Friday, December 31, 2010
Normally, I do so privately. This year, I am doing a portion of it publicly -- on this blog.
For me, the year started off with the Zakh Price case. There are some situations that you just can't leave alone; for me, that was one of them. I won't discuss what my role in the whole matter was, but I did play one. I don't know if I, personally, made a difference... but I don't really care. As of the last I heard from the family (which was late summer or early fall), Zakh was doing quite well... and the situation had been resolved in a favorable fashion. In my honest opinion, that's all that really matters.
In other news, Andy Wakefield lost his medical license that month, and I very much enjoyed the 2010 CARD conference (although it was marred by one highly bigoted pseudo-scientist pretending at a neurology presentation). I was actually at the conference (or, more accurately, in my room at the conference hotel) when I found out about Wakefield, and it was all I could do to avoid waking my neighbors with a whoop of joy.
Then I got back and immediately (i.e. the very next day) went in for a much-needed knee surgery. I was on crutches for more than two months.
I discovered that the James Randi Educational Foundation is physically located not that far from my house... down the street from a psychic and across the street from a chiropractor. I've very much enjoyed their periodic open houses... and Randi himself is quite entertaining (and a breath of fresh air).
On the advocacy front, the Geiers moved into my metaphorical backyard and started peddling the "wonders" of chemical castration to the parents of local autistic children, shielded by a number of highly-influential political figures and using a local radiologist as their local patsy. I've been trying to "deal with" them ever since.
I got into a long and protracted series of misunderstandings that I still can't figure out a way to rectify (and that is still bothering me). Actually, that technically started last year... but it continued (and got a great deal worse) this year.
I resumed the MS Counseling program at Nova Southeastern University... and promptly had my first major issue with a postgraduate professor. It says something when it takes a flat-out written statement of intent to discriminate (in the form of deducting points for autistic literalism) for me to consider something a "major issue". I also got my first postgraduate B... in his class. Had it been any lower, I'd have challenged it; as is, I have the written notice available and thoroughly documented to show anyone who questions me about it.
Honestly, what sort of professor does something like that in writing? Seriously!
In a bit of irony, it was actually a bit worse: I received that written statement literally the week before I was scheduled to speak at Autreat. I'll get back to that in a bit, but the sheer hilarity of the timing has lead to a number of jokes since... especially since the professor was aware of both my diagnosis and my presentation.
I also did a brief internship at a small local school for individuals with severe developmental and intellectual disabilities. The kids there were very interesting (and very different from any population I'd previously worked with). Incidentally, for any parent from here on who tells me that I don't know what kids like theirs are like (to insinuate that their child is more severely disabled than any I've worked with)... yes, I do. Working with that population can be a serious mind-fuck, and I do not shy away from the use of that particular vulgarity in this case.
Then my internship ended (with the end of the academic year) and I started working for a behavior services company in Dade County. I've been doing part-time human resources work for them... which does, at least, help pay my expenses.
And, of course, I gave my first conference presentation: a presentation on pseudoscientific medicine in the field of autism. I've done related blog posts here and here, and I posted the PowerPoint slides to the Autreatinfo Yahoo group. I've also uploaded the slides here, if anyone wants to take a look. (Note that I verbally departed from them at several points. I'd be more than happy to explain in more detail if anyone asks in the comments.)
The presentation was two hours long, involved one hundred and fifty-five PowerPoint slides (of which five were references and suggested further reading), and contained thirty reference citations (not counting duplicates). During the preparation, I read far more than this -- my lit review for the thing involved over two hundred peer-reviewed articles and five books... of which, two were med-school textbooks.
Thinking back to that time, I am astounded that I managed to keep my sanity. I was, for a while, not only recovering from knee surgery (on crutches), but doing that internship, preparing that presentation, continuing my advocacy work, and taking a course load and a half of postgraduate classes. Yes, I took 150% of a semester's postgraduate coursework over the summer... on top of everything else. It was not particularly smart of me, and I really haven't quite fully recovered from all of that. The fact that most of my "recovery" time was spent working part time while taking a full course load (not, fortunately, the extra-full course load I took on over the summer) of classes while working part time certainly didn't help. My active participation in various student organizations and continuation of my advocacy work didn't help, either.
Fall, by contrast, was fairly... routine. There were a couple of crises which I can't really talk about, and work has been rather frustrating for reasons that I also can't talk about here, but I tried to use the time to recover. I failed.
I also grew pretty thoroughly sick of the MS Counseling program for a variety of reasons, most of which focus on the high bullshit content of many of the courses. I will be reviewing my "diversity studies" textbook later, but I've already reviewed my so-called "ethics" text. Of the two, the "ethics" book was the better one.
As the year pulls to a close, though, I'm filled with some degree of renewed optimism. For one thing, I've switched programs as of the upcoming semester (and I sincerely hope that the MS General Psychology program will actually involve considerations of evidence!). For another, my new program is a thesis program... which means actual research as part of my graduation requirements!
I suspect that several of my regular readers will find my thesis of interest... and yes, I do already know exactly what I'm going to be doing for my thesis. I will comment more on it after I've actually started doing it... but I suspect that one reader of this blog will find it very interesting: it falls under the category of behavioral sciences meta-research and was actually inspired by some of her comments.
The change won't delay my graduation too much... but my new classes are ones which I can hopefully actually enjoy. I am very much looking forward to them.
Hopefully I'll be able to catch up on my accumulated e-mails sometime next year. I'm something like three thousand behind...
So, in conclusion... for everyone reading this, happy new year!
Edit: Corrected a really embarrassing typo.
Monday, December 27, 2010
I am not, however, writing this blog entry in order to praise the glories of Sagan. I am discussing the book in order to explain where this blog entry is coming from. Specifically, it's coming from one quote (which is on p. 26 of the paperback edition I'm reading):
We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements -- transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting -- profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Moreover, it isn't just science and technology that this dilemma applies to. A similar (and highly interconnected) mixture exists within medicine -- just as the populace depends on science and yet remains profoundly ignorant of it, the populace depends on medicine and yet remains equally clueless about it. Where this volatile mixture intersects with desperation, the consequences are entirely predictable.
This is especially true to anyone who's truly studied the history of medicine. Unlike the popular perception, the history of medicine is not one of straightforward progress, the history of medicine is one of delusion, stonewalling, and delay; of rampant bias and harmful treatments; and of quackery and pseudoscience. The history of medicine is a graveyard of harmful treatments which doctors once thought helpful. It is a history of failure upon failure... and of the occasional (and rare) gem hidden amongst the countless clods of fecal matter. It is a history of countless "diseases" that turned out to be benign... and countless "benign" phenomena which turned out to be diseases.
For instance, haemorrhoids, nosebleeds, and women's periods were once viewed by the medical establishment as benign forms of natural prophylaxis... and, moreover, the absence of these was viewed as dangerous and needing treatment. (1)
An absence of periods from a woman of child-bearing age was viewed as especially serious, and even dangerous (unless, of course, that woman was pregnant). While I won't deny that amenorrhea can be a sign of a number of problematic underlying issues, I do think that most of us would agree that "treating" it by placing leaches on the cervix is a bad idea... and I emphatically will deny that amenorrhea causes insanity or epilepsy (depression, however, may actually arise, especially if the woman in question is actively trying to have children). Heck -- in recent years, at least two people have actually suggested that deliberately suppressing menstration -- inducing amenorrhoea -- would be a good idea for many women (2).
