Psychiatry Pseudoscience?

[quintessentone]

Well if we consider what many people in the middle class bracket do and there seems to be a growing trend for these kind of things, then yeah. Basically anything nature is good for our well being. I remember a study that said most allergy’s have come about by the over use of the various “hygiene” products in the home. All those sprays and perfumes, bleach and other chemical concoctions can’t be good for us on their own, but the point of the study was because we aren’t exposed to germs and other naturally occurring pathogens in the same way we used to be, we have lost our natural resistance and thus the body when exposed to such produces a autoimmune response known as allergies. I’m paraphrasing here but that was pretty much the conclusion. 

These days “forest bathing” is a thing, so is “wild” swimming and cold water dips. All this is because we have lost our connection to nature and what for most of human evolution was just part of our daily existence. Basically we aren’t adapted to live in the urban sprawls, with artificial lighting, chemical soup and all the rest that comes with modern urban life. 

Im all for getting out in nature both for my physical and mental wellbeing/health.

Yes, a connection to nature has proven to help some patients, but what was their issue? depression only? and to which degree?

Nature-Based Therapy in Individuals with Mental Health Disorders, with a Focus on Mental Well-Being and Connectedness to Nature—A Pilot Study - PMC

---------

RFK Jr.'s farm therapy offers human connectiveness and many other life skills as well, so maybe it will work on some patients but not others with severe issues.

Having made social connections that may last outside of that therapy where common goals are shared would seem to be the best outcome going forward, back into the chaotic urban landscape. Isn't isolation for many causing a good percentage of these issues?

-----------

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vision for farming therapy is a holistic approach to addiction treatment, focusing on the therapeutic benefits of nature and work. His proposal includes:

• Wellness Farms: These farms would be funded by tax revenues from marijuana sales and would provide a supportive environment for individuals struggling with addiction. 
  
  
  
• Peer-to-Peer Support: The model relies on peer-to-peer recovery through giving addicts jobs and re-teaching them how to live in society without drugs. 
  
  
  
• Natural Healing: The farms would offer a serene and nurturing environment, encouraging mindfulness and reflection. 
  
  
  
• Community Support: By creating spaces where individuals can connect with others who share similar struggles, wellness farms foster a sense of belonging and support. 
  
  
  
• Holistic Practices: Incorporating yoga, meditation, and nutrition education helps individuals address the physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of their recovery. 
  
  
  
• Therapeutic Horticulture: Gardening provides a sense of accomplishment and can improve self-esteem. By nurturing plants, individuals learn to nurture themselves. 
  
  
  
• Nutrition Education: Understanding the connection between diet and mental health is crucial. Wellness farms can educate participants on healthy eating, empowering them to make better choices that support their recovery. 
  
  
  RFK Jr.'s wellness farm proposal is not without its critics, who argue that it lacks the effectiveness of traditional medication-assisted treatment and that the U.S. has already tried similar models in the past. However, his vision represents a significant shift in the national conversation about mental health and addiction, emphasizing the therapeutic value of nature and work."
  

[Moon68]

Healthcare requires labor: the labor of doctors, nurses and all the support staff.

To have "free healthcare" would mean entitling one to labor of another without recompense.

"Free healthcare" is an advocation for slavery.

[FlyersFan]

A commodity, that’s an interesting viewpoint. 

It's kind of the only way to look at it.
Healthcare is a commodity, or even a service if you prefer.
It's something to be developed, marketed, and sold.
It's not in the Constitution as a right.
How can you make a commodity or a service a right?
You don't have a right to something that people sell or do.
If you did, then the government would have to take over production and distribution.
And it would have to force people to become nurses and doctors and specialists 
so that people could get their 'right' to healthcare fulfilled.

[FlyersFan]

Healthcare requires labor: the labor of doctors, nurses and all the support staff.

To have "free healthcare" would mean entitling one to labor of another without recompense.

"Free healthcare" is an advocation for slavery.

Yep.   First of all there is no such thing as free healthcare.   Someone has to be paying for it.

But lets pretend America decided that healthcare was a 'right'.   That would be the government guarantee that everyone would have healthcare provided to them.   That would mean that the government would be responsible to make sure enough people became doctors and nurses, and enough people worked in the factories making the medicine and equipment.   What if people didn't voluntarily do those things for a living?   If healthcare was a 'right' then the government would have to force people to become nurses and doctors, and force people to work in factories making the drugs and equipment.   And what if there was a shortage of blood for transfusions?   If it's a 'right' to get a transfusion then how does the government force people to give blood for medical procedures, etc etc etc

No, it's a commodity.   It's goods and services for sale.

[UltraBudgie]

Healthcare requires labor: the labor of doctors, nurses and all the support staff.

To have "free healthcare" would mean entitling one to labor of another without recompense.

"Free healthcare" is an advocation for slavery.

Well that is sort of like saying that public libraries are a prison for the bookish, depriving librarians of a fulfilling job working in an Amazon warehouse or something.

