet and vitamins. I thought this was ridiculous and offensive but then I had to remind myself that I was in a museum of Scientology.
I asked about "natural tranquilizers" because the last time I visited, I was told that this was another option for the mentally ill. I was informed that there are certain tranquilizers that possess natural chemicals that have the potential to calm patients.
This does not seem like a on going solution. When I brought this up, I was told that the on going remedy was an consumption of vitamins and proper diet. Vitamins and diet vitamins and diet.
The last time I was at the museum I asked the same woman if she knew if straight jackets were used to this day. She said they were, however, my question was a test as I know for a fact they are not.
The last time I was there, I also, asked if the body bag that was displayed in the museum that was supposedly used in lieu of straight jackets were used to this day. The woman said, "um, probably" and then turned to a co-worker and asked him. Her co-worker stated that the body bags are used outside of the United States.
Okay, as promised I said I would talk about Dr. Thomas Szaz. There are some aspects of his philosophies that I agree with any parts that I do not. Let me start off by posting a quote from Szaz' out of print 1973 book, The Second Sin.
"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."
This is a very well descriptive way of saying that when one person says you're crazy, such as a doctor, the label is permanently inked. This may not be the most positive way to look at things. If a doctor has told you that you are mentally ill and you are not in fact mentally ill, you may not want to think of yourself as permanently inked. But the question that Szaz poses here is, who gets to tell us that we are mentally ill? Who defines it for us?
The psychiatric history is riddled with stories such as this. People who were not mentally ill but perhaps gay, Black, Jewish or female. People who were experiencing actual symptoms but were not in throws of full fledged mental illness. And yes, those who were truly mentally ill were sectioned off and were told that because they were different from an unfair standard they needed extreme treatment
Furthermore, who wants to be locked up in a hospital against their will? Understand that being placed in a hospital is not a simple procedure. There is a legal system which consists of trials and testimonies from forensic psychiatrists, law enforcement and family members. All of this including prior psychiatric and medical history is considered. If a person is considered gravely disabled (a person who cannot provide for food, clothing, and shelter due to their mental illness) or a danger to themselves and others due to a mental illness, they will be detained.
I have not encountered a single person in a psychiatric hospital setting that did not need mental health assistance that consisted of medications and therapeutic intervention. Although, I have not worked in every hospital in existence, I can say that the patients I have worked with have all entered hospitals for a reason. They are gravely disabled or a danger to themselves and others.
As a mental health advocate I can tell you that there is a stigma associated with mental illness. It tears me apart. I speak of this issue with co-workers and patients so as to practice and on going dialogue about the unnecessary stigma.
While Szaz and the Church of Scientology present the history of psychiatry, there was little focus on the hospital practices and outpatient practices of today. What was mentioned was the history and the practice of medications. Some of the issues surrounding medications were accurate.
Be it mood medications or anti-psychotics (or medical medications), Big Pharma makes a bundle from distribution. Also, there are indeed doctors who are too quick to prescribe medications. You don't feel well? Take a pill! I get that side of the argument.
But what about those who truly benefit from medications? I wrote this in my past post a year ago and I will say it again. I'd like for CCHR to spend 5 minutes in my hospital and then tell me that medications do not help.
Some patients do a 180 after they've taken medications. Their symptoms are almost completely gone and they can function in the world again and they can do so happily. Yes, happily. Sometimes it's like night and day. I've seen it happen. Anxiety gone, paranoia gone, depression gone, auditory hallucinations (hearing voices) gone.
Not every case has this cheery of an outcome. Some experience side effects and medications must be altered. Psychiatrists monitor patients closely and patients receive medical attention as well as psychiatric attention. Most side effects disappear but some may have to struggle with side effects and decide whether it is worth it to have the side effects or to be sick. It's not a position I'd want to be in and I can understand why it is difficult for so many patients to stay on their meds once they leave the hospital.
Some patients are so sick that the medications just don't touch them. They will be institutionalized for the rest of their lives. Some are so sick that they don't know that they are sick. While oblivion can seem like a good thing, it's really not.
If I had thought of it I would have liked to ask the museum staff what there suggestions are for those who experience delusions. Delusions are hard to fight. Sometimes medications really do help but often medications assist with psychosis and mood but delusions may remain.
If you live in a world that isn't reality based but you insist that it is, there is a problem. My heart goes out to these individuals. Imagine that everyone around you is telling you that what you believe isn't true. Of course you are going to rebel, of course you are going to demand your freedom, of course you would feel distraught. Being told that you're crazy can drive you crazy.
There are aspects of the mental health system that I do not agree with but I am glad that programs for the mentally ill exist. Albeit there aren't nearly enough of them and most individuals only receive quick and easy assistance that really only serve as a bandaid. Much of this has to do with lack of funding.
A big argument of Szaz' is that he wants to do away with psychiatric hospitals. When I was in grad school I learned of facilities such as the Soteria Project which he has praised.
Dr. Oren Mosher M.D. Speaks About the Soteria Projects and Non-Drug Treatments for Schizophrenia
Another big influence on the anti-psychiatry movement was R.D. Laing. If you ever get a chance I recommend that you watch the documentary called Asylum (1972). The film offers a glimpse into the Kingsley Hall project where Laing housed individuals with Schizophrenia and therapists together. The patients had the choice of taking medications or not. It is interesting to watch the individuals interact. They lived in apartments and their illnesses are evident. Whether these individuals could go on living without supervision is a big question. But the Kingsly Hall project allowed supervision and individuals with their illnesses had a choice as to how they wanted to proceed.
Below I have posted Dr. Thomas Szaz' manifesto. You can find this information at Szaz's website here. By all means come to your own conclusions. I disagree with much of what Szaz says but I understand some of the logic. I think he often comes from a place of compassion and that is wonderful. That is what you want in psychiatrist, a professor, a person. I simply believe that some of his methods aren't feasible.
There are interesting sides of both arguments. To reject the medical model or to embrace it. I say I'm somewhere in the middle.
Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto
|
| For more information about CCHR and the Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum click here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment