Talk:New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] POV
Critics, concerned by what they see as the pharmaceutical industry's insidious front organization manipulations[1] and invidious compromise, under color of authority, of scientific integrity,[2] look askance at the doublespeak irony of the commission's masquerading under the banner of 'freedom', contending the effects of its recommendations will foster coercive chemical control over citizens.
This, the third paragraph of the article, asserts as fact the following POV propositions:
- that the commission is "masquerading under the banner of freedom"; and
- that there is a "doublespeak irony" in the commission "masquerading under the banner of freedom".
It also tries to promote POV with emotionally loaded words, accusing the pharmaceutical industry not just of manipulation but of "insidious manipulations", not just of compromise of scientific integrity but of "invidious compromise, under color of authority, of scientific integrity". Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, there is no justification for the article to be written in this style, not even when the weasel phrasing of "Critics, concerned by what they see as" is employed. Would we allow the plan's defenders to edit the article to comment on "what they see as the paranoid, neo-Luddite ravings of the critics"? Clearly not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Even in the now-revised version, the POV is blatant, still asserting as a fact "the irony of the commission's 'freedom' descriptor". Also see this paragraph:
Opponents of the plan suggest it fosters the use of progressively more stringent and coercive use of chemical interventions, championed by Sally Satel and other pharmaceutical industry backers, rather than basic preventative strategies and alternative medicine modalities. Opponents are gravely concerned about what they see as the skyrocketing use of primitive chemical mind control techniques upon citizens, little different from chemical straitjacketing, which are solely based upon an unproven chemical imbalance theory. Uninformed consent and the incremental evisceration of civil rights, exemplified by legislation allowing outpatient commitment in 42 States now, have contributed to the heightening of their ill will toward the New Freedom Commission.
Once again, this is the insertion of the personal opinion that mainstream mental health treatment consists of "primitive chemical mind control techniques ... little different from chemical straitjacketing", which does not become more acceptable to load an article with just because it is couched with "Opponents are gravely concerned about..." It also contains the factual falsehood that mainstream mental health treatments "are solely based upon an unproven chemical imbalance theory"; while many researchers do in fact believe that a theory of chemical imbalances may explain why anti-depressants work, this phrasing falsely suggests that the use of anti-depressants has nothing to do with any empirical verification that they do work. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- WELL DUH! This is war. My drug was switched by the NFC from generic to Depakote and Medicare has paid 1200 dollars more in 4 months. Federal Medicare hung up on me when I reported this crime. When observed globally, this stupidity breeds terrorism, G.W. "We see the enemy and and he are us." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.210.136 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
- The truth about the commission is difficult to spell out in npov terms, no doubt. However, use of the 'mind control' terminology in the intro is inappropriate when the more neutral 'chemical behavior control' or other alternatives still make the point. Ombudsman 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, let MI represent an undefined term called a "mental illness" while BI stands for an undefined term called a "bodily illness". If for some MI, there exists scientific and repeatable physical evidence of a bodily illness BI which is associated with MI, then I claim that MI cannot be an illness but rather, MI must be merely a symptom of BI. Indeed, symptoms are symptoms and illnesses are illnesses and they cannot be both. Thus, no MI has a corresponding BI. Drugs, shock treatment, lobotomy? QED
The NFC Medicare will gladly pay 4800.00 dollars per year for involuntary Depakote-ER when its generic Valproic acid would cost only 1344.00 dollars. Both cause liver damage, obesity, and pseudo brain wasting thus cutting ones IQ by one half. At the same time, Medicare stopped my Cozar payments (for high blood pressure) costing only 310.80 per year.
I signed into a hospital and my Depakote was completely eliminated, now my mind is clear and I can taste food again after decades.
