_________________________________________________________
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL May-June 1997
_________________________________________________________
========================================================
THE FIFTH COLUMN (1/2)
========================================================
Note: The Fifth Column is a regular, independent column
written by Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.
Opinions and comments are invited. Please send them to
the PsychNews Int'l mailbox: pni@badlands.nodak.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
TO SPEAK AGAINST
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.
"The man who sees his neighbour only as an aggregate of
atoms cannot have the same conception of his real self.
He thus arrives necessarily at a fundamental
contradiction."
--F. Husemann (1977)
Contradiction means "speak against" (contra + "dicere").
The word shares the same root as addiction. (1)
It is one thing to contradict, or speak against, an
other. To contradict an other is to challenge the
authority of the other. It is quite another thing to
contradict, or speak against, oneself. Depending on our
point of view, behaviors labeled the expression of
mental disorders can be explained as contradictions,
i.e. a living against oneself. Consider also
contradiction as George Orwell termed the contradiction
of dictators, i.e. those seeking to control others
through contradictory and influential speech,
"doublespeak." Dictators use contradiction, or
doublespeak, as a rhetorical device. Orwell termed the
contradiction in thought, the successful manipulation of
the other through doublespeak, "doublethink."
Dictators deliberately confuse people in order to
do certain things to them. This may include achieving
certain psychological goals, e.g. Avoiding
responsibility for behavior, garnering attention and
sympathy, etc. We describe a person who contradicts
himself to others as "two-faced," (also, speaking with
"forked-tongue," "talking out of both sides of one's
mouth," etc.). Doublespeak is used to achieve political
goals, e.g. economic gain, political power,
circumvention of Rule of Law, etc. Politicians are
cynically referred to as people who say one thing and do
another, i.e. hypocrites.
As Orwell wrote: These contradictions are not
accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy:
they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is
only by reconciling contradictions that power can be
retained indefinitely (Orwell, 1981, Pp. 176-178).
Confused persons think contradictory thoughts and
act in contradictory ways. These individuals are easily
manipulated by powerful others. They abdicate to
dictators. They believe the contradictions of dictators.
They are more likely influenced in their attitudes and
behaviors by who is delivering a message (peripheral-
route processing) rather than by what the message
actually is (central-route processing). Central-route
processors use reason to decide whether or not an idea
is valid. (2)
Thus, one can contradict another person, in the
sense one disagrees with or opposes the other. One can
contradict or speak against oneself, in the sense one is
confused, in conflict, etc. One can also present
contradictory ideological messages (doublespeak) to
psychologically paralyze another into abdication
(doublethink).
The difference between exposing the contradiction
of dictators and the contradiction of confused
individuals is similar to the difference between
exposing a malingerer and a hypochondriac. The former
becomes defensive and hostile when exposed as an
imposter. The latter becomes anxious when a disease is
not found. Exposing contradiction upsets contradictors,
whether the contradiction is directed toward self or
other. This is because doing so interrupts a kind of
hypnotic spell cast over oneself and others. The person
exposing the contradiction then becomes a target of
vituperation, if not a victim of "_Todschweigen_ (Tod =
death, schweigen = silence), i.e. death by silence,"
(Leifer, in press).
Clearly, people are addicted to contradiction. Here
are some examples: "Freedom," as James Baldwin wrote in
_Nobody Knows My Name_ (1961), "is not something that
anybody can be given, freedom is something people take."
Yet, people try to give and receive freedom all the
time. Psychiatrists and other mental health
professionals assert they can restore autonomy.
Restoring autonomy is contradiction. People who say they
can give freedom and restore autonomy are engaging in
doublespeak. The result is doublethink. They enslave
people by "giving" freedom and reinforce dependency by
"restoring" autonomy.
"Mental illness" is contradiction and used by
psychiatrists and mental health professionals to achieve
political, economic and legal goals. Their own goals are
served in the name of helping others. The mind cannot be
sick. (The brain can be sick.) Since the mind cannot be
sick, it cannot be treated. What is treatment then? (3)
And those claiming mental illness does not exist
contradict themselves too. They assert Prozac and other
anti- depressant drugs can cause people to commit
homicide and suicide. On the one hand they claim
neurochemicals cannot cause criminal behavior. On the
other hand they claim changes in neurochemical levels
(brought about through the use of neuroleptic drugs) can
cause criminal behavior.
Spokespersons for "psychiatric survivors"
contradict themselves when claiming mental disability is
the same as physical disability, e.g. the recent Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission regulations regarding
employer accommodations for those with mental
"disabilities." On the one hand they argue against
involuntary commitment on grounds constitutional
protections are implemented in an arbitrary manner - in
the name of "mental illness." On the other hand, they
argue for mental and physical disability "parity," i.e.
that the arbitrary classification of certain "mental
disability" is consistent with Rule of Law and
impartial. (4)
THE SPELLS CAST BY PERSONS
Understanding the prevalence and occurrence of
contradiction is useful in breaking the "spell cast by
persons, the nexus of unfreedom," as Ernest Becker
(1973) described it. I list four examples exposing
contradiction here in the form of letters of mine the
editors of various publications refused to publish. What
is interesting is how the editors chose not to publish
_any_ letters contradicting their editorial positions or
their news story. The editors of New York Review of
Books did publish a letter from the author of the book
reviewed.
The first letter concerns an editorial on
Scientology in Germany appearing in The Washington Post.