Face it, most people want some aspects of governmental socialism for some things, such as fire departments and roadways, especially if you don't call it "socialism", and it doesn't go too far:

socialism: an ideology that involves “abolishing private ownership of the things we all need and use — factories, banks, offices, natural resources, utilities, communication and transportation infrastructure — and replacing it with social ownership, thereby undercutting the power of elites to hoard wealth and power.”

Now, to return to the focus of the thread, "mental health care". Regardless of whether such is provided publicly or privately, I do think much of psychiatry is pseudo-science, in that, beyond obvious criminal pathology, it is intrinsically unable to separate it's definition of "objective science" from the socio-political matrix in which it is practised and measured. Governmental or socialized mental health care is especially pernicious, as it tends to makes those blinders monolithic.

[Moon68]

Well that is sort of like saying that public libraries are a prison for the bookish, depriving librarians of a fulfilling job working in an Amazon warehouse or something.

Face it, most people want some aspects of governmental socialism for some things, such as fire departments and roadways, especially if you don't call it "socialism", and it doesn't go too far:


Now, to return to the focus of the thread, "mental health care". Regardless of whether such is provided publicly or privately, I do think much of psychiatry is pseudo-science, in that, beyond obvious criminal pathology, it is intrinsically unable to separate it's definition of "objective science" from the socio-political matrix in which it is practised and measured. Governmental or socialized mental health care is especially pernicious, as it tends to makes those blinders monolithic.

I literally never alluded any such thing as to your hypothetical librarian example. A public library is funded...publicly through taxes. Hospitals are privately owned therefore the apples and oranges argument is moot.

There is a sort of mixed model due to the social contract between citizens and government, public and private. Police, firefighters, road maintenance, etc. are all covered under that social contract and paid via collected taxes. Fun fact: America had roads, fire departments and police prior to the gross implementation of those taxes.

[UltraBudgie]

Oh okay I thought you were talking about a single-payer system like the NHS or VA system. Indeed, there are many doctors in the US who don't accept Medicare/Medicaid patients.

Also there is a bizarre potpourri of what various private insurers consider to be acceptable preventative and mental health care. The urge to "standardize" that seems to be political red-meat. I don't think that effort ends in any kind of optimal solution.

[SurferSoul]

It's kind of the only way to look at it.
Healthcare is a commodity, or even a service if you prefer.
It's something to be developed, marketed, and sold.
It's not in the Constitution as a right.
How can you make a commodity or a service a right?
You don't have a right to something that people sell or do.
If you did, then the government would have to take over production and distribution.
And it would have to force people to become nurses and doctors and specialists 
so that people could get their 'right' to healthcare fulfilled.

I’m British so don’t really know what your constitution entails though I must have heard some things quoted from it in my time on the boards as so many are Americans. Isn’t there something in it about the right to life and liberty? 
In Britain as you know no doubt we have the NHS it’s funded through NI contributions which everyone pays, a relatively small amount per person. I imagine it’s much less than having to pay insurance. It is agreed by almost everyone that it is worth it, otherwise we wouldn’t have successive governments campaigning to protect the NHS to gain votes. 

The issue with privatisation is that companies must make a profit and generally those profits are divided up between share holders. When it’s nationalised those profits go back into the service, thus improving it. 

That’s the idea anyway but what we currently have is the worst of both worlds, because quite a number of services have been outsourced, effectively privatised, including GP’s and surgery’s yet it is still the government writing the checks. This effectively makes the government a cash cow for private companies in the health care sector, who can charge virtually what they like with no competition once they have been awarded the contract. This is obviously wrong but currently how it is. I see the NHS being totally privatised eventually due mainly to greed.

Look at like this if drugs were generic s and not patented they would cost far far less, making everything more affordable for everyone. Like that scandal you had in the US a few years back when that guy was trying to sell some drug at an extortionate price after buying up the patent. 

Nobody wants their health to be held to ransom. 

Also consider part of the reason so many people need to take various drugs to maintain their health is because of the shit in their diets, sugar and other crap that doesn’t need to be there is put in just about everything so private companies can save costs and make more profits at the expense of people’s health. Type 2 diabetes and obesity wasn’t even a thing back in the day. 

It’s a viscous circle when profits are put before people’s health and well being. 
If you outsource all your manufacturing to other countries for the sake of increased profits your population becomes dependent on the state to makes ends meat, they have no disposable income so other things tank and eventually you don’t have an economy, just a feudal like system with a few mega billionaires, the government pandering to them and the rest in abject poverty. That’s not capitalism it’s facism and it’s where the west is heading.

[SurferSoul]

Because people are disfranchised, because many jobs just aren’t there anymore, because they are told they are useless eaters and worthless scum, because they end up self medicating, because their children are ashamed of them. They end up depressed with mental health issues. What else did you fuckers expect?

[quintessentone]

Because people are disfranchised, because many jobs just aren’t there anymore, because they are told they are useless eaters and worthless scum, because they end up self medicating, because their children are ashamed of them. They end up depressed with mental health issues. What else did you fuckers expect?

Are you talking about the U.K.?