Talk:Treatment Advocacy Center/Archive 1

humane?
I changed "timely and humane" to just "psychiatric" treatment as "timely and humane" is both POV and incorrect. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I added "judged" before "likely to become violent" because TAC's presumption that all those with psychiatric labels are more likely to become violent is far from clear. TAC's promotion of such views further stigmatizes those with psychiatric labels. TAC's claim that 1,000 murders are committed every year by the untreated mentally ill is a wild exaggeration and does not stand up to scrutiny The claims of Edward Fuller Torrey and his Treatment Advocacy Center should be viewed with skepticism. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the reference to "serious brain disorder" as there is not yet any proof that psychiatric disorders are brain diseases, in the sense of tissue pathology. I also referred to "increasing legal power" because that is exactly what the TAC promotes. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

24.55.228.56 -- please stop vandalizing
Major changes need to be discussed here, on the discussion page. Please be a responsible wikipedian. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, 24.55.228.56, please discuss major changes here first. Also, please consider getting a wiki account. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 06:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, 24.55.228.56, please consider abiding by wiki-rules. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have have a strong negative view of this organization . ..
If you have have a strong negative view of this organization, please consider contributing to this article in a "Criticism" section. Wording that takes a specific point of view (pro and con) does not belong in the introduction or main body of this article.--Ombudsperson 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But I'm also not going to let the fluff on the TAC website stand in for a description of what this organization is really all about.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to disappoint Francesca (something at which I seem to be adept), I think Ombudsperson is making good NPOV edits here. However critical one may be of the TAC, this should not be a reason for using loaded terminology in the intro. Look at the almost dispassionate way Wikipedia covers known mass murderers (forgive the analogy). If we can NPOV Charles Manson, why can we not NPOV the TAC? JFW | T@lk  20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're right that "loaded terminology" doesn't belong in the intro. However, Ombudsperson should be discussing substantial changes here first and, clearly, he's not. As for Charles Manson, at least he's honest.  He never pretended to be a saint, as does Torrey.  And, frankly, Charles Manson has caused less pain and suffering.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not comparing Ombudsperson to Charles Manson. The article about Charles Manson can be NPOV. I think you should withdraw your comments, as they can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. JFW | T@lk  23:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha. No, silly, I was comparing Torrey to Manson.  Ombudsperson is just an apologist.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I would hope that a lot of the criticisms that users are adding throughout this article (in language and in actual statements) could be backed up with specific citations. Otherwise, they really do not belong in the article. Mike5904 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As the article stands now there is not even mention of the fact that *there are* criticisms of the TAC; surely one can differentiate between providing references for specific assertions and neglecting even to mention the fact that they exist? Historian932 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ombudsperson
Please consider applying the same standard to both sides of an argument. Also, it's wiki-etiquette to discuss major changes first. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! You just made 18 POV edits without discussing them. Please practice what you preach.  By the way, it's wiki-etiquette to avoid editing articles when you have an extreme POV on the subject (e.g. mindfreedom.org), especially when this issue has been discussed with you on numerous occasions.  I will now revert your extreme POV edits.--24.55.228.56 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should I be the only one to follow the rules? I did discuss changes and tried to use edit summaries but my contributions were disregarded. I've asked and asked you here to discuss changes. Being a member of MindFreedom doesn't exclude me as an editor. We aren't ANTI psychiatry. We're ANTI forced treatment. I'm going to ask for page protection on this one if you keep it up. Please consider getting a wiki-account. You lack credibility with an IP address for a handle. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are part of an extremist group on psychiatry issues, you shouldn't be making edits to a psychiatry article. I welcome a 3rd party's involvement here. I will now again revert your extreme POV edits.  Have a great day! --24.55.228.56 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there is any question here that you have a very negative opinion of the TAC. This is fine, but many of your edits show this quite clearly, and without direct citations these edits appear to be baseless allegations. Even if these claims are true (which I am not of the authority to say), the language of your edits is very evidently intended to put the organization in as negative a light as possible. This is not appropriate in promoting the neutral point of view so heralded here. Please find some sources to back your claims up, and discuss the article with its major contributors before editing so substantially, as there is obviously a dispute. Thank you. -Mike5904 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, learn to read!!! We're not "extremist." We're not "anti-psychiatry." Get a wiki-account or go away. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're clearly pro forced treatment. So, by the above standard, you shouldn't be editing either. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One more personal attack and you risk being banned. JFW | T@lk  14:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * JFW I agree with Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC - you are not NPOV at all. That was not a personal attack at all but now you are using your status as Admin to threaten people. How does one report you? --207.207.28.109 04:45, 05 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
I have tagged the article with an NPOV warning because of the back-and-forth reverts between multiple editors. I am not an expert on this subject, nor do I have a strong opinion on it, but I am interested in keeping with a neutral language and content.

