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.