Is investment in Big Pharma a mental illness?

I get the idea that while there's been all sorts of criticisms aimed at the authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for suggesting that temper tantrums or binge eating may be included as a mental disorder, or that eccentricity might result in you lying down on the shrink couch, there are those among us who'd like to see the new book put into practice, if only for the utterly ridiculous factor.

Reading the stories, it got me thinking. It's so ridiculous, I wanted to see how far it could go. I started making a list of things that I didn't like about other people's behaviour, things I objected to, and so on. I basically settled on one thing and it's the reason for this blog. It's the person who asserts something is so with no shed of evidence to back it up. Weapons of mass destruction is an example. So it's not just psychiatrists who blast out hot air.

Shrink says temper tantrums are a mental illness or disorder or whatever. "How d'you know that then?" Are temper tantrums actually a mental illness, or are they so disliked by many, that psychiatrists are about to give parents the day off with a drug nanny?

As for eccentricity, I think my name could be in the hat. My words here could be psychiatrically reinterpreted as being that of a slightly unhinged individual who has a particular eccentricity about psychiatry, where his or her idiosyncracies could impact upon their well being taking over their life, leading to mental this and that. But that would only be because a shrink said so. If he or she were asked, "how d'you know that then?", there'd be even more hot air.

If it weren't for the complete nuttiness of this whole thing, I don't think the DSM would see the light of day. The fact it's so stupid, seems to blind people to the point they think there might be something in it.

But there is something in it: money. If you're a shareholder in Big Pharma, then it's not so ridiculous, stupid, or nutty.

Perhaps there should be a tag for those who invest in Big Pharma.

Definitely not a shrinking violet

Since when has a psychiatrist been in the position to decide whether another psychiatrist was sexually harassing a junior doctor or not?

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Stephen McMillan Arnott, described as an expert witness in the Derby Telegraph, was giving evidence at a hearing into Dr Andrew Clayton's conduct. It is alleged Dr Clayton behaved in a sexually motivated way towards two female patients and two trainee members of staff. He allegedly "fondled patient's breasts and tapped bottom."

I'd live to know what makes Dr Arnott an expert witness on the subject. I expect he did what anyone else would have done; ask the person bringing the allegations what happened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or for that matter a psychiatrist, to ask those kinds of questions.

After all's been said and done, I reckon the shrink did it, and I've never met him. In May 2009, he was found guilty of possessing child pornography, while in 1990 and 1998, he had faced allegations of "inappropriate sexual behaviour towards patients."

Could have saved a shedload of money instead of paying a shrink.

Centre for the Resolution of Addiction to Psychiatry (CRAP)

The docs in white coats like categorising what we do, the way we behave, what we say, blah blah blah, and the lemmings among us say "Wow! Science!"

Are we 'addicted' to the internet? If so, stop reading this now! The point is, psychiatrists are highly paid men in white coats pointing out the bleedin' obvious. For example:

Person: "Doc, I have problems leaving the internet alone at night."

Doc: "When did this start?"

Person: "About six months ago when I got a computer."

Doc: "How do you feel at night when this happens?"

Person: "Knackered cos I don't go to bed."

Doc: "In my learned opinion, I think you have problems leaving the internet alone at night."

Here's a test I've formulated for all you psychiatrists out there. I'm not assuming you're going to read this blog, but there might come a day when you can laugh at yourselves. I hope I'm around to see it.

If you answer 'yes' to five or more of these questions below, you may have a psychiatric thingymabob, whatsit, some mindset that needs a name... All suggestions for a name by email to howdoyouknowthatthen@gmail.com

Here we go:

1) Do you feel preoccupied with other people's behaviour? (Think about your consulting room or your next appointment.)

2) Do you need increasing amounts of time to convince your patient of their illness to achieve personal satisfaction?

3) Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or stop thinking about making up new disorders?

4) Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop thinking of making up new disorders?

5) Do you ponder on other people's behaviour longer than originally intended?

6) Have you jeopardised or risked the loss of a significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of thinking up new disorders no one else has thought of?

