Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:36, 28 November 2005

There's quite a bit more to E. Fuller Torrey than just what's stated in the article. Torrey promotes increased involuntary drugging and incarceration of the mentally ill. His "brain bank" institute had to settle various lawsuits launched by families of deceased mentally ill patients when it became apparent that Torrey and his staff were removing brains from deceased patients without families' consent. E. Fuller Torrey's brand of psychiatry borders on fascism. Also, lunacy: Torrey is attempting to link schizophrenia to house cats. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

On the contrary to the unsigned paragraph above, 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)

The paragraph is signed now and nothing you have stated contradicts anything I have stated. E. Fuller Torrey promotes forced psychiatry -- he approves of involuntary drugging and electroshock -- even against his own poor sister. He may be the most respected voice in mainstream psychiatry but that is to damn him with faint praise. E. Fuller Torrey was cut loose from NAMI as he was too pro-forced treatment even for the NAMI fascists. Torrey is now with the Treatment Advocacy Center - a sensationalist organization that wants nothing more than mental patients to have their human rights violated. Information on the lawsuits against Torrey regarding his theft of brains is readily available on the internet. Likewise, his research into house cats being a possible cause of schizophrenia. Torrey is a fruitcake, much nuttier than any of his patients. "Surviving Schizophrenia" may have been a godsend for families of the mentally ill but it certainly didn't do much for the mentally ill themselves. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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?

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

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)

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)

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/search/?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)

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)

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)

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.:. 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.:. 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.:. 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 ] 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

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 , 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.:. 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.:. 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.:. 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.:. 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.:. 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." 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.:. 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.:. 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 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)

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 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 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)