Because of the stance on assisted suicide I must fight for what’s wrong. No one should be born disabled because of the risk that their suffering is unlimited. 

I’m not an expert on genetics but from what little I understand there’s no scientific definition of what is genetically a human being and what’s not.

This is not some abstract point because of the advances in genetic screening technology and embryo implantation. It’s not only possible but this technology is being used by those who can afford it to create ‘perfect’ beings.

Those who can access this technology can screen for a wide variety of things from illness to gender. The critical point is that it is being used to select gender but it’s also being used for normalisation. In particular this normalisation is preventing the set of diversity which is described as disability from existing. 

The pervasive use of this technology to create designer babies is one of the great ethical questions of this generation. I have struggled with it and failed until now to come up with what I feel is certainty. This is discussed in the Don’t Exterminate Us tag on this blog.

Let me put it simply. I believe that disabled people are part of natural diversity and should exist. In utopia and in heaven those who are classed as disabled will exist. The principle I’m talking about here is the principle of integrity of disability. 

However my uncertainty spawns from the fact that those who are different are likely to suffer much more and to become suicidal. I’m well aware of the punishment done to those who are too different by human civilisation and I wish I was never born. 

I’ve pretty much left this thought process stuck at this dilemma. I’ve focused on saving myself so I’ve been fighting for my death. The responses I’ve had have made me certain that it’s much better to never be born if you’re too different than live amongst the monsters who call themselves the human race. 

The reason? They believe in unlimited suffering. They do not believe in the right to die. Therefore the disabled are not safe. 


A plea for humanity. A plea for my death.

 Let me write something to you and anyone else who wants to read it.

I have wanted to die for a very long time. I’ve tried to kill myself but ice failed and that’s why I need help to die. I am not deciding to die on a whim.

My cowardice and failure to kill myself has cost me so much in terms of terrible unbearable pain. My decision to die is an attempt to control what I suffer and end what I can’t endure. You must recognise that what I’m trying to escape is extremely severe not just in the sense of what I can’t endure but also in the severity of the blatant cruelty I cannot stand.

I have chosen to end my suffering and end the cruelty I cannot bear. I am willing to die to achieve this because it’s worth it. I know that you’d want this for yourself if you have suffered like I suffer. 

I have been forced to be alone to protect myself from more cruelty but this heavy price doesn’t stop the cruelty. If you were as alone as I am I think you’d want to die but I am not complaining about it. I spent so much time alone. Birthdays. Christmas. New Years Eve. For a few years and more. I try to minimise any contact with the human race as much as I can.

But I can’t stop the cruelty and I can’t stop being hurt again and again and again. I have suffered too much and this was true a very long time ago but the cruelty of the human race has no limit. Making me want to die wasn’t enough. They have to keep on making me want to die.

Can you imagine what this feels like? I have already suffered too much. I have already been a victim of too much cruelty. That’s why I choose to die. It’s why I’ve wished I was dead on almost every single day in the last decade and beyond. Imagine how terrible that feels? 

But the cruelty of the human race is unlimited. The criminalisation of assisted suicide is part of this cruelty and I admit I hate the human race for all their cruelty. This hatred is yet another reason to die because I cannot live with this hatred or the subjects of my hatred. 

The cruelty innate to the human race is unlimited and they don’t have a shred of mercy. The continued criminalisation of assisted suicide is part of this mercilessness. The government has made a decision which forces me to suffer more than I can endure. But I believe that forcing me to live and endure what I would gladly die to no longer endure has more in common with real crimes than assisted suicide does.

I am choosing to end my pain. I am choosing to cease the cruelty the human race do to me. I have made this decision on thousands of days. 

There is no other way to achieve my objective except suicide. I have had treatment and currently take medication. This hasn’t changed the fact that I need to die.

 I have worked and been suicidal. I have fallen in love and been suicidal. I have laughed and made people laugh while I’ve been suicidal. If you’d met me when I worked at Mind you would have seen someone who is full of life but all the while I wanted to die. I have done what I can to make a difference while being suicidal but even doing this didn’t change the fact that I need to die.

Unfortunately there are people who make decisions about me and my life who can’t be trusted to do what’s right. This covers a wide gamut of people who influence my life and suicidal feelings but I’m speaking here about the government who refuse to legalise assisted suicide. 

The decision to die is a deeply personal decision and while I believe there should be a modicum of protection against regrettable decisions the overwhelming onus must be mercy. It is also absolutely clear to me that the true crimes are what have happened to me after I’ve been forced to live, not assisted suicide. 

I did not choose to experience more cruelty and suffering. I chose to end it but the people who control my life would rather see me suffer and thus do even more cruelty to me. Can you imagine what it feels like to know that so many people want you to suffer? I should be frightened but all I have is rage.

If that wasn’t enough, I’ve come to realise that the human race are evil. I should be weeping and wailing with the words, “how can you do this to me!”, but I know it’s done because the human race are evil. Too evil to be able to care.