Then there's our attitude towards "chemicals", the way we constantly fail to understand the meaning of the medical axiom that "the dose makes the poison", the way that the media is constantly trying to divide our foodstuffs into things which cause cancer and things that help prevent it... and even the way that many Americans' critical thinking skills are so incredibly atrophied that they are actually impressed by this lady (3) or by the "coverage" of medical issues provided by the Huffington Post.
We live in a culture of misinformation, where information is often passed on without regards to its veracity. Myths often take on the status of fact; people freely panic over things that later turn out to be false alarms. People believe in all sorts of "New Age" nonsense, and all sorts of woo -- from psychics and astrologers to countless books on the nonexistent continent of Lemuria -- are available freely at many major bookstores. The "Raw Food" movement is picking up steam, major pharmacies are selling homeopathic products, and there are even people who take this guy seriously as an information source (4).
There's very little new about this. Aristotle wrote about logical fallacies in the Organon -- and that was well over two thousand years ago. History reveals countless examples of mass hysterias, moral panics, scaremongering, health fraud, sensationalism, superstitions, and other problems of this nature. The basic thrust towards these tendencies is a consequence of countless aspects of human nature. It should be unsurprising that they show up in the world of autism.
Parents of autistic children aren't that different from anyone else (or, more accurately, any other parents) before they notice signs that their child is autistic... or they get the diagnosis -- whichever comes first. They are not particularly educated, not particularly rich, and very much not particularly skeptical. What they are, especially at first, is particularly desperate.
The fact that the metaphorical vultures are able to exploit this should hardly be surprising. Many, many parallels can be found elsewhere. The consequences may be tragic, but the problems themselves are hardly unexpected.
I just wish I could figure out a better way to deal with them.
(1) No, I'm not joking. They really believed this. It wasn't until relatively recently that this attitude changed. If you want an account of how and why, there are a number of possible sources... but I reccommend Wootton's Bad Medicine.
Incidentally -- doctors' treatments for the "problem" of an adult man's butt not bleeding? Well, since he weren't getting rid of that excess blood the "natural" way, a doctor had to resort to artificial means... or, in other words, bloodletting.
(2) I don't find their arguments particularly convincing, but that's just me.
(3) Yes, she really did say what you think she said.
(4) Yes, I munged that URL. I'm emphatically not raising his Google rank any more than I have to.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Moreover, I literally lack the words to adequately express my revulsion. Sometimes, "Ugh" doesn't cut it.
You see, I'm taking my program's clinical ethics class this semester. Our textbook is Corey, Corey, & Callanan's Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions, eighth edition. In other words, this book.
As the title of this blog entry suggests, I don't like it very much. It's just... incredibly bad. To be honest, "bad" doesn't really cut it here. I mean, the book even says that I'm not human.
No, I'm not joking. The relevant quote is at the bottom of Page 93:
Spirituality is an essential quality of being human, and Allen Weber believes it must be addressed in whatever form is appropriate in counseling [Emphasis added].
An "essential quality" is a defining quality. Something without an essential quality of X isn't X -- and something which has all of the essential qualities of X is X. To say that spirituality is an essential quality of being human is to say that anyone or anything lacking spirituality is not human.
It would be far less offensive if the authors had written that spirituality is an essentially human quality (i.e. that only humans are spiritual), but the context makes it abundantly clear that this is not what they mean: in Corey et al.'s view, apparently, atheists aren't human.
No, I'm not an atheist (at least by the most common definitions), but I share an atheistic lack of spirituality (and, in fact, go a great deal further than many, as an upcoming Symphony of Science video helps illustrate). As such, I'm apparently not human.
I regard this sort of statement as blatantly unethical conduct in the writing of a clinical ethics textbook. How the hell did this get past the editors?
Of course, this is just one line in a 587-page book. If this was just an isolated problem, I wouldn't be nearly so frustrated. Unfortunately, however, it's not. The problems start far earlier... with the book's very definition of ethics.
"Ethics" is defined on Page 14. There are three statements which can be considered defining:
... ethics pertains to the beliefs we hold about what constitutes right
Ethics are moral principles adopted by an individual or group to provide rules
for right conduct.
Ethics represents aspirational goals, or the maximum or ideal standards set by the profession, and they are enforced by professional associations, national certification boards, and government board that regulate professions. Codes of ethics are conceptually broad in nature and generally subject to interpretation by practitioners. Although these minimum and maximum standards may differ, they are not necessarily in conflict.
I've shown these quotes to several actual ethics professors. "What the fuck?" was the most common response.
You see, that's not what ethics is. Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human conduct. Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong, the study of how we should act and how we should treat our fellow human beings.
By contrast, this book defines "ethics" as "following the rules set by your profession". What the Hell?
I could go on and on about the flaws in this book. These include its "discussion" of the issues surrounding proxy consent (it doesn't exist), its discussion of the issues surrounding involuntary committment (which boils down to, "consult with your colleagues and follow the law"), and many, many others. I just wouldn't be able to post this review in a reasonable timeframe if I did.
All of this raises a very important overarching issue, however: this book is being used to educate clinical professionals (who often likely never get much education beyond what's in the book). A substandard clinical ethics textbook promotes substandard and unethical treatment of clients -- meaning that it hurts and even kills people. As such, I have to conclude that both the publication and use of this textbook (qua textbook) is highly unethical.
In conclusion, however, I suppose I should revisit the headline of this post and ask the inevitable question: is this the worst clinical ethics textbook ever?
I don't know. I sincerely hope I am never in a position to test that hypothesis.
Edit: Corrected a couple of typos.
Monday, November 1, 2010
I won't discuss why the whole idea is a bad one. Others have already done so -- far better than I ever could. Instead, I'm going to post an open letter to one of the major participants in this farce.
Dear Mr. Aldrin,
When I was a child, the Apollo missions were a great inspiration to me. They truly stand out among the achievements of mankind as a spectacular triumph of science and a shining example of what man is capable of if we truly try. You, along with the other Apollo astronauts, were my childhood heroes. Your triumphs fanned the flames of my love of science, helping raise it from the bare embers of a childhood interest into a lifelong passion. Your successes comforted me when things seemed hopeless, helping to reassure me that even the seemingly impossible was often within reach.
Today, I am a graduate student in Nova Southeastern University's M.S. Counseling program and working towards board certification as a behavior analyst. My dream is to go into psychological research and to help raise the standards of the discipline to the point where psychology and the other "soft" sciences can be legitimately compared to the "hard" sciences in terms of methodological rigor... and to come, bit by bit, closer to the countless truths I seek. This is not to say, however, that I do not face substantial challenges in reaching my goal.
The worst of these challenges are prejudice and fear. You see, I have a disability. One of my professors flat-out told me (in writing, no less) that having it was unprofessional... in a course where a third of the course grade was participation and professionalism. My clinical ethics textbook states that I am not human. Fear-driven efforts to create a world without people like me in it have already claimed countless lives throughout the world, including at least ten innocent babies in California... this year alone. There's even a clinic within easy driving distance of my house dedicated to chemically castrating people like me.