User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's edits appear to very strongly reflect a personal opinion. In addition, many of her claims are not currently supported by external source. I would like for her to find legitimate materials backing up these claims, and if none are found, the claims should most likely be removed. The language reflecting a specific opinion on certain people, organizations or viewpoints should (in my opinion) be removed as well. -Mike5904 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

MY SOURCES ARE NOT ALLOWED. MINDFREEDOM SUPPORTS HUMAN RIGHTS IN PSYCHIATRY. THEREFORE THEY MUST BE "EXTREMIST" AND "ANTI-PSYCHIATRY."

Protected
Please work out your differences or use dispute resolution. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FRANCESCA'S COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.

Let's Review User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's recent edits
Here are a few examples of User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's extreme unreferenced POV that she continues to insert in this article:

MY REFERENCES WEREN'T ALLOWED. NOW I'M CRITICIZED FOR OMITTING THOSE VERY SAME REFERENCES. DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THIS DEBATE ANYMORE.

1. She changes the term "people with mental illness" to "people with psychiatric labels," which suggests that serious mental illness doesn't exist and is merely a label created by psychiatry.

THEY ARE MERELY LABELS. MENTAL ILLNESS IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM, ABOUT AS DESCRIPTIVE AS DERMATITIS.

2. She refers to Dr. E. Fuller Torrey (who the Washington Post calls "the most famous psychiatrist in America") as "intellectually and morally bankrupt."

FAMOUS, YES. INFAMOUS, YES. A BIGOT AND A LIAR, YES.

3. She refers to TAC's statistics as "falsified and alarmist."

WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE.

4. She refers to the medical condition of anasognosia as "medical fiction."

THERE IS NO TEST FOR THIS ALLEGED DISORDER. THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY "LACK OF INSIGHT" WHICH MEANS NOT AGREEING WITH YOUR DOCTOR.
 * Actually, anosognosia is a well described phenomenon in medicine related to cortical strokes in the non-dominant hemisphere. Patients with this type of stroke often exhibit hemiparalysis or hemiparesis of which they are not aware. For example, a person may be paralyzed on the left side, and will raise only the right hand when asked to raise both hands. Anosognosia is when the patient does not realize the paralysis is there. They will answer that they are raising both hands. Some psychiatrists have objected to using this term in psychiatry as there are fewer objective signs that the disorder is actually present. --DocJohnny 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, DocJohnny. I was actually referring to the psychiatric version of anosognosia which isn't an illness at all but is merely a way to further stigmatize a mental patient. I don't doubt what you describe above. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting article referring to Dr. Torrey and Dr. Szaz and anosognosia. --DocJohnny 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. I had already read Szasz's article on Torrey. I just scanned this just now quickly. Where does Torrey get off saying schizophrenia has been "proved" to be a brain disease? There is no such evidence, never mind proof. Torrey's a quack. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Although psychiatric drugs have helped millions, User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC writes that "Psychiatric drugs are very dangerous and disabling (neuroleptics were used as a torture device in the former Soviet Union) and many reasonable patients refuse to take them."

ALCOHOL HAS ALSO "HELPED" MILLIONS. AND MANY OF THESE DRUGS ARE INDEED DANGEROUS AND DISABLING. HEARD OF TARDIVE DYSKINESIA? I LIVE IN FEAR OF GETTING THIS DISEASE.
 * Tardive dyskinesia is pretty awful, and permanent. That is why I would much rather have ECT than take antipsychotics.--DocJohnny 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But electroshock is primarily used for mood disorders. It's not often a patient is given a choice between antipsychotics and electroshock. The choice, if there was one, would more likely be between antidepressants and electroshock. And, of course, many of us never got to choose at all. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In my albeit indirect and limited experience, patients that get ECT are almost always already on both antidepressants and antipsychotics, most often being diagnosed with "depression with psychotic features" or "schizoaffective disorder". --DocJohnny 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why are you talking above about what your choice would be? Once you've get one label, the second often comes quickly. Ditto the prescriptions. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am trying to say that in my opinion ECT is underused and is safer than a lot of the medication choices, especially antipsychotics. --DocJohnny 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that drugs can be more dangerous than electroshock. However, I don't believe the answer is to increase electroshock. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

These are just a few examples. User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC has been trying to insert her unreferenced extreme anti-psychiatry POV into articles related to psychiatry for many months now. I believe she has been warned enough times about her POV pushing. Is there anything that can be done to restrict her from editing articles related to psychiatry?--24.55.228.56 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * THE ENTIRE TALK PAGE WAS DELETED AS I DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH WIKIPEDIA ANYMORE.