I choose to die to end my suffering. I choose to die to end the cruelty the human race readily, willingly and so very ably do to someone like me. I choose to die so I do not endure what I cannot endure. But in this civilisation none of these things matter as long as I live. Because evil prevails and no one understands what is the right response to my decision to die or the reasons I need to die. 

Certainly mercy for me is utterly absent thus the government refuses to legalise assisted suicide. But it is mercy I have always needed. What I’ve gotten instead of mercy is evil and blatant cruelty. 

I have chose to end the cruelty the human race are ready, willing and able to do to me because I can’t endure it. If only you knew how it feels to be me. But you don’t so you must trust me that it feels awful to be me and be alive. You must trust me that I need to die. It’s a natural and rational decision. 

All I ask is that you help me die. And trust me that it’s right for me.

Who will stop your cruelty? Because I can’t. What will force you to be humane? Because I can’t. (The Repeal Bill and protection from the government’s cruelty.) 

Dear Theresa Villiers MP 

I have already written to you about the challenges I want to set the government in the Repeal Bill. I have some serious concerns I’d like to write to you about in this message. The issue I write to you about here is the one which affects me. 

(I believe you may already have had other people contacting you about these issues and the People’s Clause because the human rights organisation Liberty has asked their members to contact their MPs.) 

I’m deeply concerned about the protections against cruelty and inhumane treatment which were (but inadequately) protected by oversight from the EU. 

The existing international human rights framework is inadequate and I’m a victim of its failures. I’m also a victim of the failures of the government to be humane.

I’ve written to you about the objective of the suicide system and the government should have which could have saved me. It’s the objective of protection from suicidal feelings. It’s too late to save me but there are countless other victims who can be saved from the abundance of cruelty in modern civilisation, the cruelty which I’ve framed as the reckless with everyone’s will to live. I sent you something a few days ago which was focused on this objective so I won’t go on about it here.

Instead I’m going to try again to persuade you of the message about the cruelty of the criminalisation of assisted suicide. I’ve written to you before and at length about this blatant cruelty. 

Suicide is a uniquely effective protection against human cruelty as well as unbearable suffering. It is a guarantee that the victim’s objectives will be fulfilled and while suicide comes at a great cost there’s nothing else which is guaranteed to be effective. 

However the government and the justice system have failed to recognise the importance and legitimacy of suicide and thus they are contributing to the abundance of blatant cruelty. The continued criminalisation of assisted suicide is an egregious and heartless act.

Most people choose to die because they have suffered too much or they want to avoid suffering too much in their future. (This includes unbearable quality of life.) The pain they want to escape from enduring is so severe that they’re willing to do anything to escape it. That’s why they’re willing to die because it is worth paying the price to escape the pain. 

The personal suffering of suicidal individuals is unbearable and is extreme. It is not necessary to seek validation of the severity of the suffering by an external observer. You must recognise that the fact that when a conscious being chooses suicide what they’re trying to escape is awful.

In addition you must recognise that the decision to die is a deeply personal decision. The rule in regard to this is:

You can ask me to live. But you cannot force me to live because to do this is blatant cruelty. 

It is the recognition of the severity of the suffering which exposes the blatant cruelty in the criminalisation of assisted suicide and the cruelty of why it’s criminalised which is to force suicidal individuals to live. The pain is too great to force anyone to endure.

Unfortunately the government has failed to recognise the importance of the nature and severity of the pain (and the circumstances) which cause suicidal feelings. I believe the reason for the criminalisation of assisted suicide is from a perceived sense of care and need for protection. However this sense of care is not care. It is proof that the government does not care about the extreme severity of the pain and does not recognise the cruelty of forcing suicidal individuals to endure what they cannot endure. I want you to know that the severity of what suicidal individuals want to escape from enduring is the overriding concern of any genuine sense of care.

Suicide is the recourse of people who need to control their suffering and end it. There should be a lot of laws which give individuals the power to control what they suffer and what they do not. The legalisation of assisted suicide is a clear way to achieve this and the choice to legalise it embodies the sense of care which is genuine care.

Unfortunately the government is too cruel to recognise the egregious error they’ve made in continuing the criminalisation of assisted suicide. They’ve failed to recognise the blatant cruelty they’re doing. It’s not just this government. This cruelty happens all around the world and the existing international human rights framework does nothing to fetter this blatant cruelty. 

I certainly can’t stop this cruelty and neither can any of the public. So I ask you, what is there in the Repeal Bill which will stop you from doing what’s too cruel to do to anyone? Because forcing me and other suicidal individuals to live is a cruelty too cruel to do to anyone. 

Obviously suicide comes with a high price but it’s not up to the government to decide whether it is too high a price to pay. It’s up to the individual and it must be the choice of the individual because to force someone to endure what they’d die to escape is blatant cruelty. 