My disability is most commonly called "autism".
This is why it hurt me so incredibly much to hear that you, one of my childhood heroes, has been raising money for a fear-mongering antivaccine group dedicated to the goals I mention above. I can only hope that you did this out of ignorance; the thought of you having done so knowingly just hurts far too much.
As you may or may not know, the proceeds from Communication Shutout Day go to the program's "global partners". In America (outside Colorado), this means Giant Steps, the Hollyrod Foundation, and the National Autism Association. It's this last which is the most concerning.
The National Autism Association is an anti-vaccine group dedicated to promoting untested, unproven, and often dangerous "treatments" for autism. They praise intravenous chelation (which risks death and brain damage, and, more importantly, involves pumping an irritant into a child's veins for at least two hours at a time). Their 2009 conference, which was held within walking distance of my house, featured a keynote presentation by Andrew Wakefield (whose unethical conduct and Mengele-like "experiments" were largely responsible for major measles outbreaks throughout Europe), a presentation blaming my neurology on MSG in vaccines, and a presentation on why my neurology should be considered a disease (among countless other things). One of their past conferences even involved a keynote from an infamous quack who makes his living chemically castrating autistic children (and who is responsible for the clinic near my home). They recently were involved in a concentrated effort to effect legislation here in Florida which would have effectively banned the flu vaccine. I am perfectly willing to provide references and further information on any of these assertions on request.
Mr. Aldrin, you are old enough to remember many of the diseases which vaccines prevent. For instance, with polio alone... the iron lungs, the countless children who were crippled for life... to groups such as the NAA, bringing back these things is worth it if it means not having people like me or my friends around. You should also remember Jonas Salk and his heroic dedication to the welfare of the children of the world. To groups such as the NAA, Jonas Salk and countless others like him are villains. I find it difficult to express the sheer perversity of this.
I will admit that the NAA has also campaigned against the more "classic" abuse of children with disabilities in the forms of seclusion and restraint. This, however, mainly serves to help legitimatize them and to help them lend support to other, wackier anti-vaccine organizations such as Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, and the National Vaccine Information Center. In a recent conference presentation on the NAA, I referred to them as a "gateway organization" because of their function in such groups' recruitment tactics.
I won't pretend that this is the only thing wrong with Communication Shutout Day. I strongly encourage you to read what Ari Ne'eman of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network has written about the matter ( http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=122 ) and to peruse the various online writings relating to Autistics Speaking Day and the reasons for it.
In the meantime, however, I have to go to bed tonight knowing that one of my childhood heroes has chosen to raise funds for a group whose dedication to creating a world without people like me in it is so strong that they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of countless innocents to create it.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
I'm writing this blog entry about that last one. You see, the school district's defense is apparently going to be something along the lines of the argument that the incident didn't hurt Alex... because autistic children can't understand -- or be hurt by -- "negative social feedback" (or, in other words, someone else doing something nasty to them).
No, I'm not joking.
After going through quite a bit of trouble, I've managed to obtain some of the documents that the district's submitted in their defense. Specifically, I've obtained the "expert testimony" that they commissioned from two doctors: Dr. Sue Antell and Dr. Max Wiznitzer.
These are quotes from public documents available on PACER, albeit not for free. I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get them (although, admittedly, most of these were technical -- I didn't bring a memory card with me when I went to visit my school's law library, the law library's one computer set up for PACER access was an antiquated technical nightmare, and I didn't want to unnecessarily spend money to get the documents from my home system), but they're still technically public domain. As such, I've uploaded them to RapidShare to cut down on the metaphorical red tape. Feel free to host them elsewhere.
I'm not going to comment over-much on them. I'm going to let what they wrote speak for themselves. I will, however, clarify a bit on both.
To start off with, there's this section of Dr. Antell's testimony -- delivered before she ever met or examined Alex (whose full name is Caleb Alex Barton, although he does not respond to "Caleb"):
... Based upon this review, it is my opinion that CAB probably does have Autism, a disorder of language, executive functioning and social relatedness, which profoundly impacts upon how a child perceives and reacts to the language and behavior of other people.Two clarifications: "The events described" were the vote-out incident. The same is true of "the events of 5-21-08".
It is further my opinion that the events described would not be expected to have any long term impact even upon a typical child who might appreciate more of what was going on around him. As they grow up, children experience numerous negative or unpleasant experiences with peers, teachers and parents. Such experiences are part of the normal experience of development. They serve to help a child develop an appreciation for the impact of his behavior on others in his world, and are important in the development of sympathy, empathy, and altruism. This is quite different from the constant and chronic bullying which we unfortunately see somewhat among older children, or the chronic systematic emotional abuse of a child by the adults in his life. In any child with Autism, such experiences are going to be processed quite differently. Depending on the extent of the pragmatic language dysfunction, the lack of social relatedness, and the impairment in the ability to appreciate another's point of view (what psychologists call "Theory of Mind") it is quite likely that many, if not most children with autism would simply have no emotional connection to such events. While they might encode and recall the "script" (i.e. the language used and the actual events), their ability to be emotionally impacted by what is almost entirely a language based experience would be anticipated to be exceedingly limited. This is not to imply that Autistic children cannot experience trauma. Rather it attempts to distinguish between possibly unpleasant events which are the result of linguistic exchanges from more primitive responses which might involve non verbal actions, or verbal communications which would produce feelings of fear or terror which are generated by non cortical brain regions.
Beyond this, we have the opinion of a qualified child psychiatrist that CAB suffered no emotional distress as a result of this incident, and another who described behavior with autism but not PTSD.
Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion to a reasonable degree of neuropsychological probability that CAB has not demonstrated any real evidence of emotional distress as a consequence of the events of 5-21-08. It is further my impression that he does not require any ongoing treatment, and depending on his ability to appreciate what is happening in such therapy, that this poses a risk of creating a trauma where none actually exists.
And then there's Wiznitzer's testimony:
In summary, Caleb Barton is an 8 year old boy with a diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder (Asperger disorder) and behavioral features labeled as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (including compatible rating scales). He has a history of challenging behaviors in kindergarten with no details of his behavioral functioning since that time (except for the report of Dr. Coleman). School records document impairment in social interaction with peers (supported by psychiatric evaluations). Assuming that his diagnoses are accurate, it would be difficult for a child with a significant impairment in socialization (compounded by the social issues associated with ADHD) to fully process and comprehend the impact of negative social feedback from peers (as stated by Dr. LoSardo "on some level he probably didn't get social significance"). Therefore, this type of event would not be expected to result in PTSD.
Dr. Wiznitzer's testimony is nowhere near as bad as Dr. Antell's... but really.
To the St. Lucie County school board, however, I have only one thing to say.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Not too long ago, two reporters of my acquaintance wrote an excellent article for the Miami New Times regarding the Geiers and their political antics. They blogged on the affair (and what it says about the media) on Thursday; the entry is of general interest to the autism-relevant communities.
Almost exactly one week ago, Peter Bell and Geraldine Dawson of Autism Speaks held a pair of "forums" here in South Florida, one in Miami and one in Boca Raton. A recording of the Boca Raton forum is available in two parts here and here. I spent a good part of the week transcribing various parts of these recordings -- trying to get a record of the more notable quotes and timestamps in them. I've finished with Part One (Bell's presentation), but have yet to even start on Part Two (Dawson's presentation and the subsequent Q&A). This is unfortunate, as there's some genuinely good/useful stuff in that part.