The editors at The Washington Post have long maintained
opposition to the repeal of drug prohibition and
supported the "war on drugs." They believe addiction is
real, that drugs are dangerous, and that treatment for
addiction "works." How many of these editors either have
or have had problems with drugs or alcohol, consider
themselves "in recovery," or have family members who
have had problems with drugs or alcohol and/or are "in
recovery," is unknown. On the one hand, the editors at
The Washington Post advocate religious freedom in
Germany. On the other hand they oppose religious freedom
(drug use) in America.
The second letter concerns an editorial by Virginia
Postrel on medical marijuana appearing in REASON
Magazine. Postrel defends individualism on the one hand
and collectivism on the other. This, of course, is the
problem with the medical marijuana movement in the first
place (see Szasz, 1997). She advocates Rule of Law and
Rule of Man simultaneously! She opposes a theocratic
state on the one hand and supports a therapeutic state
on the other! (I would not be surprised if George Soros
gives money to REASON. He who pays the piper calls the
tune ....)
The third letter concerns an article about the
history of psychiatry in Russia appearing in U.S. News &
World Reports. The editors allowed an ethnocentric
article to be published without any reference not only
to the fact psychiatric abuse was (and still is)
prevalent in America, it originated here! Moreover, the
writer argues Russia needs to acknowledge its past. To
what extent does America acknowledge its psychiatric
past and present? Not one letter was published speaking
against this blatantly biased presentation.
The fourth letter concerns a book review by
philosopher John Searle appearing in New York Review of
Books. After systematically dissecting philosopher David
Chalmer's theory regarding the foundations of
consciousness, he asserts that the mind is a product of
the brain, that this is the basis of cognitive science,
and that if one doesn't know how this is true, well, he
simply can't help us. Reason is necessary for Chalmer's
argument to be valid, according to Searle. Reason is
unnecessary for his own argument to be valid. In so
doing, Searle suggests his brain is different from the
brains of others. This is similar to the psychoanalyst
claiming he knows his patient's unconscious mind, but
the patient cannot know the analyst's unconscious mind
(T. Szasz, personal communication, 1997).
I follow these letters with more examples of
contradiction, this time in the form of actual
transcripts of television and radio shows I participated
in recently. The first transcript concerns a dialogue on
the use of drug- testing kits by parents for their
children. The second concerns the prescribing of anti-
depressant medication for children. The third concerns
the regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug
Administration. The fourth concerns the use of anti-
depressant medication as social control.
SOCIALISM SETS IN THE EAST AND RISES IN THE WEST
December 16, 1996
Letters to the Editor
U.S. News & World Reports
2400 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1196
"_Russia_ has yet to come clean on its history of
punitive psychiatry" ("Mad Russians," Dec. 16)?
>From Benjamin "Father of American Psychiatry" Rush
(whose silhouette still adorns the halls of the American
Psychiatric Association) to Karl "Dean of American
Psychiatry" Menninger (author of The Crime of
Punishment) the history of America is replete with
psychiatric abuse. Two Americans (Walter Freeman and
James W. Watts) developed the technique of cutting the
frontal lobes of the brain by inserting an ice pick-like
surgical instrument through the eye socket. The authors
of Nazi euthanasia programs received much of their
inspiration for terror from Americans - the involuntary
sterilization of 15,000 mental patients in Californian
psychiatric institutions - before the German
sterilization laws of 1939. Moreover, the American
Journal of Psychiatry openly supported euthanasia in a
1942 editorial.
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of
Independence, medicalized socially deviant behavior in
the 18th Century, initiating one of the more prevalent
threats to liberty in our free society today - the
involuntary commitment of innocent persons to
psychiatric institutions for "treatment." Karl Menninger
argued criminals are mentally ill, thus punishing
(instead of treating) them, he claimed, is a crime - the
contemporary rationale for the insanity defense.
Unlike the Russians, perhaps Americans do not view
psychiatrists as aggressors out to harm them, as your
article would suggest. However, that may be due to the
fact so many Americans (100,000 patients yearly in the
U.S. alone according to Max Fink, editor-in-chief of
Convulsive Therapy, the leading journal in the field)
have had their memories erased by involuntary and
voluntary electroshock "therapy." (signed)
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM
January 31, 1997
Letters
Reason
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, Ca. 90034-6064
Virginia I. Postrel contradicts herself when she
argues "For drug warriors, Propositions 215 and 200 are
terrifying because these laws recognize that marijuana
is not especially dangerous" ("Reefer Madness," March).
"Especially" dangerous? If marijuana is "safe" then it
can be "dangerous." It is neither.
Drug warriors argue drug use is a plague, an
epidemic, and a treatable disease. Drugs such as
marijuana are panopathogens. Marijuana medicalizers
argue drug use is a cure, a remedy, and a treatment for
disease. Drugs such as marijuana are panaceas. Drug
warriors and medicalizers are simply two sides of the
same coin. Shalala and Barry McCaffrey on the one side,
and (gasp) Postrel and George Soros on the other.
Ms. Postrel's doublespeak continues: "Yet if thousands -
or even hundreds - of average Americans suddenly start
admitting in public that they smoke marijuana to relieve
various illnesses, the demonization of the drug can't be
sustained." Is this a sick joke? And then "In other
words, it's about doctors _and their patients_." Is
Postrel's reasoning so clouded she forgets the Nazis
claimed they were just practicing medicine? The right to
drugs is no more about doctors and their patients than
the murder of Jews was. Going public wouldn't reduce
demonization: It is likely to legitimize it.
And there is more: "In their attempts to manipulate the
public by misusing the language, administration
officials have decided to wrap themselves in science."
That is _exactly_ what those supporting the
medicalization of marijuana and addiction are doing.