There are already liberties which cost some people their lives. For example the freedoms of personal transport and other road users. People who don’t want to die do die because of traffic accidents but this is perceived as an acceptable cost. Obviously the freedom to drive comes with a license test and this is undoubtedly a good thing to apply to assisted suicide so suicidal individuals are able to make the best decision for themselves. However the key point I’m making with this example is that deaths on the road are considered to be acceptable mistakes but people die who don’t want to die. In contrast the provision of assisted suicide leaves the risk up to the individual and no one who doesn’t want to die will die. 

I think the cessation of the unbearable suffering of suicidal individuals is considerably more important than the personal liberty to drive personal transport. The perceived protection of suicidal individuals by the continued criminalisation of assisted suicide has the consequence of forcing the victims to endure what’s so terrible to them that they’d willingly end their life to escape it. This is not care. This is blatant cruelty. 

I assume you have no need to have control over what you suffer because you don’t suffer too much or fear suffering too much? But I need what suicide provides. I needed it two years ago. I needed it four years ago. I needed it eight years ago. I needed even further ago. In the intervening years I have endured more cruelty than anyone should endure and it’s all because I have failed to kill myself. Suicide saves.

That’s why I need you to stand to see me free to end my suffering. Unfortunately the government is too cruel to stand to see me free to end my suffering. Thus they’re part of the cruelty I’m desperate to escape from.

I have no doubt that the there’s a lot of complexity involved in the suicide debate but the most important thing is the physical and/or mental suffering (which includes unbearable quality of life) which is so severe that the victim is willing to give up the rest of their life to escape from it. To force someone to endure such terrible suffering is a crime but that’s what the government has done to me and other victims who are forced to live.

Where’s the essential protection from cruelty in the Repeal Bill? Where’s the protection from unbearable suffering and inhumane treatment? I can’t stop the cruelty. It’s all up to you. 

Yours Sincerely 


Reach for the stars not the black holes (an email to Theresa Villiers MP about the Repeal Bill)

There’s a quote by Oscar Wilde which I believe says something important 

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

In the upcoming shakeup of the laws of this country I want you to reach for the stars.

What I’m talking about here is getting the fundamentals right then the rest will follow. 

I should be writing to you about the absolute necessity of the legalisation of assisted suicide. Instead I’m writing to you about what could have saved me from what you (the people) are other than suicide. This won’t affect me whether you listen to me or not but what I’m talking about in this message affects most people. It’s too late for me. 

Let me try to explain 
I’ve written to you in the past about employment equality and the need to radically revise the suicide system. One of the themes of the humane suicide system I believe must exist is the prevention of suicidal feelings.

This objective is worthy of serious consideration. My adult life has been filled with suicidal ideation. These suicidal feelings are the result of the abundance of blatant cruelty in modern human civilisation. 

The law did not protect me from this cruelty. The government did not. The people did not. As far as I am concerned everyone with power over my life has been reaching for the black holes, not the stars, in the things they do to make me need to die.

(Can you imagine what it feels like to want to die then realise that no one cares about what you want? This is a pure black hole. Trust me.)

So I present you with a challenge to reach for the stars. What are the laws, the policies and ultimately the vision of this government which could have saved me from ever having become suicidal? And what will save the victims of future generations from the hells I’ve faced and still face? Where is this purpose in the Repeal Bill?

As you may gather I have no hesitation in demanding a vision which goes far beyond typical ‘blue sky’ thinking and the current motivation for Brexit. I’ve been writing a blog to persuade the human rights organisation Liberty to get involved with creating a humane suicide system and society. (And it was an email they sent me about the Repeal Act which has prompted this email to you). I believe this short blog post expresses the challenge I’m setting my MP and the government. Reach for the stars. 

It is my attempt to write like a hero. Please read it.

Here it is.

The challenge which the institution of psychiatry should have already set a long time ago 

Everyone should expect the guarantee that they will never endure more than they can endure.

This objective is a massive challenge. Of this I have no doubt. However I also have no doubt that it is an essential objective of good government and society. 

Unfortunately the institution of psychiatry has failed to set this objective. So I must do it.

Psychiatrists have failed their duty of expertise and their duty to care about suicidal individuals because they’ve never demanded this objective of social change directed at preventing people from ever becoming suicidal. 

They have failed because it is a fundamental principle of psychiatry which purports that misery and suicidal feelings are caused by a brain defect. This is why misery (and other mental phenomena) is purported to be a mental illness and it’s why psychiatry is a speciality of the medical profession. 

A biological brain difference makes misery and suicidal feelings a mental illness and thus it’s the natural remit of the medical profession. This is pure male cow excrement (pure bull****). It’s the same BS which is responsible for the medicalisation of the suicide system. 

It’s absurd but this false belief has lasted for hundreds of years since the institution of psychiatry was created. This false belief is responsible for countless injustices and crimes done by psychiatrists. 

One of the biggest injustices is that there is no attempt made to reduce the abundance of cruelty in human civilisation which makes so many people want to die. This has gone unfettered because of the false belief that it’s a brain defect which is responsible for suicidal feelings.