Cleaned up somewhat, my transcript (which has various notes, etc.) reads as follows:
10:31 : Their advocacy efforts -- "a way in which we give the autism community a voice."
12:52 : Start of a discussion of his son's "regression".
13:14 : Implicit endorsement of the opioid excess theory (and the GF/CF diet).
14:42 : Start of the "duplo discussion" (sequence RE son's play styles)
15:28 : "... he basically disappeared in front of our eyes."
21:08 : "We're also, ah, as I said, getting ready for the adult years, um, we're actually, we had our first meeting, ah, about, ah, guardianship last week, um, which we'll be going through when he turns eighteen in January..."
25:54 : "And autism today, in some people's estimation, is an epidemic. Um, certainly the increase in the last twenty years, which we, uh, estimate at about six hundred percent, um, has reached epidemic proportions. It is better understood; um, I think most researchers would say that it's not well understood yet. We, uh, have some ideas about what some of the causes might be, um, but, ah, we certainly don't know what probably is behind the vast majority of the cases. Um, it is considered a spectrum disorder, um, I mentioned, ah, before, ah, how there are different types of autisms, um, and uh, certainly we refer to autism these day, these days as autisms, and, uh, that there are multiple types of autism. It is, by and large, considered to be a treatable disorder, ah, this notion of 'recovery' is real. Uh, and I use the quotations over 'recovery' because it's more or less a term that's defined by no longer meeting the criteria of autism after having been previously diagnosed with it, um, and it is believed that anywhere between maybe ten to fifteen percent of cases of autism, um, the child does recover or ultimately lose his their diagnosis."
27:22 : "The earlier you get it, the better the outcomes are going to be."
28:28 : "We're fortunate in that, in the mid-1990s, several national organizations were established, one of which Jackie referenced, was, which was the National Alliance for Autism Research, which had an amazing presence here in South Florida, largely because of Jackie and all the efforts that she did. Ah, another organization that was founded around the same time was Cure Autism Now, which was based out of Los Angeles. And CAN and NAAR, really, between the two of them are largely responsible for having created what is now the research -- autism research -- field, which, ah, probably totals or numbers at least two thousand scientists around the world who have dedicated their careers to autism."
29:07 (Continuing): "Um, the DAN! movement also happened around the same time, um, and sure some of you have, ah, seen DAN! doctors and so forth, and, ah, certainly, uh, this whole attitude of thinking of autism as something that they can actually ameliorate and make better and so forth, um, again, I think also contributed to that whole notion."
30:19 : (Some credit-mongering/AutSpeaks bragging. Not really politically useful, but worth listening to.)
32:58 : "We're also very involved in family services; this was a department that was formed not long after the merger with Autism Speaks, and that's about helping families, ah, live a better life through quality of life for those who are living with autism today." (compare the numbers)
35:15 : "We're very proud of, um, what we're able to do in terms of helping families."
(Discussion of what they do to "help families".)
51:10 : Community grants in Florida. Total $136,435 over three years. Compare Geri Dawson's salary.
51:56 : "Uh, we have funded, uh, four different CARD programs throughout the state, um, as you found listed here."
54:41 : "So let's shift gears and talk a little bit about advocacy and, uh, what we do in government relations, and, as I said before, this is all about giving those that have autism and their families a voice. Ah, I will do a little bragging down here and say that our AutismVotes website, which is AutismVotes.org, did recieve a Webbie award, basically being one of the best healthcare sites, ah, that's available, ah, for political campaigns."
(Lots of credit-seeking.)
56:39 : "And we've also to ha-have more dialogue with the office of disabilities. We do recognize that autism is part of the larger disability community, and so we've started to make some inroads in helping to figure out what place autism has in that, within that spectrum."
1:07:43 : "Believe me, when I go home tonight, and it probably won't be until tomorrow morning when we all wake up, 'cause I get home very late, uh, in the wee hours of the morning, but I'm very cognizant of the fact that when I wake up tomorrow morning and see my seventeen-year-old son, it's going to be hard to think about the progress that we've made, 'cause he still has autism, and his life is very challenging."
(Closing remarks from the 1:07:43 timestamp are well worth listening to.)
1:09:37 : "It is still a public healthcare crisis, or a 9-1-1, so to speak, um, we have to make sure that people recognize that we have, for the most part, an unexplained six-hundred percent increase in the last two decades, and we need to understand why. Um, and there is absolutely a sense of urgency in terms of what we need to accomplish in order to get the answers that we need."
1:10:31 : "I think it's also critically important that people with autism have a voice in this. Um, and even if you're not able to communicate verbally, doesn't mean you're not able to have a voice. Um, I know we, as uh, a-y'know my son is is marginally, ah, communicative, ah, or verbal, um, and y'know it's hard to really get a sense of what is it that he wants out of life and what is his future, but y'know what, we, we go through great, um, ends to try to figure out what it is that he wants, um, and I think that we have to, as a community, stop and listen, and listen to the individuals that have autism, and, and have them be a part of what we're, what kinds of decisions that we're making on their behalf."
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
While disease categories are abstractions based on etiology, mental disorders... well, aren't. That isn't even the ideal anymore.
As I discussed in an earlier post, certain conditions must be met for something to be called a disease:
- It must be an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts.
- It must interrupt or modify the performance of the organism's vital functions.
- It must be typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.
- It must have a distinguishing etiology (which may be simple or complex).
Going to MedLine Plus, for instance, yields the following definition: "a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual—called also mental illness."
In other words, while a disease is an abstraction based on etiology, a mental disorder is an abstraction based on symptoms. While a disease is a process which causes its symptoms, a mental disorder is a label which describes them or a description of them. Classification of mental disorders makes no reference to the why, only to the what. They have no explanatory value whatsoever; to say that a psychiatric diagnosis has any explanatory value whatsoever is to commit nominal fallacy.
Even this, however, isn't really satisfying. What, for instance, does "disorganization" mean? How do you decide whether or not something "impair[s] the normal psychological functioning of the individual"? Heck, just what does "normal psychological functioning" mean?
These questions are important because of the "wiggle room" built into these terms. In the DSM-I and II, for instance, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder -- homosexuals were considered "broken" heterosexuals whose attraction to members of their own sex represented an impairment to their functioning qua members of their gender. Another infamous example of this problem featured a doctor who pathologized the desire of slaves to flee their masters (he considered whipping to be curative).
My abnormal psychology textbook provides a somewhat more clear answer: it defines one as "a psychological dysfunction within an individual that is associated with distress or impairment in functioning and a response that is not typical or culturally expected." (p. 2)
This, in turn, breaks down into four parts. To qualify as a mental disorder, a set of symptoms must:
- Constitute a "psychological dysfunction".
- Be within the individual.
- Be associated with distress and/or impairment in functioning.
- Be associated with (at least one) response that is not typical or culturally expected.
Unfortunately, none of these is quite what it seems. I'll write more on this later, but for now... just keep in mind: a mental disorder is not a disease.