 * I suggest a request for arbitration using those examples requesting Probation with respect to articles concerning psychiatry. I will support the request but would be required to recuse. A hint, keep your request simple and to the point. Fred Bauder 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 24.55.228.56, I am fully aware of this problem and have attempted numerous times to explain essential Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There is little change in this pattern, which disappoints me a bit. I would recommend you get a username - this will gain you credibility which is not normally extended to people editing under their IP (don't ask me why).
 * There is a guideline called resolving disputes. The first step is to politely explain policy. If that fails, requests for comments may help, but this is not strongly mediated and some cases drag on forever without resolution. Restriction of editing privileges is only done by the arbitration committee and only after all steps of dispute resolution have failed.
 * Again I encourage Francesca to avoid loaded terminology and to use only reliable/representative sources to source critical statements. Personal opinion, however, falls under original research. Considering Francesca claims to represent MindFreedom BC, it must be relatively easy to access critical pamphlets/editorials from the documentation of that organisation. JFW | T@lk  14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

JFW, I'm surprised at you. The above is very unfair. 24.55 doesn't deserve such consideration. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Intellectually and morally bankrupt" does seem a bit extreme when describing someone, particularly in the first paragraph! Andrew73 14:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CONTEXT, ANDREW73, CONTEXT. WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FLAME WAR.

NPOV wording
Let me propose the following wording for the intro:
 * The Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) is a United States nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting laws allowing 6 month intensive and court-ordered outpatient involuntary treatment for individuals diagnosed with severe mental illness. TAC advocates "elimination of legal and clinical barriers to timely and humane treatment for Americans diagnosed with severe psychiatric disorders who are likely to become violent if they refuse care." Founded in 1998 by schizophrenia researcher E. Fuller Torrey, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,  and other family members of people with mental illness and people with mental illness, TAC seeks to expedite  treatment for people with mental illness who have a past history of violence associated with going off medicines. Their work is strongly opposed by Scientology and other members of the antipsychiatry movement, who contend mental illness does not exist and/or involuntary treatment is unethica.

How is that? The statistics probably don't belong in the intro anyway. Perhaps Francesca or someone else can help with the last sentence to better reflect their views. It remains factual without using euphemisms like "assisted treatment". DocJohnny 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If we have to believe Francesca, the TAC's stance is opposed even by those not aligned with antipsychiatry and even by those who do agree that mental illness exists. Can we not say that "Critics contend that involuntary treatment is unethical and/or is in violation of civil rights"? JFW | T@lk  18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --DocJohnny 22:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's good up until "by the antipsychiatry movement, who contend involuntary treatment is unethical and mental illness does not exist." Many people who aren't "antipsychiatry" are opposed to involuntary treatment.  And many people (such as myself) acknowledge mental illness and still oppose involuntary treatment.  "Antipsychiatry" can mean a lot of different things.  I think it would be more helpful to refer to mental patients' advocates or some such.  I don't consider most of the Mad Movement to be "antipsychiatry."  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I invite you to change it to something more appropriate. Welcome back.--DocJohnny 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the following for the last sentence of the paragraph: "Their work is strongly opposed by psychiatric survivors and advocates who contend involuntary treatment is unethical, inhumane and constitutes a severe human rights violation." Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another problem is here: "TAC seeks to expedite treatment for people with mental illness who have a past history of violence associated with going off medicines. Their work is strongly opposed by Scientology and other members of the antipsychiatry movement, who contend mental illness does not exist and/or involuntary treatment is unethical."  First, it doesn't take a history of violence to be captured under an outpatient commitment scheme (I certainly don't have one).  Second, violence being "associated" with "going off medicines" is a slippery concept as some psychotropics actually increase episodes of violence.  Lastly, Scientology doesn't deserve front and centre billing as they aren't representative of the much larger movement against psychiatry.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...
...I'd wondered why E. Fuller Torrey had been so quiet lately. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WHY I DETEST TORREY
In the wiki-article, Torrey is quoted as saying "Until we find the causes and definitive treatments for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, we have an obligation to those who are suffering to try to improve their lives."