I hope you can see that suicidal feelings are not caused by a brain defect. I hope you know that it’s what happens in life which is unbearable which is responsible for suicidal feelings. I’ve tried to explain to you in the past that most suicidal individuals become suicidal because either they’ve suffered too much or want not to suffer to much in their future. It’s not the product of a defective brain.

If you do understand that suicidal feelings are created when an individual suffers more than they can endure then you must acknowledge that the causes of suicidal feelings must be addressed. I’ve tried to explain to you in the past that unbearable suffering is not okay. It is too awful to let happen to anyone and it’s definitely too awful to force anyone to endure. 

What I’m trying to say is that life shouldn’t be this bad. But it is because of the fallacy of mental illness. As I write this I recognise that I’m blaming the institution of psychiatry and there’s definitely some blame there but ultimately it’s all about you. The government and the people. Life is so bad as far too many people find out because there’s no attempt to save people from becoming suicidal. 

Here’s another blog post. In this one I’ve tried to communicate the injustice which is caused by the idea of misery and mental suffering as being caused by a brain defect. This is the injustice which makes so many people reach for the black holes. (If it’s not obvious the black holes represent what’s bad and the stars represent what’s good).

Please. Reach for the stars. You might fail to reach them but the greater failure is to dream poor dreams. Real progress takes big dreams. It always has. I believe the Repeal Bill is an opportunity to make real progress. The objective goes beyond existing human rights.

It’s not just about saving people from becoming suicidal. It’s about making life better for everyone 

I’m very focused on suicide issues as I’m sure you’re aware. The objective I’m setting you and the government has more far reaching value than just for saving people from becoming suicidal. I hope this is a worthy enough reason for you to attempt to reach the objective but it also matters to the vast majority of people. 

If I use the example of the use of canaries in coal mines I hope it is a good explanation. In the past miners would take a canary in a cage with them into the mines. The canary was there to detect noxious gases which might kill the miners. The canary would die well before the miners got a lethal dose so the miners knew to run away. The canaries protected the lives of the miners. 

In this analogy it’s the people who become suicidal who are the warning if you’re able to see it. Lots of people live and never become suicidal but they suffer misery and worry because life is too bad. The prevalence of suicidal feelings is an indication of the suffering of the public as a whole. Suicidal individuals lose their will to live and this is a terrible tragedy but they’re the canaries who warn you, the government, of the lesser tragedy of the suffering of non suicidal individuals. 

The objective I’m setting is focused on saving people from becoming suicidal but by addressing this problem so many others will find their lives become better too. I firmly believe that if you try to make laws and initiatives to reduce the number of people who become suicidal in their lifetime then you will improve the lives of the vast majority. 

Lastly, a mentality to carry in you in everything you do which relates to suffering and human rights 

I’ve already written to you about areas I believe are important. It might surprise you to learn that I have a degree in electronic engineering rather than the sort of degree you’d expect someone who writes about liberty, suicide and equality to have. 

There’s a mentality which is more important than the content of my degree. It’s all about rapid progress. Electronic engineers are constantly pushing forward. For example today’s latest phone is not what’s important. It’s next year’s phone that matters.

It’s a mentality which is about constant progress and never resting on one’s laurels. This mentality is all but absent in my experience of the human rights movement and other movements which seek to achieve social progress. Certainly not to the degree it is present in the electronics industry. 

I hope you have an electronic engineer’s mentality when you work on the Repeal Bill. It’s not the existing human rights law framework which matters. It’s the human rights of tomorrow and tomorrow’s tomorrow which matters. 

I implore you. Reach for the stars, not the black holes. Reach for them in the Repeal Bill like an electronic engineer would. 