George Soros, funder of the medical marijuana
propositions, is creating a new problem in the name of
an old solution: Doctors as policemen. Clinton is re-
creating an old problem in the name of a new solution:
Policemen as doctors. There's not much difference
between the two of them.
The war on people called the war on drugs is a
religious war fueled by sanctimonious scapegoaters.
Illegal drug dealers, prison builders, law enforcement
agencies, politicians, etc. are economically addicted to
it. They claim they're motivated by compassion.
Deprivation of liberty is the consequence.
The medicalization of people called treatment is a
religious war too, fueled by sanctimonious scapegoaters.
Legal drug-dealer wannabes, treatment center builders,
doctors, politicians, etc. are economically addicted to
medicalization efforts. They claim they're motivated by
compassion. Deprivation of liberty is the consequence.
The classical liberal perspective on drug policy is
offensive to drug warriors and legalizers alike and
rarely even gets into print (including REASON). There is
only one legitimate argument against drug prohibition.
Drugs are property. Everyone has a right to drugs as
property. Medicine has nothing to do with it.
(signed)
VOLKSKORPER (PEOPLE'S BODY)
February 2, 1997
Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071
In your editorial entitled "Germany, America and
Scientology" (Feb. 2) you assert "Adults everywhere
ought to have the widest possible freedom of belief -
even the freedom to develop psychological dependencies
and spend their last pfennig on religion if they so
choose." Does this mean you now support the right of
every American to develop psychological dependence on
currently illegal drugs? The difference escapes me.
If you really support the idea people have a right to
put whatever ideas they want in their minds, how can you
oppose the idea people have a right to put whatever
substances they want in their bodies? You can only do so
by contradicting yourself. And as George Orwell wrote in
_Nineteen- eighty Four_ "it is only by reconciling
contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely."
(signed)
MY BRAIN IS BETTER THAN YOUR BRAIN
March 15, 1997
Letters to the Editor
New York Review of Books
250 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10107
Regarding "Consciousness & the Philosophers," if
John R. Searle read psychiatrist Thomas S. Szasz's book
entitled The Meaning of Mind (Praeger, 1996), he might
understand how viewing the mind (consciousness) as a
product of the brain is strikingly similar to viewing
the brain (body) as a product of the mind (NYR, March
6). In fact, both views are like sides of the same coin.
Professor Searle's conclusion regarding the former reads
more like a born-again, cognitive-science bumper
sticker: "It is just a plain fact about nature that
brains cause consciousness. It does not seem at all
implausible to me because I know, independently of any
philosophical argument, that it happens. If it still
seems implausible to the biologically uninformed, so
much the worse for them." In other words, the mind is a
product of the brain. Searle knows it. And that settles
it!
Hallmarks of holistic thinking include the
following ideas: People have cancer because they want to
have cancer. They can will it away if they just think
the right way. Or, here's one I heard just today: A
holistic physician told his patient if she really wanted
to stop her uterus from hemorrhaging she should just
will herself to stop menstruating. The idea of mind
causing body is no more irrational than body causing
mind.
Searle's argument is used to remove responsibility
where it belongs. For example, how can we ever hold
someone accountable for their good and bad behaviors if
consciousness is caused by the brain? If mind and
behavior are products of the brain, what are moral
agency and the execution of will? According to Professor
Searle's argument, they are simply biological processes.
He is mixing categories in nonsensical ways. Moral
agency and the execution of will are metaphorical
"things" characterizing us as distinctly human. To say
the brain causes consciousness is ultimately
dehumanizing.
Further still, what is that represented by the
pronoun "I"? It cannot be found in the cadaver.
Therefore, it is not biological. "Who" possesses the
brain? To say the brain "possesses itself" is
tautological. And what's the difference between dead and
alive? Electricity? That answer sounds too much like the
thermostat argument Searle rightly dismantles.
If Professor Searle would remove responsibility
where it belongs, the holist would assign it where it
does not belong. Both are right because they "know." But
they don't tell us how they know. They just "know." I
know they're wrong. Who is right? The issue of
responsibility for behavior is of critical importance
here, and it is never addressed by Searle: A person is
responsible for behavior, not a thing. The brain is a
thing. A "caused" person is a thing, a zombie, not a
human being.
To dismiss this criticism of Professor Searle and
his holistic Doppelganger to dualism is another ruse.
Yes, it makes as much sense to speak of mind independent
of body as it does to speak of body as independent of
mind. Dead is dead. Alive is alive. That much we know.
We also know the words life, mind and behavior do not
connote things. They are processes. They are activities.
Consider "living," "minding," and "behaving." Now
consider "deading," "braining," and "bodying." The
former makes sense. The latter does not.
Moreover, how can there be any other mind than a
conscious one? Mind means consciousness. Unconscious
mind is a contradiction in terms - It is an invention,
not a discovery. Consciousness can be "touched" in a
metaphorical sense only. Mind is to brain as metaphor is
to literal. The metaphor is constructed. It can no more
be produced by the brain than a sick joke can be
treated.
(signed)
TRUST ME, I DON'T TRUST YOU
Fox Morning News, WTTG Channel 5 TV Wash., D.C. January
23, 1997 Host: Brian Wilson, Fox News
8:11am
(live)
WILSON: Parents who suspect their children are
using drugs will soon have a new testing kit available, that
can be used in the privacy of their own home. "Dr.
Brown's Home Drug-Testing System" is the first kit to
gain the approval of the Food and Drug Administration.
But even with the accessibility of such a test, should
parents actually use it? The creator of the test is J.