My correct diagnosis after twenty seven years is now acute carbon monoxide poisoning which is a medical illness as opposed to the 32 types of bipolar disorder and ten other mental "diagnoses" which I have been labeled with, Survivor, www.burningitches.org/psychiatricautopsy/
-
- Despite the alleged POV in the article, I don't think that it is debatable that screening every adult and child for "emotional problems" doesn't encroach on personal freedoms, do you? It definitely does, look at the article on Liberty then look at this article, you cannot state that this bill is libertarian or protects the rights of the individual against society. In fact, it forcefully imposes the psychiatric society's views of mental health upon the peeople. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing -- I don't know, I've never studied pyschiatry, all that I do know is that as that, traditionally, as somebody isn't a physical danger to themselves or society they shouldn't be forced onto these medications. That's just my knowledge, however.--Mofomojo 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has substantially changed since this discussion, and since no discussion in this section has taken place on the talk page for over a year, I'm removing the tag.--Gloriamarie 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
The first paragraph on this article is terrible. It reads like something from a pamphlet endorsing the legislation, and is very poorly written. I mean, for chrissakes, "as part of his commitment to eliminate inequality for Americans with disabilities"? What the hell? Blubb3rr3ng3l 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I was accidentily signed in as my roomate when I wrote bit right above. Cyrano 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- In an attempt to tone down the ethusiastic rhetorical bias, passages from earlier revisions have been restored, minor copy edits have been made, including elimination of the term 'enthusiastically'. Ombudsman 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mind control
While chemical restraints may be a form of mind control, the term is used secondarily by critics, whose main concerns about the objectives of the doublespeak 'New Freedom' initiative revolve primarily around the abuse of the political process to expand markets and profits, regardless of the neurological damage caused. Overuse and abuse of the prescription pad to control behavior is a major concern, but describing it with the term 'mind control' - not exactly common parlance - and inserting the questionable passage is akin to your repeated pejorative use of the conspiracy label. Ombudsman 16:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that saying something is "mind control" is a very strong statement which is very difficult to support. I agree that saying that opponents of a plan call it "mind control" will thus reflect on those opponents. You seem to be arguing from consequences, that what is revealed about certain people's beliefs should be determined by how it will reflect upon them, and not upon whether it is in fact what they believe.
- A veteran of decades of involutary "treatment" with psychtropic drugs must say that it is not "mind control" but rather like walking through many spider webs all at once. However, the side effects are definitely kidney, liver, thyroid, and pancreas control (damage or death).74.71.210.136 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that is the part where I must disagree with you. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy, and shaping articles so that they will present certain parties in the best possible light is advocacy. It is even worse, however, when that selective-presentation-based-on-how-it-reflects is done on an article-by-article basis. Now, when it has been made entirely clear that opponents of the New Freedom Commission do fervently regard it as a form of mind control ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), expressing this view in strong phrasings like "thought crime police and screening for psychotropic eligibility, while low-tech, create palpable fear and foster the practice of chemical behavior control" and "the notion that campaigns to chemically straitjacket citizens on a wholesale basis, or to intimidate via thought police, are not forms of mind control, is itself mind numbing" and "their [sic] is every reason to consider TMAP et al. mind control techniques" and "[New Freedom Commission is] the spearhead of the drug industry's endeavor to assert chemical control over an ever widening swath of the citizenry", to downplay or minimize this fervent belief is clearly not justified -- except from the presumption that whatever might reflect badly on certain parties should be downplayed and minimized for that very reason, a presumption that as we have seen is in fact counter to the principles of Wikipedia.