Yours sincerely 


A response to a blog post about the new prevention mental health concordat 

This is what I’m responding to

Here’s my two cents 

I’d like to dissect your blog post 
First I welcome your commitment to equality. This is a central principle of the Human Rights Act and the equivalent international rights legislation for disabled people. It is fundamental to a civilised civilisation and in my opinion is a very important objective not just for this wretched country but all wretched countries. 
I’ve been focused on the area of employment equality and salary. I’ve sketched a mathematical model for measuring the equality of salary for disadvantaged groups by the centralised collection of equal opportunities data and salary data. I’ve put this forward to the government and my MP but it has been dismissed. I think it’s an important step forward though to use a data driven approach to surmounting the massive challenges on the path to equality. There are significant challenges to make the measurement of national employment equality a reality but it is essential to how it will be achieved because everything that’s done to improve employment equality must be proven to be effective by the data and performance management framework. 
Another aspect of employment equality other than to detect discrimination of disadvantaged groups is to measure the divide in wages between the richest, the middle and the poorest. Again, the centralised data collection will create a true picture. In the business news I’ve heard of a CEO who earns 30 million pounds a year. This contrasts with the (illegal immigrants) people who are paid the minimum wage (or less but this very low wages are for illegal immigrant labour so getting the data is much harder). This data is part of the dataset required for the monitoring of employment equality of disadvantaged groups. Alternatively I believe in can be collected from HMRC tax data.
(You can see my thoughts and the mathematical model I’ve sketched here.
This second element is particularly important for the challenge of reducing and ending poverty. I believe poverty is a relative concept. It is not a low income but a low income in comparison to everyone else. I believe it is relative because if you consider the poor today have much more money than the poor in developing world countries and much more than the poor in this country a century ago. Thus I believe that if you’re going to attack poverty you the primary focus is not a minimum income but equality of income. The measurement of equality of income from employment is part of the real goal and challenge of destroying poverty.
There will always be poor people when there are such huge differences in income. You can raise the minimum wage or increase benefits and these are important but it’s the narrowing of the inequality which is most important. 
I am reminded of a politician being asked about how they perceived equality and the different sections on trains. They were asked, “so you want everyone to be in second class?”, to which the politician replied, “no. I want everyone to be in first class.”
On a personal note I think it is evil which makes the divide as bad as it is. Some people get £6000 a year but a very few get £30,000,000. No one is worth so much more than the worst off by a factor of 5000. (I must admit I’d rather be on the best side of the divide between the rich and the poor. But I have a lot of experience of being poor.)
Now onto the topic of prevention. You’ve used a statistic to demonstrate what you think is the issue which is people who don’t engage with mental health services. It makes me think that you believe that the prevention challenge will be solved by more people engaging with mental health services. This is conventional and deeply medicalised view if I’m correct in my understanding of what you’re saying. But, of course, you work for the ‘Mental Health’ Foundation and you’re writing about the ‘Mental Health’ Concordat.
What are you really trying to prevent? You need to look deep into yourself to answer this truthfully. Are you trying to prevent suffering? Are you trying to prevent unbearable suffering? Are you trying to prevent worry? Are you trying to prevent the existence of disability or are you trying to make the disabled free to be what they are without experiencing negative outcomes and poor life course?
This last question is very important especially when it comes to the medical approach versus the equality/psychodiversity approach. Mental health services are obviously part of the medicalised approach and their method is primarily normalisation. They’re “be like me” and not “be who you are” so I have to ask what is your attitude to this and the sort of prevention the concordat is trying to do? The difference is in how much you revere the principle of integrity of disability which, I believe, is part of the spirit of the CRPD which is the current gold standard of disability rights.
This is so important when you think about prevention and an unprotected group like addicts. I’m a drug addict. I depend on drugs to make me happy and to think better. In terms of happiness they’re much better and far more reliable than people are at making me happy. You might prefer me to be normal and sober. I prefer you to be high. The medicalisation of addiction determines the course of normalisation but I’m happier and better as an addict. It is part of the integrity of my being and I hope it’s part of yours. But if you’re usually sober then you’re an essential part of the natural psychodiversity of the human race as I am as an addict.
Do you see what I’m trying to say? 
Now let me talk about my thoughts on suicide prevention. This is a deeply contentious area which I have very strong feelings about because of my extensive personal experiences. I gave you a small taste of the radical change I perceive as the essential revolution and the moral imperative. 
My views on suicide and the suicide system do not defer to the medical paradigm. The only area of similarity is in the resolution of suicidal feelings but my opinions on this area go further than the lazy and incompetent methods of existing suicide treatment which is based on the medicalised approach. I’ve written my thoughts up in three documents which I can send to you.
I’ll explain in brief. My perspective on the truth about the cause of suicidal feelings. But first let me be clear, honest and open. I do not believe in the criminalisation of assisted suicide. I would like to say that I’m totally against the prevention of the act of suicide but I have some mental shortcomings and one of them is that I believe in a certain level of protection from suicide being done recklessly. 
On the other hand I’m deeply against the recklessness which is pervasive in society which is reckless with an individual’s will to live. This is a terrible injustice. 
I tried to explain to me DoH by considering health and safety legislation which is primarily about the prevention of physical suffering, injury and death. The will to live must be protected in the same way. This is the best sort of suicide prevention but all that exists at the moment is the worst sort of suicide prevention. 
This direction of protecting an individual’s will to live is not a medicalised concept and it would be ridiculous to approach it like it’s a medical problem. It’s not about treatment or engagement with mental health services. It’s about social change. It’s about recognising that it’s misery, suffering, unbearable suffering and unbearable quality of life which cause suicidal feelings, not anything medical because these causes are not diseases.
Instead I believe it is about recognising that people are not beings who are capable of enduring limitless suffering. I’m sure this sounds obvious but it’s a big leap forward to recognise this basic trait of conscious beings. It’s the reason why society and culture must advance to be more humane and less cruel. The medicalised disease perspective has never recognised this simple truth that everyone has a limit to what they can endure (beyond which suicide becomes a good solution) so society and culture must never be so cruel as to go beyond this limit.
My personal experience is that there is no limit to protect me from the cruelty of the human race. None but suicide provides the protection I’ve always needed. This is a statement of the poor quality of the human race. Evil prevails which is why suicide is the only protection I have and my failures to kill myself have resulted in more suffering when I have already suffered too much. 
I’d like to talk about discrimination now and the discrimination which is implicit in the mental health system. This is particularly important when you consider the historical and sociological forces of prejudice which led to the creation of the institution of psychiatry. Broadly I’d like to talk about normalisation and the cultural prejudices which are enforced by psychiatric diagnosis however I fear that I’ve already written quite a lot. But it’s important for what’s truly important in the long term. 