Edit: Corrected an embarassing typo.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Despite the stereotypes, however, he is all of these things. In fact, the entire list of traits works together quite well: his skepticism, for instance, means that he investigates charities before he gives to them and tries to make sure that his donations actually go to the people he's supposed to be helping. He's skeptical about the charities he donates to precisely because he genuinely cares. I cannot say the same for many people who donate to religious charities, who often care more about appearances or ideology than genuinely helping.
The prevalent stereotypes, however, would pidgeonhole him as the exact opposite of who he is: atheists are often seen as prototypical sinners, untrustworthy and criminal. Skeptics are seen as cynics at best (true skeptics are anything but). Homosexuals... let's not even go there.
Many of the people who know me will know precisely who I am talking about. There is even a possibility that the person I wrote about will read this blog entry some day. I am not, however, writing this to flatter him.
I am writing this to illustrate the point that stereotypes are often misleading. Worse, they are often wrong -- that is, they very often don't even have a genuine basis in fact, but rather are based solely on prejudice or incomprehension.
If this is the case, why do we persist in stereotyping? Especially now, as we're becoming increasingly aware of the manifold harms and errors perpetuated by this sort of thing -- why do it?
The sad truth of the matter is that, as best we can figure it out, stereotyping is the result of normal, adaptive cognitive mechanisms being used in ways that just don't make sense. People, in general, categorize other people in ways that just don't make sense... and then use these categories to reach conclusions that make even less sense.
While I sadly know the answer to why we do it (it's tied up into the normally-adaptive cognitive processes most people rely on to function), the fact of the matter is that we should be smarter than this. We can be smarter than this.
Just question yourself -- repeatedly. Be careful of over-generalization. Realize that in-group differences almost always exceed between-group differences. Keep in mind that people are people, regardless of anything else. Understand that you can misunderstand. Question yourself -- it bears repeating. Understand that statistical significance and practical significance are very different. Realize that "groups" of people -- however they're defined -- are almost always "fuzzy" statistical constructs. Watch out for logical fallacies. Don't expect perfection, mind... but always try to be right.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
That changed recently. As I found out this morning, reporters for the editorial and literary magazine The Atlantic (which has a really long and interesting history) managed to track Donald T down and wrote a genuinely fascinating article about him.
Go. Read. Then come back.
The article's nowhere near perfect. It gets some things wrong. It has some bad information.
Still, Donald himself is the main point... and I don't think that needs any further remark. The main takeaway message remains: At the age of 77, Donald Gray Triplett, the first person to ever be diagnosed as autistic, is doing just fine.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Paternalism is an attitude. Murder and genocide are actions. They're completely different things.
To commit paternalistic murder, all you have to do is to kill someone because you believe they're better off dead -- to kill them "for their own good". To commit paternalistic genocide, you simply have to generalize this to a demographic group.
It's a sad commentary on the state of things in the world of disability that we have to seriously worry about this intersection.
Friday, August 27, 2010
I do not want to believe I can fly when I can't. The practical consequences of this are perhaps best described by the term "splat".
I do not want to believe that a cure for cancer works when it doesn't. The practical consequences of this are paid in wasted money and unnecessary side effects. By the same token, however, I don't want to believe that a cure doesn't work when it does. The practical consequences of this are commonly referred to as "dying in horrific agony". Selecting an effective (and helpful) treatment or cure is one of the hardest -- and most important -- parts of medicine.
I do not want reality to conform to my existing beliefs. That idea -- the foolish wishing for what I tend to derisively call "magic god powers" -- may make for a nice fantasy on occasion, but is usually a waste of time. I want my beliefs to conform to reality. I want to believe what is true, not for reality to follow from what I believe.
I do not want others to sit back and say nothing when I express an inaccurate belief. If they do so, I lose the opportunity to correct my beliefs. I fully understand that the price of being right is admitting that you have been wrong. I accept and eagerly pay this price. Metaphorical humble pie may taste awful, but it's very good for you.
I do not want others to hold back in debate. I want to hear the best, most valid arguments that the people I'm debating can put forth -- and I want them to support these arguments as well as they can. I, in turn, will do the same. I will hold my position with the best arguments I can come up with (as the circumstances allow) in hopes of drawing out the best, most thorough counterarguments possible. If I did otherwise, I would deprive myself of evidence and reasoning that could help me develop a better, more informed view of the issue we're debating. If I "win", so be it. If I "lose", so be it. Either way, I'll be using the reasoning and evidence to reevaluate my position... and will very often change it.
Of course, this changing isn't always obvious. I usually reevaluate my position after the debate... and I often play "devil's advocate", offering forth arguments that I don't really believe (but can't easily counter) in order to draw out a precious -- and useful -- counterargument.
I don't want to reach premature final judgment... and my beliefs tend to be more probability estimates regarding the possibility of something being true than actual beliefs that something is true. Truly wanting to be right means being comfortable with the limitations of one's knowledge.
And, in the end, as I reflect on my attitudes and my desire to be right... I can't help but think that the world would be a better place if more people desired to be right, too.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Ten of the quotes more relevant to today's autism issues:
If a person ingests a drug prohibited by legislators and claims that it makes him feel better, that proves that he's an addict.
If he ingests a drug prescribed by psychiatrists and claims that it makes him feel better, that proves that mental illness is a biomedical disease.
When and why do we say that a behavior is caused rather than willed?
We say that chemicals in the brain cause depression and suicide; but we don't say that chemicals in the ovaries or testicles cause lust and marriage.
The child cannot match the adult in most accomplishments. Hence, we reward him for effort as well as achievement. Yet, the child must learn that what counts in life is not effort but achievement. The child over-rewarded for effort may grow up to seek approval for trying instead of for succeeding. This dooms him to failure. If he succeeds, he succeeds only at trying hard. If he fails, he fails miserably.
When a woman finds having a fetus in her body annoying, she can abort it by taking an abortifacient drug or having a surgical abortion.
When a woman finds having a child in her home annoying, she can abort his persona by having a child psychiatrist give him a chemical straitjacket.
Diagnoses are not diseases.
Diagnoses are names, human fabrications.
Diseases are phenomena, facts of nature.
Demonstrable bodily lesion is the gold standard of medical diagnosis. Without practical convertability into gold, the value of paper money rests only on faith. Without conceptual convertability into bodily lesion, the diagnosis of disease rests only on faith.
A patient with cancer says: "If I had refused my surgeon's suggestion that I have my tumor removed, the cancer would have killed me."
A patient with depression says: "If my psychiatrist had let me refuse the electroshock treatment he recommended, I would have killed myself."
The difference between these two sentences sums up the difference between bodily illness and mental illness.
Three principal rules of conduct:
1. The Golden Rule: Do onto others as you want them to do unto you.
2. The Rule of Respect: Do unto others as they want you to do unto them.
3. The Rule of Paternalism: Do unto others as you in your superior wisdom know ought to be done unto them in their own best interests.
Formerly, debasing the Other by calling him a "nigger" was considered politically correct: the speaker was viewed as a protector of the race or nation from those bent on defiling it.
Today, debasing the Other by calling him "sick" is considered politically correct: the speaker is viewed as a protector of the debased person's best mental health interests and of the nation from a danger to the public health.
Replacing the former rhetoric by the latter is considered moral progress.
Today, everyone claims to be working for the patient's best interests. No wonder the patient is in deep trouble.