Theodore Brown, Jr., a clinical psychologist based in
Maryland. He joins us here this morning, along with
Jeffrey Schaler, who is a psychologist also, associated
with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us here. And we
have actually, this little kit right here in front of
us. It's a very simple kit. Basically, it's a way to
take a urine sample. It is sent in the mail, and then
you get test results back, what, a few weeks later?
BROWN: A few days later. The test results will be
available between one to three days after the specimen
arrives at the laboratory.
WILSON: And so then you dial in and give a special
code and somebody gives you the results?
BROWN: That's correct. A 1-800 number is provided.
The customer calls in, obtains the results, as well as
an explanation of those results, and in addition to
that, we will be making a clinical referral to a health
care provider, a substance abuse specialist, or a
physician...
WILSON: ... If that's required ...
BROWN: ... as indicated.
WILSON: All right, let me ask you though about the
larger question here. A lot of parents now have this
available to them. It will be, I guess, available to
drug stores, etc. And they now have the decision to
make: If they suspect that their child may be using
drugs, or if they just want the peace of mind that comes
with knowing yes or no they're not, they can administer
this test and have their kids take it. But should they?
What's your reaction to that question?
BROWN: My reaction to that basically points to the
very high incidents of substance abuse that we've had in
this country, especially over the last five years, four
or five years. I think the statistics indicate that that
has doubled. The number of teenagers between the ages of
12 and I think 15 or even younger, over, I think, 60
percent are experimenting with illicit drugs. I think
given the consequences of substance abuse, not only to
the individual using the drugs, but the impact that it
has on the whole family, pretty much warrants that
parents start to assume primary responsibility rather
than deferring that to others.
WILSON: Well, Dr. Brown, I guess the question is,
doesn't it destroy trust, though, between the parent and
the child?
BROWN: No, I think the term "trust" is terribly
misapplied in this circumstance and situation. The
primary issue is one of parental responsibility. "Trust"
presupposes that the individual can exercise proper
judgment, if you will, is competent to distinguish right
from wrong, and to inspire the confidence and faith that
goes along with the concept of trust. This basically
purports to emphasize the parental responsibility, and I
think dereliction or negligence of that responsibility,
given the consequences would be terrible.
WILSON: Jeffrey Schaler, you are a psychologist as
well, and I think you have a different perspective on
all this.
SCHALER: Yes. Certainly Dr. Brown is capitalizing
on the "war on drugs" hysteria. He says his drug-testing
kit is good for America, but really it's good for him.
Of course, he's going to make money on this, and he's
going to make a lot of money because what parents are
going to do is turn their kids in, if they find out
they've been using drugs, into his addiction treatment
programs. I think what's important though, is to think
about why this is a newsworthy event in the first place.
Well, because history tends to repeat itself. Sixty
years ago the government of Germany encouraged children
to turn in their parents for crimes against the state.
Back then the crime against the state was a mythical
disease called Judaism. Today, the federal government is
encouraging parents to turn their kids into the state
and to addiction treatment professionals for a mythical
disease called drug addiction ...
WILSON: ... Let me stop you right there ...
SCHALER: ... I think this is a sorry state.
WILSON: ... That's harsh rhetoric you're using ...
SCHALER: ... I think this is a very sorry statement ...
WILSON: ... Let me just interrupt you for a second ...
SCHALER: ... of family values ...
WILSON: ... Let me ask you this question though: I
mean, if you're a parent, don't you want to know? ...
SCHALER: ... Of course you want to know ...
WILSON: ... And if there's a problem don't you want
to step in and try to solve the problem?
SCHALER: Absolutely. But let me suggest this ...
WILSON: ... How can you know if you don't do a test?
SCHALER: You can know by paying attention to your
children. Let me suggest this to parents: If you're even
considering using Dr. Brown's drug-testing kit, you have
a problem already. And you need to talk to your kids.
You don't need to buy his kit. You don't need to listen
to addiction-treatment professionals, the federal
government, pushing all this anti-war rhetoric ...
WILSON: ... a chance to respond to that ...
BROWN: Well, obviously Dr. Schaler has a problem
with the concept of capitalism and the profit system ...
SCHALER: ... I have no problem whatsoever with the
concept of capitalism ...
BROWN: ... that is basically the basis for this
country. His assumption, or if you will, presumption,
that we will make money is yet to be determined. I hope
that he is correct, to that extent we will be able to
provide even more services and indeed whatever money we
make will not be nearly as much as the people who are
actually peddling the illicit drugs and offering them to
our children in the forms of tattoos and other
clandestine mechanisms that they have an inordinate
amount of money to create. I think that, overall, the
company has created this product with the best
intentions. I think the government has cleared it under
very significant scrutiny. I think it is incumbent upon
the individual parent to make a decision as to whether
or not Dr. Schaler's prepositions are appropriate or
whether or not they're concerned about their kid
becoming or not becoming one of the statistics.
WILSON: Now let me just ask you one other question
that comes to mind, and that these drug tests are not
absolutely fool- proof. And that there are occasionally
false-positive results.
BROWN: Absolutely incorrect. There are no false
positives. Let me make that very clear ...
WILSON: ... Now hold it. I've heard stories that if
you eat a poppy-seed bagel you can show, come up
positive, for cocaine in some cases ...
BROWN: Again, this is part of our effort, I think,
with this product, to educate the public. There is no
false positive. If we report a positive test result,
something that has been ingested or used, that conforms
to the protocol of the drugs that we are testing for,
has been determined to be existent. Now, whether or not
that came from medicine, food, or actually illicit drugs
is yet to be determined. We have our personnel and staff
prepared to provide the necessary assistance, and in
addition, we have the professionals who will basically
help the parents clarify and rule out whether it is in
fact food, drugs, or some other illicit substance.