A communication to Mind Freedom International

I have some views I’d like to share with you.

The first is about the biopsychosocial model of mental difference. This model is accepted by medical organisations in England like the National Institute of Clinical Excellence even though they think of mental illness as a genuine illness.

It is in contrast to the biomedical model of mental health because it describes all of humanity from the freaks to the feckless masses. I am aware that the survivor movement and the antipsychiatry movement are, in general, against any acceptance of biological causes but I believe this is as erroneous as the biomedical model.

The biomedical model is what psychiatry is based on. It places biological brain differences as the sole cause of the phenomena that psychiatrists call mental illness. The biopsychosocial model posits biological, psychological and social causes. In fact it is the correct paradigm for real illnesses as well as human psychodiversty but, critically, there is no possibility of forced treatment because this power is solely derived from the biomedical model. It also doesn’t guarantee that doctors and other healthcare professionals should be the architects and arbiters of human psychodiversty.

It is vital to the future of human civilisation that the establishment and ways of thinking of the biomedical fallacy must be destroyed. Psychiatry was an invention and a very bad one. The biopsychosocial model is the scientific truth and its acceptance by politicians and the public is essential, not least because its acceptance is the way to end the cruelty and evil of psychiatry. The biomedical model is a lie which has damaged lives and influenced the mal development of modern developed world culture and society.

I’m not sure exactly what will replace psychiatry in a perfect world where the people give a damn about the truth. I use the term psychodiversty to replace all terms which are derived from the biomedical model, for example “mental illness” or “mental health problems”. Mental diversity is synonymous with psychodiversty as a term of language. The important thing is the focus on diversity and diversity principles.

The language of diversity opens up the acceptance of the integrity of psychodiversty and the integrity of disability. It is an equality and other human rights principle which is in sharp contrast to the normalising tyranny of psychiatry.

One of the key objectives of a psychodiversty system is the priority given to social change. At the moment there is one example of this called Time to Change. It’s an anti stigma campaign. It’s was initially funded by the national lottery then by the NHS. Unfortunately it still adheres to biomedical concepts so it’s not creating the revolution in consensus thought which is necessary but it is a beginning.

I don’t know if other developed world nations have something like it. Time to Change has been running for a decade and in the beginning there was nothing else even close to it, especially in terms of funding. It gets about £5million a year to run projects in England and Wales.

Of course the Finnish Open Dialogue Approach also works on social factors but ODAP and Time to Change are very rare examples of the necessary changes which are needed to undo the damage that the invention of psychiatry has done. It will take generations to undo the damage caused by psychiatrists.

It’s especially important now because of a massive threat to humanity’s psychodiversty which is made possible by the rapid advances in genetics and embryonic technology. The threat is the technology behind designer babies who are either selected to have certain genetic characteristics or are engineered in other ways. This technology is not science fiction. It’s in use today for those who can afford and in the one study about it I read a few years ago it’s being used now by parents who want male children rather than female ones as well as, of course, being used to screen for disabilities.

I known it’s an ad hominem argument but I’ll say it anyway. Hitler’s eugenics have become a possibility but instead of castration of schizophrenics (and others) It’s being done by parents who don’t want disabled children.

The threat is the possibility of the extinction of certain parts of natural psychodiversty and biodiversity. The few cases of using genetic screening to get male children shows how cultural prejudice – in this case the cultural preference against female children in countries like India or China – is very dangerous given the power offered to parents by advances in genetics and embryonic implantation. The greatest threat is to the disabled.

Unfortunately there’s no solution I can think of except for anti stigma campaigns which also educate the public about disability theory like the integrity of disability principle. The end of the institution of psychiatry will also be of benefit.

I hope I’m right.

Watch me sell out and try to think like a psychiatrist.


MIT is a highly regarded university which focuses on technology. They’re having some events which are designed to pioneer the application of technology to a variety of objectives, one of which is about brain science and mental health policy. Here’s my response where I sell out on all the things I believe until a little bit at the end of this short response.

Selling out to psychiatry and the biomedical model

I can’t attend but would like to submit some thoughts and questions for the brain science and mental health policy event.

I assume there’s no online way to contribute to these events?