7) Have you lied to family members, a colleague or others to conceal the extent of your involvement with other people's behaviour?

8) Do you tell other people they're ill to escape from your own problems (eg, feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)?

If you answered yes to 5 or more of the questions, you may be suffering from a sense of humour.

Source: Centre for the Resolution of Addiction to Psychiatry (CRAP)

Mental health treatment like a 'kick in the head'

There's an old saying I've heard: "mental health treatment's like a kick in the head". One mental health nurse took the saying literally. Jongo Vandi, who worked at Broadmoor Hospital, actually kicked a patient in the head.

Let's assume the patient was being 'difficult' at the time. It is Broadmoor after all. So, you'd expect the quality of the staff to be such that they go unphased under provocation, to be of the calibre that they know how to diffuse a volatile situation, that they know through their extensive training how to 'talk someone down', and so on and so on. But no, Mr Vandi kicked the patient in the head.

Alot of the patients in Broadmoor are violent. Sounds like Mr Vandi's just as bad.

Scraping the barrel when it comes to personnel

Another mental health nurse is behind bars after it was found he'd accessed child pornography sites on a computer he'd been using at the Charlton Centre, a residential home for the elderly in Batley, West Yorkshire.

The Yorkshire Post headline was "Mental health nurse had 40,000 indecent images of children". The story goes on to reveal the mental health nurse, Ivor Foster, had checked himself in to a psychiatric hospital called Fieldhead Hospital prior to the stuff being found on the computer he'd been using at the care home. He'd gone to Fieldhead because he was depressed. That means a depressed nurse was looking after people in a residential home, people who suffer from Alzheimer's diseases or dementia.

I regularly read all this stuff about psychiatric patients and their vulnerabilities, and then I read about the quality of the people looking after them. If this is the quality of personnel looking after people with mental illness, and Mr Foster isn't the only blot on the mental health nurse landscape, there must be a barrel that doesn't have a bottom after being scraped long and hard.

Foster was jailed for 14 months after he admitted 21 offences of possessing or making indecent images.

Brilliant name for a shrink...

Professor David Nutt is listed with the General Medical Council as a specialist in General Psychiatry. I must admit I had to check the story first. I thought it might be one of those spoof sites to begin with. A psychiatrist called Professor Nutt? Surely not. Actually, yes, it's legit. Brilliant name for a shrink!

After searching back a little way, Professor Nutt has been in the news on a number of occasions, for playing down the use of illegal street drugs. On the BBC News web site, it was reported that "Prof Nutt says cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine..." This is the same Prof who, in February this year, said taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than 'riding a horse.'

Problem is his statements are more likely to be those of someone who consumes illegal drugs, not someone who's attempting to halt the problem. Why employ an expensive Prof to advise on this sort of thing when it would've been cheaper to get the same advice from someone happily consuming the drugs? If the problem is as big as the Government says it is, then there's plenty of fokes out there who would've given the same advice for considerably less than Prof Nutt.

The story hasn't finished either. According to the Telegraph, other members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs are planning to resign. Don't know about you, but that hints at the idea they approve of his statements, that they downplay the dangers of illegal drugs. Wonder what sort of parties the advisers go to at the weekend? The Telegraph headline says "Drug policy in chaos after adviser is sacked." Errr, don't think so. I think drug policy was in chaos a long time before now. How else would there be such a problem with illegal drugs?

He can't be a mental health nurse because he's in jail

Well, well, another psychiatric nurse who stole money from a patient.

Only last month, Elizabeth Fayers was caught going down the local casino for a few spins of the reels with a patient's cash.

Now Adrian Mauger, who's been languishing in prison for the past few months for stealing £7,000 from a patient, has been dumped out of the nursing profession after it was deemed his actions "impaired his fitness to practice."

The politically correct language makes me cringe. Instead of saying "impaired his fitness to practice", it should say, "Mr Mauger has been convicted of a criminal offence and can't be a nurse any more because he's banged up in jail."