Madness Radio: Schizophrenia Psychotherapy Cathy Penney

When certain behavioral patterns seem to run in families, it doesn't necessarily mean they're genetically inherited. They may just as well be acquired through observation and imitation. It's called non-genetic, familiar heredity. This said, even if a genetic "anomaly" existed that clearly differentiates people labelled with "schizophrenia" from "normal" people - and so far we have no proof of such an "anomaly" - it wouldn't necessarily mean that the behavior which is labelled "schizophrenic" is caused by this "anomaly". It might as well be the other way round, as recent research results suggest (McGill University, 2009).

Your comment describes your sister's and nephew's behavior/experiences almost exclusively in terms that strongly emphasize these behaviors'/experiences' meaninglessness: "delusional", "hallucinations", " 'enemy' " (in quotation marks), "voices only he can hear", "a threat only he could perceive", and ultimately "symptoms". In other words, a deeper meaning of the so-called "symptoms" in context with the person's life story is unimaginable. It is unimaginable that your sister for instance could have had a real enemy, someone who threatened her existence, in her life, or that the torturing voices may indeed be flash backs, the real voices of real people, internalized at first, but too painful and destructive to not be split off and externalized in the process. Why is this so unimaginable? Is the illusion about the perfect family idyl, about one's infallibility as a parent/relative, really so much more important than the psychological well-being of the family member who reacts to the dysfunctionality and destructiveness in the only to him/her remaining way, with "schizophrenia", after s/he's been denied any other, potentially more intelligible way of protesting the violence? Well, in a culture that is founded on violence, and with the dysfunctionality that takes place in families, and that drives some people crazy, being no different from that which takes place between nations, or from that which characterizes the relationship between humankind and nature, yes, unfortunately keeping up the il- or actually delusion of the perfect idyl is more important than, well, life (or lives... ).

I'm glad to hear that your nephew managed to return to college and graduate. Anyhow, for the majority of people labelled with "schizophrenia" the drugs unfortunately do not mean returning to college and graduating, but chronification of their crisis and, eventually, disability. That is, they actually prevent these people from pursuing their dreams and goals. BTW, neuroleptics don't free people from "symptoms", "hallucinations" or other, but by "freeing" these people from themselves, so to speak. They don't act specifically on "symptoms". No chemical substance can tell the difference between a "good" thought or emotion and a "bad" one. So they suppress the "good" ones as well as the "bad" ones. Neuroleptics are major tranquilizers, they suppress life energy. That's about it, except for the side effects (which by and large also are a result of what happens in the body when life energy is suppressed).

If the ultimate proof for a label of "schizophrenia" to be correct or not is whether a person recovers or not (and it seems to me that you doubt the correctness of the label in Catherine Penney's case since she recovered fully without drugs), this, taken the disabling side effects of the drugs into account, ought to be strong reason to offer drug-free alternatives as first-line treatment. Not least since the recovery rates of alternatives (Open Dialog in Finland for instance), according to this ultimate "diagnostic criterion", indicate that about 85% (!) of all people who are labelled with "schizophrenia" have been misdiagnozed, meaning that these 85% actually are drugged and suffer from the drugs' often serious side effects unnecessarily, while the very same side effects make it unlikely that these people ever fully recover, and that it thus ever is detected that they were misdiagnozed. Unethical, IMHO.

hi there, though it's always difficult to see things from just one person's version, the situation you describe is upsetting and I am sorry your daughter is suffering in this way. A commitment order and life in a hospital, under forced medication, is not necessarily a quick fix, and could make things worse: hospitals focus on coercive control and medications and the research and personal experience, as we discuss on Madness Radio a lot, shows that those are not helpful for most people and are risky options. I would start by working on your own belief that she is unreachable, and begin to be more open to the possibility of hope for recovery. It is hard to believe in yourself when people around you don't. Approaching things from a framework of fear and control may be understandable but also might be contributing to the distress she is in. Usually families need to look within themselves at needed changes, not just look at the problem or sick child as needing to change. I hope you can get supportive therapy for yourself and your family or some other help to focus on changing the things you have control over, and approach your daughter in less of a way that makes her feel like you are against her. If she is unwilling to receive help, the ways you can help yourself and change yourself may have a valuable effect on her. It is not an easy situation and I wish there were more holistic and compassionate resources available for families, and that it didn't feel like either do nothing or use force. It may be useful also to recognize that family members may not be in the best position to offer help to a person in distress because of the history of family experience and difficulty, and maybe there are other people in her life who can be involved and try to support her in ways she will accept. I encourage you to explore other options and try different approaches rather than rushing to using force and a medical explanation of her problems. - Will