There are a few areas where new approaches in biomedical psychiatry which will benefit from innovation 
– Neurogenisis
Growing new brain matter is the holy grail of the biomedical model of mental health. I don’t believe it is possible yet for adults but I think it might be possible in children who are diagnosed with a mental illness. Some sort of training – forced conditioning – might be able to alter brain development while neurogenisis is still happening.
– Genetic embryonic screening and embryo implantation 
Obviously brain development is affected by genes. Screening embryos for genetic abnormalities could eradicate so many disabilities.
– Psychosurgery 
The current cutting edge of biomedical model based psychiatry technology is the use of brain surgery to implant corrective devices or alter brain chemistry in other ways. The lobotomy is the prototype of this form of brain surgery but modern psychosurgery is far more precise. I saw a research paper about using a neurochip on monkeys which successfully boosted the recipient monkeys intelligence. This has the potential to eradicate intellectual disabilities. 
– New and better drugs
Again, there’s the potential for the novel use of psychopharmacology to alter brain chemistry and achieve behavioural conformity using neurobiological techniques.

Effects on mental health policy
– Free genetic embryo screening and IVF implantation will stop so many real diseases. It could also be used for restricting neurodiversity in tomorrow’s generation and producing perfect workers for the future economy. 
– Psychosurgery could be a powerful tool of last resort for treatment resistant symptoms. 
– The use of genetic screening after a person is born could yield possibilities for prevention, eg young children could be screened then assigned certain activities to boost neurogenisis where their brains are different. The MRI could be used also for such screening but it might be too expensive. 
– Better drugs with higher specificity to precisely target neurotransmitters changes by chemical means has excellent potential for successful drug treatments and combating treatment resistance. I’ve seen some interesting results from a few studies which use illegal drugs have potential as treatments. If MRI scans are cheap enough then the exact neurodiversity can be evidenced and the best drugs used to target specific sites. There’s some evidence that psychological therapies can also affect neurotransmitters however I’m not much of a believer in psychology. Drugs are definitely better than talking.
– However I believe the most important change in mental health policy comes from computer aided treatment assignment. Psychiatry uses research measures which combine effects from several symptom sub measures. From the psychiatric research I’ve read –  especially the systematic reviews and meta analysis which are deemed to be the best form of evidence – the combined scores are what’s used to derive clinical guidelines and these guidelines are an essential tool for doctors to prescribe the best treatment. This approach is deeply flawed but a simple piece of software could change this. If symptom sub measure scores could be collected from existing research a piece of software would allow clinicians to input the exact symptoms which someone is experiencing then get the software to select the best treatment based on the specific presentation of symptoms. This is most applicable to suicide in my opinion because this common single symptom is a matter of life or death. The aggregated scores used in psychiatric research and review are useless for getting the exact effect of treatments on suicide. I believe this alone is the justification for academia to go through old studies and collect the individual symptom sub measure scores. A simple database could store the sub measure scores and a Web interface would provide clinicians the opportunity to personalise the treatment to the individual presentation. I hope this explanation makes sense. The software makes it possible to align research results with specific symptom presentation whereas the current approach lacks this finesse.
– Critically there’s the intersection between the biomedical model and the social model of disability. It’s profoundly important to recognise the principles of the social model of disability and its relationship to mental health policy. The biomedical model only creates solutions which attempt to normalise and therefore are the antithesis of human psychodiversty and biodiversity. The social model demands change in society and culture to create equality between all types of diversity. The difference is critical.

The questions I have are as follows :
– Surely misery isn’t an illness? 
– What progress and innovation in suicide can you create from the biomedical model of psychiatry? 
– What was the new brain research or other neurobiological research which led to homosexuality being demedicalised? Also, what biomedical reason is there for the sole demedicalisation of homosexuality but none of the other paraphilias? (I don’t think there is a biological explanation but the question is designed to elucidate upon the flexibility of the psychiatric paradigm.) 
– Do you recognise the truth in the biopsychosocial model as opposed to the biomedical model? In England there’s a national anti mental health stigma campaign called Time to Change which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatry and the National Health Service. Its aim is to address the prejudice and discrimination. I believe it is a salient example of how mental health policy can address the -social element of the biopsychosocial model but without a biomedical or neurobiological paradigm in use. The campaign’s success is measured using a new set of measures designed at the Royal College of Psychiatry and Dr Graham Thornicroft has done substantial work on these measures which evidence the effect of a non neurobiological and non normalising direction of modern mental health policy. England has run this campaign for about a decade and it has been a success.

There’s my 2 cents. I’m totally opposed to psychiatry and the biomedical model which is fundamental to the existence of psychiatry. It is a tyranny of evil which has perpetrated crimes against humanity and has negatively impacted the development of modern developed world nations.

If MIT wants a real challenge then thinking about the biomedical approach – which is all about neurobiology and behaviour normalisation – isn’t it. I can’t think of a good way to explain the goal of social change empowered by technology which promotes psychodiversty and biodiversity rather than mental or biological conformity. For example there’s a lot of technology which could make life better for people with intellectual disabilities but learning about computers presents a massive barrier. The Qwerty keyboard is an unnatural input device but it’s easy to have the option of an alphabetical keyboard thanks to smartphones with virtual keyboards. This is the sort of thing I’m thinking of where there’s adaptations made to accommodate people with low intelligence instead of making people with intellectual disabilities more intelligent and able to learn to use the Qwerty keyboard. Obviously voice recognition makes things even better for people with intellectual disabilities. Alternatively you could think about making Wikipedia easier to understand for people with intellectual disabilities or you could try to boost their IQ. While both of these objectives do sound important it’s their relationship to the biomedical model which I’m trying to explain. Doctors are focused on individuals and symptoms so they’re only going to think of boosting intelligence to make Wikipedia accessible to people with low intelligence.