WILSON: Last word from Dr. Schaler.
SCHALER: This drug-testing kit has really become a
representation of the sorry state of family values in
America. Certainly, I think Dr. Brown has a right to
market his product. But, let's see it for what it really
is ...
WILSON: ... very quickly ...
SCHALER: ... a way to make money and a way to
alienate children from their parents.
WILSON: We'll have to leave it right there. A good
discussion. Thank you both for joining us. We appreciate
it. We'll be right back. Stay with us.
(8:18am finish.)
_________________________________________________________
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL May-June 1997
_________________________________________________________
========================================================
THE FIFTH COLUMN (2/2)
========================================================
DON'T TAKE DRUGS, TAKE DRUGS
Fox Morning News, WTTG Channel 5 TV Wash., D.C. April
11, 1997 Host: Lark McCarthy, Fox News
8:12am
(live)
MCCARTHY: The makers of anti-depressants may soon
be taking aim at a whole new market - your children.
Right now, the Food and Drug Administration has not
approved anti-depressants, such as Prozac and Zoloft,
for those under the age of 18. But drug companies are
compiling data on whether these types of drugs are safe
for children. Are drug companies responding to an urgent
need, or, are we in danger of relying on medication for
kids instead of healthy relationships? Joining us this
morning is Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist, and
Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, he's a psychologist, and a faculty
member at Johns Hopkins and American universities. Thank
you both for coming in.
VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you.
SCHALER: Thank you.
MCCARTHY: Dr. Schaler let's begin with you, because
you've got some concerns about this, that it may be
heading in a wrong direction, even to be looking at, you
know, opening up this market. Why?
SCHALER: Well, my concern is that the problem we
call "depression" really has to do more with the
communication gap between parents and children and not
the synaptic gap between neurons. I think that parents
and authorities who are important to children have more
to do with the unhappiness we label as depression than
anything that's chemical in the person's brain. And my
concern is that when we give Prozac to children, we help
them to feel less badly in a bad situation, and perhaps
perpetuate problems that need to be addressed
psychologically.
MCCARTHY: Dr. Van Susteren, do you want to respond
to that?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well yes, I certainly agree. I think
that there is, there are often problems between children
and their parents, and there is this communication gap,
I don't think there's any doubt about that. I think,
however, that there is a small, subset of children who
are depressed, who are depressed because they do have
problems with their brain chemistry, and they can profit
from medication in a very controlled setting. It's not
given loosely. We don't want to give people pills
instead of talking to them.
MCCARTHY: Yes, let's talk briefly about what's
happening now, that psychiatrists in their discretion,
right, can prescribe these for children, but they are
now looking at what proper dosage and doing major
trials.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, there is a problem because
children are different from adults. Obviously we have
the same bodies, but their bodies are growing. The
uncertainty is what's going to happen when you give a
pill to a child who has a growing body.
MCCARTHY: Would you say they shouldn't be used at
all for children? How far do you go with it?
SCHALER: I think they should never be used, and we
should always pay attention to what parents are doing
with their children. The example set is the lesson
learned. I believe firmly that parents cause the
unhappiness that children experience as depression. They
do it two ways: One, parents criticize children too
much. And two, they set an example of low self-esteem
and depression that children model. Now, those are the
key issues which are often very difficult to address,
but are avoided if we give Prozac.
MCCARTHY: How widely accepted is it that some
depressions are biologically-based and can be helped by
medication?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's very widely accepted among
the majority of my colleagues. There, I think, is also
acceptance among my colleagues, that there are some
children who have biologic depressions just as some
children have diabetes. Mostly it's adults who have
diabetes. Mostly it's adults who have biologic
depression. But that doesn't mean that there aren't
children who have [that] also.
SCHALER: The problem with that is that it sounds
good but there's no scientific evidence that shows that
these individuals, in fact, suffer with low serotonin
levels. Depression is not listed in standard textbooks
on pathology. It's still a theory that serotonin is
related. Yes, Prozac helps people to feel less badly,
but Prozac also helps people to feel less in general. It
blunts emotion.
MCCARTHY: And that concerns you.
SCHALER: Oh yes.
MCCARTHY: One doctor from NIH was quoted as saying,
in talking about this very issue, that "pills don't
create skills," in other words, pills are no substitute
for building self-esteem and social skills in children.
Is that one of the things ...
VAN SUSTEREN: ... That is absolutely true. That is
a big danger, just giving a person a pill and thinking
that all of a sudden everything is going to be perfect.
It's not. But I still think that there are some children
who without some form of medication can't get where they
want to go. So all of the talking in the world, which is
very helpful, isn't going to be enough for them.
MCCARTHY: ... would not be enough ...
SCHALER: Well, it's peculiar, you know we're such a
drug culture today. On the one hand we tell children
they shouldn't use illegal drugs to change the way they
feel. On the other hand, psychiatrists, parents, and
other authorities tell children they should take legal
drugs to change the way they feel. It's a profoundly
confusing and double-message, that I think, perhaps, may
create depression and confusion in kids in and of
itself. (5)
MCCARTHY: Is that a confusing message?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's confusing in the sense
that we all suffer from a belief that there are easy
solutions. We have technology which fixes things very
quickly for us. But the important thing is to have good
people, intelligent people working with children if they
need to be assessed for their depression and to have an
on-going sort of relationship, so you can see whether or
not medication is helpful.
MCCARTHY: Yes. Why don't we end it with some tips.
If you have a child you are concerned about, who may be
depressed, what would you recommend?
SCHALER: What I would recommend is that the parent
look inside himself or herself, and see how he or she is
depressed, and how he or she sets an example of
depression for their children, and exercises some
courage in terms of introspection and talking to their
kids.