Note that I selected these quotes based on relevance, not agreement. I don't, as a matter of fact, agree with a lot of Szasz's thinking. This said, he's an incredibly thought-provoking author. In this blog post, I'm not going to take a stance on any of these. Instead, I'm going to give an "assignment" of sorts to each of my readers.
Read these quotes. Think about them. What does each of them mean? What do they imply? Is this statement -- or implication -- accurate? Is Szasz right or wrong? Why?
Then post an explanation here, answering at least one of these questions for at least one of these quotes. Feel free to do so anonymously or pseudonymously. I don't care about that (although I will delete SPAM posts or personal attacks). If you aren't the first to reply to this, also reply to at least one of the previous replies.
My own replies here will be mostly playing "devil's advocate", issuing responses also intended to make people think and facilitating discussion. Unless I state specifically that a position is my own personal belief, please don't think that it is. I will likely issue arguments against your position even if I agree with it.
The point, after all, is to get people thinking about this sort of thing.
In addition to the obvious, this exercise should give you a pretty good idea of why I highly reccommend this book. It has nothing to do with agreement (although I strongly agree with both the contents and sentiments of many of the quotes, this cannot be said about many others). It has everything to do with the way the book makes you think.
Oh, and it's a treasure mine for anyone who wants quotes for articles, the beginnings of book chapters, and the like. Lots of grade-A quotes here... which is the entire point of the book.
Edit: Added a link.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
This sort of thing is a tremendous problem in the autism world.In other words, you want to create the resource-list version of Wheeler's (2003) thought experiment.To quote:Suppose a medical centre were to propose creating a programme in 'unproven and dubious medicine'. In this programme, physicians would learn how to give patients not only conventional treatments, but also treatments not known to be safe and effective. Some of these would have plausible mechanisms of action, but others would make no sense. The treatments would include experimental drugs of unknown purity. There would be research concerning the methods, but in the meantime the methods would be used before the results were known. Patients would have the benefits of both worlds – treatments that work and treatments that probably don't work.A programme with such a title would find little acceptance. But change the name to 'integrative medicine', downplay the lack of evidence, claim that it deals with healing the person and employs new paradigms, and for some reason there is much greater acceptance. (p. 8)You want to list people who make their living chemically castrating autistic children in the middle of people who've dedicated their lives to helping treat actual disease; you want to list people who make their living torturing kids next to people who've spent their lives trying to protect children. You want to list fear-mongering hate propaganda next to legitimate resources on parent education.Err... no. I have no intention of helping with the development of such a "list". There are more than enough of them already.
What would people make of a "resource list" that deliberately put legitimate stockbrokers and investment funds next to known con-artists? Yet, for some reason, people seem to think that lists that do this sort of thing are okay for parents of autistic children.
Some of this comes from the postmodernist belief in constructed reality. If you don't believe in an objective reality -- if people agreeing that something is true is enough to make it true -- then the question of what's actually going on is both meaningless and irrelevant within your paradigm. Despite what postmodernism would say, however, ignoring objective facts and attempting to construct your own reality independent from them is better known as "self-delusion" and acting on this sort of thing tends to produce tragic results. Quite frankly, this sort of attitude is patently absurd.
Despite this, however, many parents somehow view fraudulent resources as equal to real ones, "alternative" medicine as equal to real medicine, and hate propaganda which gives them false hope as superior to truths which offers them real hope (if at the expense of accepting things they don't want to hear).
I don't get it. I really, literally, don't... at least on an emotional level. Intellectually, maybe (at least somewhat), but that's the difference between "knowing" and "understanding".
Unfortunately, postmodernism only accounts for part of the problem. Bigotry, normocentric bias, and countless other factors also contribute. The results, however, speak for themselves. Parents of newly-diagnosed children usually lack the ability to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate resources. They are at their most desperate, their most confused, and their most emotional. They seek a helping hand from anyone who offers it... and rarely notice the metaphorical dagger aimed at their backs. They are prime victims for frauds and con-men.
Many of them get wiser as time passes. Many of them learn the skills they should have been taught from the beginning... but it's easy for irreparable harm to have been done by then. If they're lucky, they'll only have been scammed out of money. If they're less so... the potential dangers are difficult to underestimate. In countless ways and for countless reasons, fake help is worse than no help.
I'd be more than happy to help someone assemble a genuine, reliable resource list. I will not, however, help with this sort of "project".
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Or, alternately, feel free to ask and I'll send them to you.
On the flip side, things have been extraordinarily hectic here. Between an "interesting" (one of my professors has decided that deducting points from my grade for autistic literalism is acceptable behavior), being swamped with schoolwork, and being otherwise preoccupied, I haven't really been able to spare much energy for blogging.
That said, however, I really should have written more. Sorry.
In any case, I just realized that I'd only posted one of the two essays I sent in as supplementary material for my presentation. As such, I'm posting the other:
How does it harm autistics?
Pseudoscientific medicine intended to "cure autism" harms autistics in a wide variety of ways. First and most obviously, the treatments themselves are often harmful. The financial harm to families is often substantial, with many families spending simply absurd amounts of money – some even mortgaging their homes – to pay for "treatments" that can be considered fraudulent at best. Many pseudoscientific treatments require considerable effort to implement while delivering illusory or placebo-equivalent benefit (or even producing harm). Families become emotionally invested in the method, and are often incredibly disappointed when it doesn't work. Sometimes the family avoids this disappointment by seeking out ever deeper and darker depths of woo.
The acceptance of pseudoscientific medicine promotes substandard care due to undertrained practitioners who bypass the relevant licensure requirements. It imposes double-standards on pseudoscientific and scientific practitioners, standards which inevitably favor the pseudoscientists and undermine the constant efforts of scientific practitioners to improve standards of care. It provides false knowledge of how to deal with real problems, and encourages people to ignore, disregard, or remain ignorant of a wide variety of standards of medical and research ethics, and encourages default logic in treatment.
It provides countless confounds to research aimed at helping professionals understand and help autistics and interferes with the conducting of such research, making it harder for genuine scientists to recruit participants.
It encourages the reification of autism, demonizes our neurology, and acts to dehumanize autistics. It promotes a culture of desperation and prevents acceptance of our differences. It legitimatizes the exploitation of us and our neurology by various political groups. It even distracts from real issues and endlessly complicates the discussion on autism.
Perhaps it is more meaningful to ask, "How doesn't pseudoscientific medicine harm autistics?" It would certainly be a far shorter list.
It's worth noting that the list in the presentation itself was longer -- I added several items after I wrote the above. Sometimes "Gyah" doesn't quite cut it.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
So -- what about symptomatology? Again, the same illness can have different symptoms in different people (although this effect is less extreme than in the course). It's interesting to note that the symptoms of a disease often can be considered diseases in and of themselves (but they usually aren't thought of that way). Then there's the matter of complications of a disease... which, again, starts making things get really complex, really fast.
While symptomatology plays a huge role in diagnosis, it's not (usually) how we classify disease. Sure, we talk about symptoms a lot ("He has a fever","His stomach hurts", etc.), and we do occasionally group illnesses this way (e.g. chemical, thermal, and radiation burns -- which are grouped together because of large similarities in symptomatology and minor similarities in etiology)... but we mostly group things together in etiology.
