Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01 Electroconvulsive therapy

tricky issue
Staug73 wrote here:

I have posted the original introduction on the discussion page, as I think that is the one we should start from. I have looked back through the history of the discussion page and I couldn't find any record of Scuro having posted in discussion or having sought concensus before changing the original introduction. Have I missed something? Also, I couldn't find any consensus before Scuro removed the controversy section.

The controversy section is central to understand the dispute. The real problem I see is that most people, including wikipedians, side with shrinks and not with psychiatric survivors, e.g., those who never wanted to be “treated” with ECT but were “treated” against their will despite potential memory loss.

It’s unbelievable that some ECT apologists compare this with chemotherapy. As I stated in Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy, if people cannot see the difference between a genuine disease or illness such as cancer with a behavior unaccepted by society, such as suicide ideation, I give up all intent to communicate with them. What is normal and acceptable in Japan (suicide) is abnormal and unacceptable in the US. And not only that. Society empowers inquisitors (psychiatrists) to define social deviancy as disease and treat it like a disease.

I cannot imagine how Wikipedia with its present rules can handle this tricky issue. My guess is that the so-called “due weight” policy favors inquisitors, not its victims, since psychiatry is the only pseudoscience accepted in the academia and within the law (e.g., the UK’s 1983 Mental Health Law).

The subject is so unfair and tricky that I think this will be my first and last post in this talk page.

—Cesar Tort 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Copy-pasted from my response on ECT talk If your beliefs are against the goals of psychiatric treatment, that's an issue for you to take up with drug or ECT-based psychiatry in general, not on the ECT page. The key point here is that you cannot prove that suicidal ideation is not genuine illness just as I can't prove that it is. It's an assumption either way.--Loodog 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What an [blip] statement!

Sure, Loodog: Hamlet harbored suicidal ideation for a while not because he felt betrayed by his mother and the recurring, tormenting thoughts that his uncle might be involved in the killing. No… A serotonin deficit caused Hamlet to say "To be or not to be…" at the top of his Denmark castle.

As stated above, if some persons cannot see the all too obvious fact that tragedies in real life make us feel bad, I don’t want any sort of interaction whatsoever with them. I must cut and paste here what I have in my user page:

"This is a personal communication from a wikipedian friend who already left Wikipedia:"

I notice you’ve been involved in a lengthy arbitration dispute. I’ve looked at quite a few Wikipedia psychology/psychiatry articles. I notice that editors often accept POV assertions that correspond to a mechanistic view of human nature while contesting social explanations, even though good evidence is cited. I think there’s a bias built-in to the Wikipedia user-base: a large proportion of registered users have a background in science, technology and software engineering. This means that Wikipedia frequently has better coverage of scientific, mathematical and software related issues than ink-on-paper encyclopedias. Those kinds of articles are more likely to be kept up to date with the latest developments. On the other hand, most (but not all) scientists and engineers typically favour mechanistic explanations of human nature. I suggest you read this article.

Then you might save yourself a never ending struggle. I don’t believe this bias is likely to be overcome within Wikipedia. I have a limited amount of time available for contributions and edits, so I will be avoiding psychology/psychiatry related articles like the plague. —Bookish 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

—Cesar Tort 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I believe Bookish's comments that wikipedia is more dominated by the above very... say... reductionist peoples and that they certainly have a bias to want to reduce everything to mechanistic determinism. I have a friend who tries to do it to economic systems, oversimplifying at every step.  I actually have the view that while human nature is very "mechanistic" and determined, I have a seemingly contradictory view that we as humans are incapable of understanding the processes governing us.  Everything might be exact and reducible, but there's no use in trying to treat it that way when we lack the ability to reduce it.


 * On Hamlet: He wouldn't be qualified to be treated for depression in the clinical sense (clinical depression) as it would be seen by psychiatric practice as a regular variation in mood (Depression (mood)), which is the psychiatric community's response to "Are you guys messing with regular neurodiversity?", but obviously irrespective of where that line gets drawn, it's paper-thin. Do we say, "no one should be treated", "only those who voluntarily come for help should be treated (when medically sound)", or "we treat all volunteers plus those who say 'thank you for saving my life' afterward"?  Whichever viewpoint we take, it's unarguable and unprovable.--Loodog 01:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I translated this English article to Spanish. The author was once committed and drugged against his will by his stupid parents just for saying, not seriously, that he might commit suicide. —Cesar Tort 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

back up the truck
Hello mediator..what happened? Help! What happened to the previous discussion and how did CT get in here? I don't remember him being a party. He seems to be flamebaiting to the 9th degree...and I'm not going to read more then the first few lines I have already read of his posts until someone tells me that he is part of this is process and why. There were unresolved issues from the last mediation which will probably come to a head soon. Staug73 hasn't agreed to anything nor has he attempted to work anything out.--scuro 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Scuro: If I chose the talk page, it’s precisely because I am not a direct party here. That’s why I’ve not posted anything in the main page. And since I’ll keep my promise to step away from the ECT talk page, I thought it pertinent to say something here just the day before the ECT page is opened again for you all to edit. You can ignore everything I say in this talk page if you wish :) —Cesar Tort 03:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CT, this is a mediation request and you are disrupting it. Please do not bother it again. We're too close to finalize this to become interrupted by an unknown party. Please... This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion. If you would like to debate with other members, I suggest that you find a good forum and join there. Parties, if you would let's wrap this up on the main page. -- Jacroe 03:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bye right now. —Cesar Tort 08:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)