LACK OF RESULTS IN PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH IN WASHINGTON STATE

Author: CCHR Moderator

  • Informed Conset – Inform Yourself on Psychiatric Drugs

    Courts have determined that informed consent for people who receive prescriptions for psychotropic (mood-altering) drugs must include the doctor providing “information about…possible side effects and benefits, ways to treat side effects, and risks of other conditions…” as well as, “information about alternative treatments.” Yet very often, psychiatrists ignore these requirements.

    If you are taking these drugs, do not stop taking them based on what you read here. You could suffer serious withdrawal symptoms.

    You should seek the advice and help of a competent medical doctor or practitioner before trying to come off any psychiatric drug. This is very important. Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) does not offer medical advice or referrals but provides the information in this publication as a public service in the interest of informed consent.

    Cut through the marketing hype and misinformation and understand for yourself what these drugs are so you can make informed decisions.

    Follow these links below to the booklets (downloadable in.pdf) which provide an easy-to-read reference and include the common side effects of psychotropic drugs, as well as available treatment alternatives.

    •Antidepressants

    •Antianxiety Drugs

    •Antipsychotics

    •Mood Stabilizers

    •Psychostimulants

    •Psychiatric Drugs Create Violence and Suicide

  • Constitutional Attorney Supports Mental Health Watchdog’s Call forElectroshock Ban — CCHR International

    CCHR wants electroconvulsive therapy training colleges and practitioners stopped from causing further damage By CCHR International The Mental Health Industry Watchdog August 15, 2018 Ramping up its campaign to get the use of electroshock (electroconvulsive or ECT) treatment prohibited as a “mental health treatment,” Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) International released a new video of constitutional attorney Jonathon…

    via Constitutional Attorney Supports Mental Health Watchdog’s Call forElectroshock Ban — CCHR International

  • WASHINGTON STATE MENTAL HEALTH – CREATING DISABILITY

    Less than 1% Recover in King County mental health

    King County Mental Health is mandated to analyze treatment and recovery outcomes on an annual basis. The 2001 “wellness” report is a damning indictment of the failure of psychiatric treatment generally. Patient benefit was measured, in part, in terms of being less dependent upon the mental health system, progress toward recovery, improved self ‐esteem and enhanced quality of life.” Recovered meant “is engaged in volunteer work, or pursuing educational or vocational activities, or employed full or part ‐time, or engaged in other culturally appropriate activities, and lives in independent or supported housing.”

    Of 9,302 patients serviced, less than 1% recovered, only 25% were less dependent and 75% remained dependent.

    However, in the “recovery category,” when determined how many patients “progressed, regressed, or remained unchanged,” less than 1% progressed. 1

    Psychiatrists do not have any scientific or medical test to diagnose a person’s condition and rely upon faulty observation and opinion of behavior. They admit to not knowing the cause of a single mental disorder or how to cure them. The error in their opinions is enormous—they condemn the innocent, release the dangerous, induce violence in others through drugs and commit people who are not in need of help or turn those away who may genuinely be in need of it.

    1 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES, Mental Health, Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services Division King County Ordinance # 13974, Second Annual Report: Recovery Model, 2001, pp. 3-5.

    For more information – Lack of Recovery – King County, WSIPP

  • PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS CAUSE VIOLENCE

    By their own admission psychiatrists cannot predict dangerousness

    Psychiatrists often release violent patients from facilities, claiming that they are not a threat to others, or grant them privileges that lessen security procedures in place for them.

    According to the American Psychiatric Association’s own Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the manual is “not sufficient to establish the existence for legal purposes of a ‘mental disorder,’ ‘mental disability,’ ‘mental disease,’ or ‘mental defect,’” in relation to competency, criminal responsibility or disability.1

    The victims bear the brunt of this pseudoscience.  As Dan Rather, pointed out in 48 Hours, “Victims and their families may tell you the insanity defense is strictly a cop‐out, a legal loophole that lets killers off the hook.”8

    Predicting and Understanding Criminal Behavior—“Like flipping pennies” In 1979, an American Psychiatric Association’s task force admitted in its Brief Amicus Curiae to the U.S. Supreme Court that psychiatrists could not predict dangerousness.  It informed the court that “‘dangerousness’ is neither a psychiatric nor a medical diagnosis, but involves issues of legal judgment and definition, as well as issues of social policy.  Psychiatric expertise in the prediction of ‘dangerousness’ is not established and clinicians should avoid ‘conclusory judgments in this regard.’”9

    ƒ In response, the Supreme Court rendered the opinion that “the professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability, and that psychiatric testimony and expertise are irrelevant to such predictions.  In view of these findings, psychiatric testimony on the issue of future criminal behavior only distorts the fact‐finding process.” 10

    In a 1976 article in the Rutgers Law Review, authors Henry Steadman and Joseph Cocozza had also concluded, “There is no empirical evidence to support the position that psychiatrists have any special expertise in accurately predicting dangerousness.”11

    With 20 more years of research to draw from, Terrence Campbell wrote in a 1994 article in the Michigan Bar Journal, “The accuracy with which clinical judgment predicts future events is often little better than random chance.  The accumulated research literature indicates that errors in predicting dangerousness range from 54% to 94%, averaging about 85%.”12

    You can continue to read this here:

    Click to access Psychs_Cannot_Predict_or_Cure_Violence.pdf