In other words, etiology is the "most important" part of a disease -- what defines a disease and separates it from other diseases. Sure, there are diseases of unknown etiology. Keep this in mind for future discussions. It's important.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Throughout society, people are being constantly bombarded with unprecedented amounts of medical information. Unfortunately, much of this information is distorted or wrong… and most people don't have the ability to separate the good from the bad.
It doesn't help that making sense of medical information requires a good deal of expertise. There are entire disciplines of study within medicine dedicated to doing this, and it is quite possible to go to college and get a master's degree or even a Ph.D. in the study of doing so. Some of the most influential doctors in academic medicine today have done exactly this, granting them degrees in such seemingly esoteric disciplines as medical bioinformatics and biostatistics.
Any discussion on all of the ways that things can go wrong and misinformation can arise would need to be absurdly long – it happens in many and myriad ways, and even listing all of them could easily fill an entire book. This presentation is intended to cover one tiny subset of one tiny aspect of one tiny facet of a broader problem: the issue of autism-related pseudoscientific medicine – medicine and medicinal information within the field of autism which pretends to be based on science but actually isn't.
Medicine is commonly defined as the science or practice of the treatment of disease. While this seems fairly straightforward, it actually isn't – the concept of disease is complex, multifaceted, and often controversial. MedLine Plus provides the following definition:Disease – An impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors.
In other words, a disease is a harmful dysfunction – a "breakdown" of the body, regardless of its source. A traumatic injury is a disease. Heavy-metal poisoning is a disease (or, more accurately, a type of disease). Polio is a disease. Geneticists can't agree on just what a genetic disease is, but some genetic conditions are indisputably diseases.
As such, medicine is the study – or attempt – of keeping the body from breaking down. Medical views of autism must necessarily look at autism as some form of breakdown of the body: views that do not do this are not medical in nature.
Within scientific medicine, the ideal is to provide information and to practice based on critical evaluation of the sum totality of the available scientific knowledge on any given topic. Unfortunately, this is often not possible or practical in a clinical environment for a variety of reasons… but I have tremendous respect for those doctors who put in an earnest effort towards achieving this lofty goal.
Others simply practice the way they were taught to, or as experts recommend. They may parrot their lessons from back when they were in medical school, or simply repeat what various authorities tell them. This usually yields results which technically work – experts often know what they're talking about and medical schools usually teach effective treatments – but new research is always coming out; new developments occur on a regular basis; new findings constantly change the landscape of medicine; and experts, no matter how revered, are never infallible and are sometimes misunderstood. As such, people who practice this way often have information which is out of date, and are at heightened risk of error.
Some people eschew the framework of science entirely and attempt to heal or prevent illness through other means entirely. Ranging from Christian faith healers to psychics to traditional practitioners of Eastern medical systems, their advice has little to do with what we call "science". These systems range from the relatively harmless to the utterly destructive, from the daughter who prays in church in hopes that her mother will recover from illness to the African witch-doctor who tells desperate seekers of help that AIDS can be cured through sexual intercourse with a child.
And, finally, there is the subject of this presentation: those people who do not practice based on science, but simultaneously pretend to. Whether out of financial interest, political ideology, devout cronyism, or simple ignorance, their advice is usually poor, commonly ineffective, frequently bewildering, often harmful, and collectively stands as an ongoing threat to the lives and welfare of countless people throughout the world.
Welcome to the weird and wonky world of pseudoscientific medicine. For the sake of your health and sanity, you're probably better off if you don't move in.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Yes, levodopa -- arguably the world's most infamous anti-antipsychotic. Yes indeed, legal home psychopharmacology has reached a new low. Just when I think the quacks can't get any more outrageous...
For those of you who don't understand my reaction, levodopa, also known as L-dopa, is a particularly infamous anti-Parkinson's drug and the basis of Dr. Oliver Sacks's well-known book, "Awakenings". It is an extremely potent drug with a host of known side effects which include (but are not limited to):
- Gastrointestinal bleeding
- Disorientation and confusion
- Auditory and visual hallucinations
- Drowsiness and narcolepsy
- A condition which strongly resembles stimulant psychosis
- Hair loss
- Emotional effects (it tends to make emotions more "extreme" or "vivid", which wouldn't be such a bad thing if anxiety and libido weren't the aspects most notably/commonly amplified).
- Cardiac arrhythmia
And then there are the effects of chronic use. This is not a safe drug.
And yet people are selling it as a dietary supplement, completely absent any sort of real regulation. Thank you very much, DHSEA.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The following are the questions and my answers -- somewhat cleaned up.
1-How does the theory conceptualize the basic beliefs about people...does the theory see people as "good", "bad", neutral, capable of growth, proactive or reactive to the environment?
Based solely upon extremely low-quality evidence of dubious validity, Freud believed that we were unaware of the majority of our mind's content and essentially at the mercy of forces beyond our direct perception. As such, Freudian psychoanalysis views people as the deterministic result of conflicts between postulated and reified constructs that exist within a non-falsifiable system. To the extent that people are able to grow within this context, it is the result of the client coming to exert control over these constructs and derivative reified "forces".
2-How does the theory describe the function of personality..what is the purpose of our "personality"; what needs does the personality meet..?
In essence, the ego serves to regulate forces/instincts, to manage anxiety, to plan, and to maintain reality focus.
3-How does the theory describe the "structure" of personality -- what IS our personality; what does it consist of?
In essence, Freud believed that the "self" (ego) serves to mediate between a person's "higher" desires (superego) and "lower" desires (id). As such, one's personality is determined by one's ability to balance and control these often-reified constructs and resulting also-reified "forces".
4-How does the theory describe how we develop into a "normal person"?
Freud believed that there was one true course of development (all departures necessarily being harmful) which could be described as going through a series of "psychosexual stages". Specifically, one passes (or should pass) through the oral stage during infancy, the anal stage during early childhood, the phallic stage during preschool, the latency stage during early school-age, and the genital stage during adolescence and onward. The oral stage accounts for the ability to delay gratification and to trust others. The anal stage accounts for independence, the ability to manage and express negative emotions, and acceptance of personal power. The phallic stage accounts for sexuality. The latency stage accounts for socialization and the ability to form relationships. The genital stage, once reached, accounts for all post-adolescent development.
5-How does the theory describe how we develop into "abnormal" people?
If one is derailed from this one true path of healthy development, one develops a number of problems (which may or may not actually be problems). These include (but are not limited to) mistrust and rejection of others, an inability to form intimate relationships, obsession over rules, a lack of appropriate sexuality, and a lack of relationships.
6-How does the theory conceptualize the process of counseling? How does it work, in general?
Freud believes that one developed in therapy by coming to understand and believe in the existence of constructs of questionable validity (except, perhaps, as a metaphor) which describe phenomena which probably can't be appropriately generalized to them, as well as developing control over these phenomena ("achieving insight" or "strengthening the ego", respectively).
7-How does the theory conceptualize the specific techniques of counseling?