- Oh, and by the way -- this accusation that you've thrown at me, concerning my "repeated pejorative use of the conspiracy label"? I had no idea that I was overusing that term. In fact, I had no idea that I was using it at all. So as a gesture of good faith, why don't you show me my most recent edits that include the term "conspiracy"? I'd hate to think that you were making an accusation that would reflect badly on me if that accusation did not reflect reality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Let's see, did I use the word "conspiracy" at User talk:Xoloz, as you alleged by editing my post? As it happens, no, a fact that anyone can verify for themselves. Now, you could claim that I was somehow pejorative in stating that you believed that there was a campaign afoot against you to delete "your" articles in revenge for the fol-de-rol that's gone on concerning this article. However, I am somehow puzzled; since this is in fact exactly the accusation that you have made against me in numerous places on Wikipedia, how exactly is it "pejorative" to acknowledge your allegations against me? Let alone, of course, more pejorative than your accusations themselves? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Provoke, provoke, cry foul. Congratulations, you may be technically correct, but the pictures you 'paint' match the depiction. In the future, it would be nice if you would work toward improving content rather than causing angst, inadvertentely or not. The basic problem at hand is that the sentence you wish to insert lacks context and misrepresents the core concerns critics have about the commission. Since you don't seem to take such concerns seriously, it seems odd that you intend to speak on behalf of critics regardless of how little you appreciate their POV. Ombudsman 12:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- The opinions of certain anon(s) who have attacked the content of articles, for whom you have spoken on behalf of, have been reflected upon out of deference to you. It seems unfortunate that their words have been unjustly associated with you. Fortunately for you, it is much easier to delete and/or criticize content than it is to make contributions. Your several VfDs and apparently mischievous insertion of a sentence, apparently designed to cast critics of the prevailing biopsychiatry paradigm in a negative light, began subsequent to the rebuff you suffered when you did not succeed in deleting New Freedom from the mind control article. Repairing the articles which you have chosen to target distracts greatly from attention that could better be spent on enhancing articles. Assuming your good faith and responding to your insights has indeed prompted hasty responses, but since you have chosen to cast a wide net of targeted articles, you shouldn't be too surprised by having the views of those you support being lumped together with your pov. Whether you choose to lay off a bit or not will make a big difference in the quality of articles you wish to collaborate on. Perhaps you will take the course of moderation by concentrating a bit more on contributions to articles? Ombudsman 06:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- As has already been explained, the sentence about which you quibble endlessly is not "designed to cast critics of the prevailing biopsychiatry paradigm in a negative light", it is designed to accurately reflect the views of those critics as they have expressed themselves. It is true that my personal opinion is that the proposed plans of the New Freedom Commission have little relevance to the subject of mind control. However, when it became clear that a plurality of editors there believed there was a connection, and especially when it was clarified for me that critics of the plan not only consider it mind control but consider the notion that it isn't mind control, "itself mind-numbing", it became clear that this was important information which should not be left out of New Freedom Commission's article.
-
- Your stated theories that I am a paid stooge of the drug industry, that I am a dedicated "deletionist", or that every edit I make to any article you have ever heard of is some sort of revenge on you for clarifying how critics of the New Freedom Commission consider it mind control, miss a much simpler theory: namely, that your edits and your articles just aren't very good. And they're not. I'm sure they would be excellent for a different wiki, one that welcomes POV forks and personal essays, but that wiki is not Wikipedia. Would you like to talk about non-"collegial", non-collaborative editing? Very well, let's talk about someone who looked up Thought police and found that it was a redirect to Thoughtcrime, and instead of collaborating with other editors at Thoughtcrime, or even trying to convince other editors that there was a good reason to have Thought police as a separate article, just announced "permitting a redirect for this article is itself reminiscent of Thought crime police tactics" and turned Thought police into a POV fork. Would you like to talk about "mischievous"? Let's talk about someone who, when "his" article on moral compass was deleted per VfD consensus, with the only "redirect" votes specifying Morality or Guilt as the target of the redirect, chose instead to redirect it to ... Moral panic. These are not the signs of an editor well-advised to start hurling stones. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's cut the anger down here "Opponents of the report claim that its objectives are to foster mind control of American citizens"
what??? i mean, can you write that hear, it's quite "crazy sounding"...
[edit] Orwell
Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health rhetoric is exactly what George Orwell called double plus good quackspeaker. See doublespeak. 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering if a link to Brave New World would be appropriate in this article. (not signed in) - Verditer
- Nope. See WP:NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it's certainly appropriate, but not appropriate in a wikipedia sense.
- I wouldn't be surprised if the connection has been made in some published source though. If someone else ties it in with 1984 or whatever there shouldn't be a problem with quoting them and linking it.--Eloil 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SERIOUS POV ISSUES HERE
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health is "Recovery" oriented, it is person-centered and against the inhumane civil rights violations. The 22 members on the commission were anti-conservative, anti-psychiatry, and very pro-human rights. For people with those same views to slander the commission only demonstrates their jealously that they were not on the commission. Might I suggest you read the Commission on Mental Health Report before you criticise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recoverypsychology (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
