The people who are typically involved in debating United States public programs and making decisions about those programs rarely mention the relationship dynamics of the program and the one using the program from the users' point of view. By not understanding this viewpoint the separation between the people in command of the program and those who are supposed to benefit from it the most is widened. This provides the environment where trust is betrayed and authority is abused.
Public programs for education, vocational training, disability rehabilitation, and punishment for crimes are all similar in many respects. In the same way that an attorney can refer to another court's decision to support their current case, each public program is designed to protect all the others. Again this encourages an environment where people in authority must make demands and enforce rules rather than encourage a healthy and trusting environment where people can understand and learn with dignity and mutual respect.
The attitudes influencing how disabled people are treated in the United States depend on bigoted descriptions about our ability to make sound judgments. Preventing the majority of the public from being involved in public policy is not only the basis for corrupt politics, but it is part of the reason that disabled people are excluded and abused. Being seen as unfit to think in competent and sound ways allows for the most powerful peoples judgments to remain unchallenged.
Among the first people to be treated for lacking competency and sanity in the United States were people considered to be witches.
It says in Wikipedia of the Salem witch trials:
"The patriarchal beliefs that Puritans held in the community added further stresses. Women, they believed, should be totally subservient to men. By nature, a woman was more likely to enlist in the Devil's service than was a man, and women were considered lustful by nature. In addition, the small-town atmosphere made secrets difficult to keep and people's opinions about their neighbors were generally accepted as fact. In an age where the philosophy "children should be seen and not heard" was taken at face value, children were at the bottom of the social ladder. Toys and games were seen as idle and playing was discouraged. Girls had additional restrictions placed upon them and were trained from a young age to spin yarn, cook, sew, weave, serve their husbands and bear their children, while boys were able to go hunting, fishing, exploring in the forest, and often became apprentices to carpenters and smiths.
In accordance with Puritan beliefs, the majority of accused 'witches' were unmarried or recently widowed land-owning women; according to the law if no legal heir existed upon the owner's death, title to the land would revert to the previous owner, or (if no previous owner could be determined) to the colony.[citation needed] This made witch-hunting a possible method of acquiring a profitable piece of property."
With all our sophisticated knowledge medical officials (the government's clergy of today) see those witchcraft symptoms like this:
Medical theories about the reported afflictions
Main article: Medical and psychological explanations of bewitchment
"The cause of the symptoms of those who claimed affliction continues to be a subject of interest. Various medical and psychological explanations for the observed symptoms have been explored by researchers, including psychological hysteria in response to Indian attacks, convulsive ergotism caused by eating rye bread made from grain infected by the fungus Claviceps purpurea (which is the natural substance from which LSD is derived),[72], an epidemic of bird-borne encephalitis lethargica, and sleep paralysis to explain the nighttime attacks alleged by some of the accusers,[73]. Other modern academic historians are less inclined to believe that the cause for the behavior was biological, exploring instead motivations of jealousy, spite and a need for attention to explain behavior they contend was simply acting."
Basically this describes post traumatic stress disorder, psychosomatic ailments, tripping on drugs, physical disease, and sleep disorders OR character defects such as jealousy, spite, or faking it.
The way such symptoms are often treated in more modern times is based on the claim that the disordered are defiant and violent and the proof is still not necessary. In this way, I think we still have similar types of mythology used in government as what was used to protect a corrupt social order during the witch trials.
In a similar way that witches were tested by attempting to drown them and then excused if they escaped, today we often describe someone who denies having a psychological disorder by such denial being a symptom of the disorder.
No one who was accused during the time of the trials could effectively explain or defend their behavior. It required someone who the government and court saw as more competent, sane, and socially acceptable to speak on their behalf. A growing percentage of the US population today can be confined, restrained, secluded, and drugged with chemicals that are potentially life-threatening without cause.
In the same way that children during the witch trials were at the bottom of the social ladder and taught to be seen and not heard we have younger children than ever being treated for misbehavior or psychiatric disorders with harmful drugs. For adults who take these drugs, there is evidence that they live 25 years less than the average person. Since the drugging of children was more recently adopted we have no idea how many years may be taken off their lives due to the drugs.
In the same way that the opinions of neighbors could be used to convict witches, there are laws in effect, that allow practically anyone to have someone suspected of mental illness incarcerated and held indefinitely without trial.
The National Alliance for Mentally Ill (NAMI) was very quickly made into an oppressive group run by the pharmaceutical industry, federal policymakers, and the families of the mentally ill. In a similar way, all the efforts that may have otherwise been provided autistics with better situations have so far been dominated by unscrupulous and opportunistic business owners, parent run organizations, and politicians who support our segregation along with harmful treatments.
There are still very strict rules for people judged incompetent and psychologically and/or neurologically impaired. The number of people who are given a voice in how public policy determines how we are treated is relatively very small. Typical public policies can't be met with typical political approaches at this point to create the needed changes. The excuses for politics not being challenged are not practical for anyone but those who are already in the typically empowered positions of authority. For understanding autism, the observers need to trust those being observed more to prevent making the typical wrong assumptions that usually lead to exclusion and mistreatment.
Very good, Ed. This is a great comparison. Your posts always make me think. BUT, you've mentioned twice now that the age of a person is diminished, by 25 years, in the taking of these psychiatric drugs. Being reality-oriented, and a real "show me" type person--could you produce your source? I want to know for personal reasons, maybe to beat myself up for giving ritalin to Ben for 7 years, but also because I am presently on anti-depressants.
I think you are probably refering to the anti-psychotics, those wicked tongue-thrust, tardive-dyskinesia bastards. Am I correct?
Posted by: Rose | January 21, 2010 at 09:36 AM
Oh no, don't beat yourself up over something like that. I would hope people who take meds (which includes me) wouldn't feel that way either. (Also this isn't a proof based blog but instead more about ideas....ideas are all I have)
The way I wrote it here what you're referring to is:
"For adults who take these drugs, there is evidence that they live 25 years less than the average person. "
I use that statement or similar ones all the time on the blog and have linked it to studies but I don't know which posts right now. I see that statement all the time and I see it said in several different ways. Some say psychiatric patients in general, some say ant-psychotics, and some say schizophrenics but 25 years less is always the number. If you Google it you'll find lots of links on the subject. Here's one I just found. It also says patients smoke a lot and that's what the article is about.
http://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/news/press/2009/approved/20091119.html
"A study by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Medical Directors Council in 2006 revealed that people with mental illness live an average of 25 years less than the general population."
Posted by: Ed | January 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Like the deaths in special ed classrooms, this is something I want to research further. I've got to quit being such a lazy blogger!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-05-03-mental-illness_N.htm
This link above says that it was 10-15 years in the 90's, and it is 25 years now...something is UP!!
Thanks again, Ed, for your patience in dealing with this silly old lady. Have a great day!
Posted by: Rose | January 22, 2010 at 09:14 AM