MCCARTHY: ... you say certainly deal with it ...
VAN SUSTEREN: I think that's an excellent idea, in
addition to the consideration of the individual child.
MCCARTHY: All right, thank you both for coming in.
I appreciate it.
SCHALER: Thank you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you.
(8:17am. Finish.)
ARE YOU LYING? I DON'T THINK SO
"Good Morning Washington," WJLA NEWS 7 TV Wash., D.C.
April 27, 1997 Hosts: Dale Solly and Pamela Davis
8:40am
(live)
DAVIS: ... A major battle is brewing in the tobacco
industry. We'll talk with two experts that will help us
understand where that battle is headed ... Stay right
there ...
[8:43am]
SOLLY: And good morning and welcome back everybody.
The news continues now. When U.S. District Court Judge
William Osteen ruled Friday that tobacco products fit
the federal definition of a drug, he cleared the way for
the potential regulation of those products by the FDA.
He also gave the tobacco companies a slight victory
though in ruling that the government could not restrict
cigarette advertising. All of this comes, as you know,
as government and tobacco company lawyers continue talks
on a settlement that would end on-going litigation to
force cigarette makers to pay smokers and states for
health damage already caused by smoking. However, the
smoke in this controversy is far from cleared.
Joining us this morning are Dr. Jeffrey Schaler of
American University, a psychologist and expert on
addiction, thanks very much, and Scott Ballin, the vice-
president and legislative counsel for the American Heart
Association. Thanks guys, very much, for being here
today.
SCHALER: Thank you for having us.
SOLLY: I should point out that we tried,
repeatedly, to get someone from the tobacco industry in,
and they told us repeatedly that they were not
interested, so we apologize for that. Neither of you
thinks that this idea of a settlement is a particularly
terrific idea, but you come at it from very different
ways. Dr. Schaler, what's the problem with it? It sounds
like a good idea to a lot of people.
SCHALER: Well, there are a lot of myths surrounding
this whole tobacco controversy. The anti-tobacco
crusaders are basically lying to the American public.
They're lying in two ways: One, they're lying about what
addiction really means - and this is the basis upon
which the FDA is trying to regulate tobacco, and it's
also the basis upon which product liability suits are
being carried out -
SOLLY: ... You're one of those people ...
SCHALER: ... They're also lying about the
relationship between liberty and responsibility, and
that has very serious legal and public policy
consequences.
SOLLY: Mr. Ballin, are you and other groups lying?
BALLIN: No, I don't think so. I think the issue of
addiction is well-founded and understood by all the
medical groups in this country. Dr. Koop, in the Surgeon
General's report back in 1988, looked at all the
evidence, every organization including the American
Medical Association, the Heart Association, Cancer
Society, all agree that tobacco is a highly addictive
substance and should be treated as such. We're not
asking for a ban on the product. We're asking that the
FDA regulate this product as it does every other legal
product, such as foods or other prescription drugs.
SOLLY: Dr. Schaler, that sounds reasonable to a lot
of people, what's the problem with that?
SCHALER: Well, the problem is that what they're
saying about addiction is inaccurate. They're making a
political ploy, defining addiction as saying that people
...
SOLLY: ... Addiction is addiction though, isn't it?
SCHALER: Addiction is not addiction. It depends on
what you mean. If you mean there are physiological
changes in the body that occur through smoking, yes, of
coursethat's true. But, if by addiction you mean people
cannot control their behavior, that is absolutely false.
Now, smoking is a choice, and because it's a choice it's
based in values. What the FDA wants to do is regulate
morality here and I am very much opposed to that. That
is very much against what our Founding Fathers created
this country for.
SOLLY: We have about a minute left. Mr. Ballin,
take out your crystal ball for us and give us your take
on what's going to happen with this settlement.
BALLIN: I think, first of all, the FDA issue will
be upheld in the courts. It's very clear the FDA does
have the authority. I think with respect to the
settlement, we have to wait and see what happens.
There's going to be a lot of talk and discussion going
on. I think that the attorneys general who brought these
suits will eventually win as well. And I think that the
FDA will win. That will bring the tobacco industry to
the bargaining table in a way that they've never been
brought before. And I think we're going to see some
major victories in public health from the settlement.
SOLLY: Dr. Schaler, our last ten seconds go to you.
SCHALER: I think this settlement is going to bring
disaster in terms of public and legal policy. And I
think that the tobacco industry should not settle. And I
think the American public should be aware of what the
FDA and the attorneys general are really trying to do,
that is, legislate morality.
SOLLY: And just for the record gentlemen, the
settlement, whatever it may be or may not be, is still
some ways away. So the controversy, Pamela, continues
this morning. And we're going back over to Ken right
now. No controversy about the weather, right?
(8:47am Finish)
PROZAC CURES CHAIR-SMASHING DISORDER!
Wisconsin Public Radio, Madison, WI. May 1, 1997 The
Kathleen Dunn Show
5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST
(live, with call-in)
...
DUNN: When you say that you've seen the medication
work in your school ... how does it work? You mean
you've seen kids in better control?
OSHKOSH CALLER: Some kids will get up and walk
around the room, throw chairs, throw desks, refuse to
cooperate ... and you just know that the days ... I've
seen kids break desks in half, in the fifth grade, a kid
broke a desk in half. On the days when they're on the
meds, this is after a year, I think the worst time of
your life is the first year of medication, because it's
so hard to monitor something, that after it's working,
and the kid's are more focused, the kid can learn and
does have the ability. So I've seen it work. And again,
I'm against the drugs, but if you can't help the
parents, and you can't get the parents to parent
properly, what can you do?