Generally speaking, the techniques of psychoanalysis include maintaining a consistent analytic framework and a reliable therapeutic environment, engaging in free association (i.e. having the client talk about whatever (s)he wants without inhibition) in order to allow the therapist to make logical leaps regarding what is within the client's questionably existent unconscious (i.e. interpretations) and to teach the client to accept these conclusions as real, engaging in possibly inaccurate analysis of the content of dreams for meaning which may or may not actually exist in order to teach the client to accept the conclusions of these analyses as accurate, helping the client to overcome any resistance to the acceptance of the therapist's view of who the client is and what the client's problems are, and engaging in possibly-inaccurate analysis of the feelings the client develops towards the therapist during this process (analysis and interpretation of transference).
8-How does the theory conceptualize the roles/responsibilities of the counselor?
Classical psychoanalysis views therapists as "blank screens" for clients to project their feelings for past individuals onto. If the therapist maintains a neutral demeanor and does not engage in self-disclosure, any feelings the client develops toward the therapist are largely assumed to be the client projecting feelings for other people onto the therapist. Additionally, the therapist must listen closely to the client as (s)he free-associates, analyze what is said, and occasionally make interpretations of what (s)he hears, teaching the client to accept the existence of the various constructs created by Freudian theory and to assign causal attribution for feelings and beliefs in a manner consistent with Freudian theory. By aligning the client's view of his self with the therapist's frame of reference and beliefs in Freudian theory, "progress" is achieved.
9-How does the theory conceptualize the roles/responsibilities of the client?
Generally speaking, the responsibilities of the client in a Freudian framework are to cooperate with he therapist as he engages in his responsibilities, to attempt to overcome resistance to his or her acceptance of the therapist's view of who the client is, and to help the therapist develop such a view based on analyses of dubious reliability and validity.
10-What is the utility of the theory...strengths, weaknesses, limitation, applicability?
While our text discusses a number of comparatively minor limitations, these are largely secondary to the lack of empirical validation for large portions of psychoanalytic theory, the non-falsifiable (and thus unscientific) nature of the psychoanalytic framework, the lack of adequate empirical validation of the benefits of therapy (I am unaware of even a single well-controlled RCT which shows a beneficial effect for Freudian psychoanalysis relative to simply having someone to talk to), the focus on teaching the client to accept the analyst's questionable analyses as accurate, the (occasionally realized) potential for severe harm due to this emphasis, and vague criteria for termination of therapy which require therapist/client agreement (and therefore are subject to the various financial disincentives for the termination of a therapist/client relationship).
In terms of strengths, psychoanalysis recognizes the possibility of bias due to a limited set of factors (e.g. countertransference, racial stereotypes) and attempts to teach therapists to counter these. It emphasizes the necessity of a therapist recognizing and accepting who he or she is, recognizes humans as individuals, and emphasizes the importance of understanding the client and the client's problems, and teaches about the importance of a person's history in determining their present. Additionally, it was chronologically the first of the major therapeutic modalities and many of its techniques have contributed to their development.
Also, the couch can be relaxing.
Friday, May 7, 2010
While posting this essay, I found several typographical errors that I somehow managed to miss while proofreading it for submission. I've corrected them and added some HTML links to provide explanation and further reference. This said, my essay is as follows:
This is a pretty difficult question for me to answer, mostly because I believe the question itself is both flawed and loaded. To begin with, our textbook grossly misuses the term "abnormal", equating abnormality with dysfunction and defining the term "abnormal behavior" as synonymous with the concept of a psychological disorder (cf. p. 2). In actuality, however, the term "abnormal" simply means "not normal" and is synonymous with the term "atypical". As such, any behavior which differs from the norm is abnormal… and atypicality is the only criterion with any relevance.
While it is possible to argue that our book uses "abnormal" and its derivatives in a special sense, the use of this term in such a fashion is a gross violation of both medial bioethics and clinical ethics in general. Specifically, it violates both the principles of benevolence and non-maleficence through its effects both on informed persons who accept this equation (i.e. students learning from the book) and the effects of regarding this sort of linguistic equivocation as acceptable on society as a whole.
I certainly do not believe in linguistic determinism, but it is very difficult to deny the existence of a relationship between language and thought. How we think affects the sort of language we use, and there is a good bit of evidence that the sort of language we use effects the way we think (e.g. Tan et al., 2008). The existence of several named logical fallacies related to this (e.g. equivocation, amphiboly, fallacy by semantic shift) tends to support this general idea. Given the state of the knowledge in this arena and the precautionary principle, there is an ethical obligation to avoid this sort of issue.
Moreover, there is the matter of laypersons who hear discussions using this sort of misused terminology. It is unlikely that such persons will be aware of the issues surrounding the constructions used, and we live in an era in which the technical literature is becoming increasingly available to such people (as evidenced by publications such as PLoS and the policies of PubMed Central).
Even if the issue of the false equivalency created by this abuse of the English language is ignored, the criteria laid out in the book are problematic on other grounds. Simply put, they have been used to justify outright bigotry and abusive "treatments" which were only "justified" by this bigotry (e.g. Cartwright, 1851; Lovaas, 1987; O'Malley, 1914; Rekers & Lovaas, 1974; Chapter 14 of our book). The use of our book's criteria as sole and sufficient demarcation for what is and isn't a mental disorder is flawed, highly unethical, and not what is actually done in practice.
Furthermore, the entire construct of "mental illness" is of dubious validity and has been extensively challenged (e.g. Szasz, 2008). Even if we can't demonstrate that mental illness objectively exists, however, there remains one potential justification for the use of the concept: utility.
Simply put, we can justify describing something as a mental illness if we can demonstrate that the concept – and the medical-model approach which goes along with it – is useful. Doing so in a clinical environment, however, would require a demonstration of improved patient outcome, and it is very difficult to conduct a rigorous randomized controlled trial of the use of a concept.
Despite this, it is possible to evaluate the consequences of medicalization via the epidemiological evidence and comparing the prognosis of various syndromes in countries that have widespread access to medical treatment for mental illness and those that do not. It is also possible to do this by comparing outcomes across time-periods in a similar fashion.
Scizophrenia is the most "extreme" of the DSM mental disorders, and it is a major mainstay of psychiatry. As such, it makes intuitive sense to begin by evaluating the utility of the concept of a psychological disorder in reference to schizophrenia. Moreover, there exists a single randomized, controlled trial of psychiatry as a whole in the treatment of schizophrenia: the Soteria Project.
None of these approaches yield evidence in favor of the utility of a medical model approach to schizophrenia: World Health Organization data indicates that schizophrenia has better prognosis in developing countries than in developed countries; the best outcomes to be found for the treatment of schizophrenia here in America can be found in those non-medically treated by Quakers in the 19th century; and the findings of the Soteria Project were very much damning in regards to the effects of psychiatric intervention (see Whitaker, 2002 for review).
Or, in other words, the concept has yet to demonstrate utility in regards to treatment. If and when it does, I'll start to consider medical-model approaches ethically justified.
Cartwright, S. (1851). Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the negro race. New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, 7, 691-715.
Lovaas, O. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
O'Malley, M. (1914). Psychoses in the colored race. American Journal of Insanity, 71, 309-337.
Rekers, G. & Lovaas, O. (1974). Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 173-190.
Szasz, T. (2008). Psychiatry: The Science of Lies. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Tan, L., Chan, A., Kay, P., Khong, P., Yip, L., & Luke, K. (2008). Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 4004-4009.
Whitaker, R. (2002). Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Edit: Corrected one more typo...