Let's have it now in English: Until we know what we are doing, let's just mess with people however and whenever we feel like it. If those ungrateful mental patients don't appreciate us, let's force them. Let's accuse them of "lack of insight" and try to pass THAT off as a psychiatric disorder. Let's pass laws throughout the land that the Nazis would have been proud of. What a pig this man is. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the symptomatic treatment is at least partially effective it can prevent a lot of suffering. Nobody is suggesting we should "mess with people". When I admit an 80-year old with cough and fever I don't wait for the "definitive cause" (e.g. a positive sputum culture) to treat him with antibiotics. JFW | T@lk  16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

But at what cost? Psychiatric treatment overall causes more suffering than it prevents. Yes, indeed, Torrey advocates "messing with people." It's one thing to help a person find relief. It's another to try to reframe their mind to conform with society's standards. Once treatment is involuntary, it ceases to be treatment at all. Your hypothetical patient above wants treatment. Can't you see the difference here? In the short-term, drugs can sometimes help, no question, and they should be available with informed consent. But, in the long-term, they lead to chronic psychiatric disability. Involuntary treatment is a legal and ethical issue, not a medical one. "Cough and fever" are relatively simple symptoms and it's absurd to try to compare physical health treatment with mental health treatment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Psychiatric treatment is for the benefit of those around the person with mental illness, typically, their families. So much easier to drug people into submission rather than helping them deal with their problems.  Symptomatic treatment is all well and good when the symptoms arise from disease.  However, there is no evidence for any disease aspect to mental illness.  Psychiatric symptomatic treatment is all about making people conform.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, psychiatric treatment is actually to enable troubled people to function better and to cope as human beings. Why should I not compare physical health treatments with mental health treatments? And sometimes the patient lacks the ability to understand why he/she is in a state that can cause great harm to him/herself and surroundings. Some people who have been through an acute psychosis subsequently develop post-traumatic stress disorder, being traumatised by the experience of intrusive hallucinations! I see relatively little philosophical difference between a stroke patient who cannot talk and may actually prefer to develop aspiration pneumonia rather than be fed nasogastrically. JFW | T@lk  17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Functioning better and coping" isn't a process that is nurtured by forcibly drugging people. You shouldn't compare physical and mental health treatments because the former relies on science.  With psychiatry, the chemical imbalance theory is just assumed to be correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (such as people doing better without treatment).  Despite how little we know about mental illness, psychiatrists feel confident torturing their patients.  And I mean torture.  I've had things done to me on psychiatric wards that society wouldn't tolerate for serial killers.   Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is one of capacity. And in medicine this issue does arise as well. Doctors do have to make decisions when the patient is incapable of making their own. But in medicine that lack of capacity is usually more clear cut. Also, in medicine, patients are often allowed to refuse life saving treatments. In the US at least, it is very unlikely that even an aphasic stroke patient be subjected to involuntary treatments such as nasogastric feedings if the patient is able to communicate his wishes. The right of adult patients with capacity to refuse treatments is well established in the US. The problem is capacity. I think that the antipsychiatry movement has some legitimate points, especially about some of the circular logic involved in our assumptions of mental illness. I also think that their beliefs about mental illness are broadsweeping and inaccurate. --DocJohnny 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, psychiatric treatment is the only form of medicine that can be forced upon willing patients. Strangely, it's the least scientific branch of medicine that has the backing of legal power behind it. Only society's fear of the mentally ill allows this to happen, a fear which is exploited by the likes of E. Fuller Torrey. I'm not sure what beliefs you're referring to that are broadsweeping and inaccurate. If you're referring to those who dispute the very existence of mental illness, then I agree with you. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to unprotect the page
Please unprotect the page. The page has been frozen in a one-sided POV state for 10 days.--24.55.228.56 17:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected
I have unprotected the page, ten days should be long enough. Please do not resort to edit-warring, but try to reach a consensus through negotiation on the talk page. Izehar 18:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
In respect to NPOV policy, majority and minority opinions can both be asserted, but must be clearly labeled as such. Anti-psychiatry opinions are minority opinions. I don't think it is appropriate to turn the article into a antipsychiatry soapbox. While I think the text itself should use neutral terms such as "involuntary treatment" and avoid euphemistic terms such as "assisted treatment" or POV terms such as "forced drugging", those terms may be individually appropriate in context. Specifically, a TAC spokesperson referring to the subject will use "assisted treatment" and an critic will use "forced drugging". Those are both appropriate. Peppering the entire text with disclaimers will not make things clearer. --DocJohnny 06:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Anti-psychiatry opinions are minority opinions." is an opinion. So "forced drugging" is a POV even though they really do actually use force to stick you with a needle. but "assisted treatment" is just "euphemistic"? So how are you NPOV? It seems like you are POV in TAC's favor. 207.207.28.154 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

category - political action
Hi, DocJohnny. You "re"-inserted a different (and very appropriate) category. The original category removed was re disabled rights or some such and, as I noted, such a category would certainly not apply to TAC. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)