SCHALER: You know, one thing I'm curious about when
you bring up this example of the kids smashing chairs
and breaking desks, what do you think these kids are
objecting to? What do you think they're rebelling
against?
OSHKOSH CALLER: I would have to say, 95 percent of
the cases, these kids come from backgrounds where this
is common in the home place. The violence is common.
SCHALER: Oh, so you think they're modeling
behaviors they've learned?
OSHKOSH CALLER: Right. Exactly.
SCHALER: When does that ever get addressed?
OSHKOSH CALLER: When does that get addressed?
SCHALER: Right.
OSHKOSH CALLER: It's hard for us to address it and
keep our jobs.
SCHALER: Yes. OK. I appreciate your honesty on
that. That's certainly true.
DUNN: Thanks Oshkosh very much for your call. Let's
pause for a moment and return. Dr. Jeffrey Schaler is
our guest, psychology professor at Johns Hopkins
University, a psychologist, and we're looking at the
issue of whether or not the FDA should approve the use
of Prozac for children. 1-800- 486-8655, 227-2050 in
Milwaukee. Twelve minutes now before five. I'm Kathleen
Dunn. You're listing to The Ideas Network of Wisconsin
Public Radio.
...
DUNN: Dr. Schaler, if it were up to you, would
you just get rid of, keep these drugs totally off the
market until somebody is 18 or should they not be on
the market at all ...
SCHALER: Well, I'm a firm believer in the free
market availability of all drugs. My concern is that
people are well informed and that we have more talk
shows like this which are opportunities for people to
challenge the psychiatric status quo and make informed
choices and not be brainwashed by psychiatrists and
psychologists into thinking every problem they have
has some medical origin that needs to be treated. These
are problems in living. These are existential problems.
And we need to talk about this in public forums. That's
my real concern ...
DUNN: ... yeah ...
SCHALER: ... not the establishment of regulation,
prohibition, etc. That's not the issue.
DUNN: I'm just astounded. I don't do very many
shows that have this kind of material as subject matter,
but I'm astounded, just in the past hour, how many calls
there were from people who were very familiar with
Ritalin and with Prozac. It's obviously something that's
prescribed and a lot of people are using these drugs.
SCHALER: Well, we are most certainly living in what
Thomas Szasz calls the "therapeutic state," where
medicine and the state have become engaged in an unholy
matrimony and people are feeling the effects in all
aspects of their lives. So, I think that's why you're
getting the response that you are.
DUNN: Yeah. What do you think the FDA is going to
do about this?
SCHALER: I suspect they will allow it to be on the
free market and prescribed, because certainly they're
under a lot of pressure from physicians and drug
companies to market a drug they think is consistent with
psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. So I suspect it
will be on the open market for children.
DUNN: So those people who are supposed to be
looking at the family dynamics and the school situation
and a person's relationship to greater society, just are
going to skip that part of their jobs and just give them
drugs? Hunh? Or what?
SCHALER: It's all up to you. You've got to run more
shows like this.
DUNN: (Laughter.) We got to find somebody else on
the other side, we're going to have to do that soon.
SCHALER: There are plenty of them out there, I'm
sure.
DUNN: Are there?
SCHALER: Yes.
DUNN: Do people in your profession look askance at
you?
SCHALER: Oh yes. I'm considered a heretic, that's
for sure.
DUNN: Are you really?
SCHALER: And I'm sure many people in your listening
audience right now would agree.
DUNN: Well, you're a great talk show guest. So, I
thank you for your time this afternoon.
SCHALER: Well, thank you very much. It's been a
pleasure.
DUNN: Thanks. Our guest Dr. Jeffrey Schaler ...
We'll look at the other side of this issue at some
point, if not during the afternoon, then sometime in the
morning during the next few days. (6)
SPEAK AGAINST CONTRADICTORS
In the eight examples presented, four letters and
four transcripts, some form of contradiction was used to
effect a political outcome.
People manipulating others through contradiction
claim they are helping, not hurting people. They claim
they are selfless not selfish. Exposing contradiction is
not cruel. There is no rough or refined way of speaking
against people who contradict themselves. A sincere
person without hidden motives welcomes such awareness.
One may be inclined to ask dictators how they
reconcile their contradictions. The question is
improper: No justification or explanation for
maintaining the contradiction can suffice. Contradiction
is contradiction. Moreover, dictators depend on persons
being confused in order to maintain power. When a person
thinks, "he is contradicting himself," he should
challenge the dictator and render his rhetoric null and
void. If one lingers and questions the dictator's
contradictions, e.g. one says to oneself "I don't
understand how he reconciles the contradiction," the
dictator will use that hesitation and self- doubt to say
you are incapable of understanding him. The dictator
uses hesitation and self-doubt to maintain power over
others.
This is not to suggest that every time a person
fails to understand someone it's because the person he
is listening to is contradicting himself. "When a book
and a head collide, and the resulting sound is a hollow
one, it is not necessarily the fault of the book."
Reality appears contradictory to confused persons.
CHALLENGE YOURSELF
I spent fourteen years training in the martial arts
and was fortunate to have had a good teacher. He would
invite me to attack him. At first I was scared he would
injure me. Then I came to realize he was the person who
would not injure me - lesser "teachers" would. So I
threw myself at him and learned.
