Anosognosia

[ysabetwordsmith]

Here's a spectacular example of assault on body and mind autonomy of the "for your own good" type.


>> Anosognosia means that the person with the condition denies/is unable to understand that they have a mental illness. <<

It also means that if you don't have a mental problem, but someone else wants to make believe that you do, now they have this weapon to use against you. Let's take a look at some historical examples, shall we?

Drapetomania

Gender differences

Homosexuality

Hysteria

This diagnosis undermines people's ability to say, "I like myself the way I am and I reject your attempts to change me," and make that stick.


>> As you can imagine, this makes treatment difficult.<<

In other words, they want to use this diagnosis to force treatment on people who have refused it.  The obvious result will drive people away from seeking help they do want, because it's too risky that someone will take advantage of them.


>> Applicable to adult patients aged 15-124 years inclusive.<<

Just in case you thought it only applied to violating the boundaries of legal minors, this is a direct assault on legal adults to deny them control of their own mind and body.


>>• R41.85 in Loved-One’s (LO’s) medical chart = medical evidence even if / when Loved One (LO) claims “I Am Not Sick, I Do Not Need Help”.

HIPAA: WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS<<

These two statements directly contradict each other.


>>Where a patient is not present or is incapacitated, a healthcare provider MAY SHARE the patient’s information with family and friends, or others involved in the patient’s care or payment of care, as long as the health care provider determines based on professional judgement, that doing so is in the best interests of the Patient.<<

So one thing they want is the ability to conspire against people and talk behind their back. This will have a ruinous effect on family relationships and client-provider relationships. It makes it more dangerous to talk about one's problems and seek help that one actually wants, because that creates a vulnerability for others to step in and do things without consent. America is a post-boundary, post-privacy society and this particular example is just brutal.


>> 2. R41.85 –contradicts “I Am Not Sick. I Do Not Need Help” claims <<

This explicitly ranks a medic's opinion over a client's lived experience, agency, and freedom. Therefore it violates "First, do no harm."  Forced therapy is harmful and can go as far as torture.  Consider that a key factor in traumatic disorders is not the severity of the experience but feeling helpless to do anything about it.  So anything that makes people feel helpless and undermines their agency will run up that risk.


>>1. Make sure R41.85 is in LO’s medical records (Make hospitals, clinics, docs aware of code in medical record).<<

So if you see it in yours, some prudent options include:

* Escape the area while you still can.

* If your alleged friends or family are in on the violation, leave them too and seek others who will not violate your body/mind.

* If your friends or family react with horror when you tell them about the violation, then they may help you fight it.

* Seek healthcare elsewhere and don't transfer your old records.  You need someone who will genuinely help you get your body/mind in the shape you want, and will take no for an answer.  On the mental side, Rogerian therapy (aka client-centered or person-centered therapy) is worth exploring.

* If you want or need to stay in the same locale, talk to a lawyer about your legal options.


>> •Patients often refuse all treatment, because they are genuinely puzzled why family and caregivers want them to take medication and participate in other treatments.<<

People have a right to their own mind, even if others don't like the kind of mind they have. It is morally permissible to stop someone from hurting others, but not to violate the integrity of a human mind.

And let's not forget "Why don't you just settle down and marry someone nice?" "Because I'm gay."  Many claims of mental illness start with someone just not being or doing what someone else wants.  That is a conflict of interest, not a disease.


>> • CIT teams, hospitals, docs begin to think that caregivers are the problem <<

Which is true in cases such as described above.


>> • LOs resent caregivers and trust us even less

• Things just get WORSE at home <<

Well you've just drastically increased that.


>> • Incomplete picture of LO’s: history, diagnoses, cognitive impairment <<

Have fun with the increased rate of people not telling you things so you can't hurt them with the information and share it with others who want to manipulate them.  Doctors already bitch about that, but they themselves have created and continue to exacerbate the conditions which encourage it.


Finally, I'd like to remind folks that privacy was one of the things humans had to invent in order to have a society beyond the immediate family. Humans are damned irritating creatures. If they can't ignore that, they will eat each other. Society requires the skill of minding your own business. A sense of safety requires security in your own body and mind. Without those, mayhem ensues.

You have a right to your own body and mind, your own beliefs and experiences, your feelings and identity, your way of existing, even if other people don't believe in you and try to hurt you because they want you to be something else. Fuck 'em. You do you. But watch your caboose out there, this society is breaking down.

Comments

[arlie]

There's a long tradition of things like forced commitment to mental hospitals. It's been subject to all kinds of abuses - but what else do you do with someone who is a danger to others?

(The usual phrasing is "a danger to themselves or others," but I'm not sure that it's ethical, in general, to interfere with someone's suicide, except possibly to delay it long enough they can be more certain that it's not just a passing mood. And not even that, if they are in enough pain.)

I think there's a need to do something about people who are actually dangerous, not merely in violation of other people's idea of how they should behave. No matter how good the safeguards are, there will be abuses, because there are humans involved. But IMO the tradeoffs favor some amount of interference regardless.

Note that this is different from forced treatment, though in practice they've often gone hand in hand.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> There's a long tradition of things like forced commitment to mental hospitals.<<

Yes, and it does a bang-up job of discouraging people from interaction with mental care for fear of being imprisoned without a trial.

>> It's been subject to all kinds of abuses - but what else do you do with someone who is a danger to others? <<

You put them somewhere they can't hurt others, but you don't abuse them like prisons do and you don't try to mindrape them. Because abusing them certainly will not make them healthier or kinder to others. Since isolating humans tends to drive them insane, that's not okay. But if you really don't feel safe in the same room with them, then use technology for such purposes as delivering meals and interaction. They should have access to a counselor any time they wish, along with entertainment and educational materials.

>> (The usual phrasing is "a danger to themselves or others," but I'm not sure that it's ethical, in general, to interfere with someone's suicide, <<

The most fundamental right of a soul is when to enter and exit an incarnation. Because that is their freedom of travel, and usually nobody else can know what they came to do or when it is done. Some people with spiritual gifts can read another person's life list, but it's not a common ability.

>> except possibly to delay it long enough they can be more certain that it's not just a passing mood. <<

The type of suicide that it is ethical to delay is a mistake. Sometimes people feel or believe things that are not true, such as thinking that nobody loves them when people do. Sometimes they think there is a problem that cannot be solved, when it could. Sometimes they are overwrought and need help. Society is terrible at helping in these situations, but it would be possible to do so if people thought it through and were willing to provide resources and assistance rather than demanding that an upset person bootstrap their way out.

>> And not even that, if they are in enough pain.) <<

Preventing someone from dying to escape severe pain is torture, which is unethical. But there are worse things that than, such as trapping someone in a rotting body while their mind slowly decays, for months or years. That's downright evil.

Very often, suicide prevention isn't about helping the person who is suffering. It's about ensuring that other people don't feel bad because someone died. I don't see them saying, "Here's a prescription for a maid to do all your housework for a month. Let's see if lightening your burdens will help you feel better." or "We've wiped out your student debt. Let's talk about how you feel about your future now." Society mostly wants people to be of use and won't give that up even if it's literally killing them.

>> Note that this is different from forced treatment, though in practice they've often gone hand in hand. <<

Yeah, see, it's not necessary to violate someone's mind and body to keep them away from others. You can imprison them if they are credible threat, but put them in a humane place with things to do. Of course there will be abuses because humans often like to hurt each other or just want what they want and don't care who gets hurt. But the damage can be minimized as much as possible. Thing is, most medics are like a dog that wants to hump your leg. The dog is far more concerned with its own gratification, and isn't considering how you feel at all.