The point I made earlier about suicide? It’s really relevant not just to devalue the psychiatric approach but also for the social and cultural objective for change. Doctors treat individuals but the problem is that modern life is too harsh. They are respected as the experts of suicide but they’ve completely failed to do the right thing. Again, there’s value in helping suicidal individuals to stop wanting to die but this isn’t the only solution. There has to be positive change in society and culture to prevent people from ever suffering so much that they choose to die. This has never been attempted because of the way doctors think. It is undoubtedly the wrong thing to do to just offer treatment once someone has lost their will to live. It is vital to protect individuals from losing their will to live in the first place and the only ethical way to do it is by social and cultural change.

I’m talking about big picture stuff. Perhaps it’s because I’m crazy?

That’s 3 cents from me.

Reply to my MP about university tuition fees

I only have a rudimentary grasp of economics. I’ll try to make an economic argument.

First of all I’d like to point out that when fees were introduced they were only a £1,000 and were never meant to go higher but the government broke its promises.

I believed back then that free university education is a right not a privilege but I doubt you’ll accept this. Your reply demonstrated the economic argument is important when you said the higher education system must remain financially sustainable.

You also pointed out that graduates earn more. I feel this is important when you consider the role of tuition fees because the government gets more tax from higher earners. The investment you ask teenagers to sign up to is one which has benefits for future governments because of the higher taxes they’ll collect. Since graduates earn more the investment you’re asking teenagers to make is one which benefits the economy in the long run and therefore shouldn’t be forced on young adults now.

It seems logical to me to see that creating more graduates with a free university system will reap rewards in the future. I think it’s fair to say that jobs in professions or in profit making corporations have much higher salaries but these jobs require at least a Bachelors degree. Graduates in these sort of jobs will be paying the highest rate of tax and earn much more than the average therefore future governments will get more taxes. The graduates of the previous generation who benefitted from free higher education are making significant tax contributions now so this government is reaping rewards for the foresight of the previous generation.

Tuition fees put a barrier up which will stop some teenagers from getting degree even with the best repayment options the government provides. The size of the debt is very large for a teenager and some will simply not want to be so in debt. This group will be much less likely to earn well in the future so future governments will get less tax from them.

If you compare the tax the government collects I’m sure you’ll find it’s a smaller minority who pay the most tax and these people commonly will have at least an undergraduate degree. The economic conditions of the future are unknown but I believe a better educated populous and workforce will be a good solution for ensuring future governments get more tax revenue.

There are other arguments too but they’re based on things which matter to me rather than the government. A better educated workforce has other benefits but I believe the small cost of free higher education would be a worthy economic investment.

The non economic argument I’d make is about life itself . The NHS is a substantial economic burden but it guarantees more people will live longer. A long life is important but so is a full, equal and rich one. The NHS doesn’t address the issue of helping someone get the most from their life and let them make a rewarding contribution. I believe university education is an essential step at a critical time in an individual’s psychosocial development which helps them get more from life and give a greater contribution beyond the tax revenue they provide. It’s simply not enough to pay  to provide citizens with a longer life.

My own experience of (free) university education was the most enriching part of my life which is a big reason why I want no barriers preventing anyone from growing in a university environment.

Imagine a culture with no boundaries between adults and children. They all have the same rights. Imagine this alternative society then imagine that paedophilia is not a mental illness in this alternative society

I’m not proposing this question to destigmatise paedophilia. The question is about your instinctive response against paedophilia and how it’s culturally defined.

In a society which believes human rights belong to children too they’d have to accept paedophilia. A society built on such strong beliefs about human rights would be far in advance of ours so wouldn’t pretend that certain unwanted types of sexuality are caused by mental illness. It would use the truth and the truth is that human variation is not a mental illness.

It would most likely deal with paedophilia in a different way. One way is to accept it is normal, which is an idea which is an affront to most readers sense of ethics. Another way would be to use virtual reality technology to perfectly simulate a paedophilies desired sexuality experiences thereby solving the problem of sexual exploitation of children and not enforcing the whole of the anti paedophilia stigma by creating a safe outlet for undesirable sexual desires.

The point is that cultural norms and values are what the fallacy of mental health enforces. These norms and values aren’t scientific but by pretending they’re caused by….

…you are utterly heartless. You are abominable cruel. When you die there’ll be a lot less evil on this planet.

I have more than one consciousness in my mind. Is that crazy or do I just have more than you?

I’m never alone without people because my other consciousnesses are there. It is hard at times of course but I couldn’t imagine living a life with just one consciousness in my mind.

Some people will think that I’m crazy because of the multiple consciousness existing in my stream of consciousness. But you know how I feel about that.

I’m We. You’re just “I”.