I think the same holds true for those we fear will
expose our contradictions. At first, there is a fear of
taking risks. Then follows the realization good teachers
may hurt but not injure. Dictators are easily exposed by
their intolerance of difference of opinion, challenge,
or "speaking against." The sayings of Buddhist Rinzai
assist me in understanding this. I close here with one
of my favorites:
One day the master and Fuke went to a vegetarian
banquet given them by a believer. During it, the master
asked Fuke: "'A hair swallows the vast ocean, a mustard
seed contains Mt. Sumeru' - does this happen by means of
supernatural powers, or is the whole body (substance,
essence) like this?" Fuke kicked over the table. The
master said: "Rough fellow." Fuke retorted: "What place
is this here to speak of rough and refined?" The next
day, they went again to a vegetarian banquet. During it,
the master asked: "Today's fare, how does it compare
with yesterday's?" Fuke as before kicked over the table.
The master said: "Understand it you do - but still, you
are a rough fellow." Fuke replied: "Blind fellow, does
one preach of any roughness or finesse in the Buddha-
Dharma?" The master put out his tongue. (7)
NOTES
1. Addiction comes from the Latin "dicere," which when
combined with the preposition "ad" means "to say yes
to," or "to consent." In other words, Nancy Reagan was
right. Just say no to drugs.
"Dicere" is also the root of the words "abdication,"
"dictation," and "dictator." In "abdication," "dicere"
combined with the preposition "ab" means "to say no to,"
"to give up," "to surrender." That is, to relinquish, to
disclaim, power or responsibility. "Dictation" and
"dictator" come from "dictate," which in turn comes from
the Latin "dictare" frequentative of "dicere": "to say,"
"to tell." To dictate is to prescribe expressly and with
authority, to command or give a directive (American
Heritage Dictionary). A dictator is one who dictates.
Since addiction accurately refers to an iron will,
denoting addiction as weak will, or even impaired will,
implies the opposite meaning, and thus contradiction
(Schaler, in press). Thinking is metaphorical self-talk.
2. Central-route processors tend to be a more
heterogeneous and higher educated population. They may
be less likely to conform to the status quo, and more
likely to stand alone, contradicting the group. See also
Kaufmann, W. (1973). From decidophobia to autonomy
without guilt and justice. New York: Delta.
Peripheral-route processors tend to be a more
homogeneous and less educated population. They are more
likely to value the status quo and engage in
scapegoating. See Szasz, T. S. (1970). The manufacture
of madness: A comparative study of the Inquisition and
the mental health movement. New York: Harper & Row and
Freud, S. (1965). Group psychology and the analysis of
the ego. New York: Bantam Books.
3. Consider the contradiction in responses to my article
entitled Selling Water By the River: The Project MATCH
Cover-up (available at
http://userpage.fuberlin.de/~expert/FTP_1_5/PNI5_1.c).
My critics assert 12-Step Facilitation Therapy (TSF) is
different from Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). TSF,
Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) and Cognitive
Behavior Therapy (CBT) proved no different in reducing
drinking through Project MATCH. TSF is based on AA
philosophy, MET and CBT are not. Yet, TSF, according to
critics, differs much more from AA than from MET or CBT!
Another way of looking at this is as follows: My critics
assert TSF is more similar to MET and CBT than AA is.
This despite the fact more subjects in the TSF group
attended AA than those in the CBT and MET groups! Note:
All subjects in Project MATCH attended AA during the
study. See also Bruce Bower's article entitled
"Alcoholics Synonymous," which appeared in the January
25, 1997 issue of SCIENCE NEWS, 151 (available at
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_25_97/bob1.htm);
and Stanton Peele's recent article entitled "Pimping
Project MATCH" (available at http://peele.sas.nl).
4. See "Should Employers Have To Accommodate The
Mentally Ill?," Program #202 of DebatesDebates, taped
June 3, 1997, aired on PBS television the week of July
9, 1997. Information available at
http://www.debatesdebates.com
5. "So here's an ethical dilemma: Is it wrong to make
people who aren't sick feel better? Is it more wrong if
they are children?
Yes, says Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of health research
for Public Citizen, a public-interest group in
Washington, D.C. 'How can you tell kids to 'just say no'
to drugs when everything in the culture, when every drug
ad, is telling them tranquilizers will make them more
normal? Talk about a conflicted message!'" (Leonard, May
28, 1997).
Synchronicity?
6. A cassette tape of this one-hour show is available
through The Radio Store, 1-800-486-8655. Ask for program
5/1/L, The Kathleen Dunn Show, May 1, 1997.
7. Fuke story adapted from (1975) The zen teaching of
Rinzai, translated from the Chinese by Irmgard Schloegl.
Berkeley, California: Shambala.
REFERENCES
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free
Press.
Husemann, F. (1977). Das bild des menschen als grundlage
der heilkunst. Stuttgart (Germany): Verlag Freies
Geistesleben. Quoted in Bott, V. (1984).
Anthroposophical medicine: Spiritual science and the art
of healing. New York: Thorsons Publishers, Inc., p. 66.
Leifer, R. (In press). The psychiatric repression of Dr.
Thomas Szasz: Its social and political significance.
Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry.
Leonard, M. (1997). Children the hot new market for
antidepressants. The Boston Globe, May 28.
Orwell, G. (1981). Nineteen-eighty four. New York: New
American Library.
Schaler, J.A. (In press). The case against alcoholism as
a disease. In W. Shelton and R. Edwards (Eds.) Values,
ethics, and alcoholism. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Publishers.
Szasz, T.S. (1997). Medics in the war on drugs. Liberty,
March, Vol. 10, No. 4.
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of
justice, law and society at American University's School
of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.; an adjunct
professor of psychology at Montgomery College in
Rockville, Md.; and teaches psychology for Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, Md. He lives in Silver Spring,
Md.
jschale@american.edu
|
|