Dr Dillon touches on a massive problem affecting all aspects of mental disorders, particularly the underfunding of the acutely mentally ill. Not only do we not have physiologically researched definitions for mental illness, we don't have words which define two major areas of mental ill health. And, as the doctor notes, if we think we have problems now, just wait for DSM5!
But global criticism of its model has delayed publication and caused modification of proposed entries.
The Minister's media release regarding the attempt to define early childhood mental problems is acceptable as long as it is left with general practitioners. But there must be a defining of when a GP
can refer to a psychiatrist. In present psychiatric treatment medication is placed above and ahead of psychotherapy and the drug companies win again. Infant and early childhood medication is now causing extreme concern in the USA.
According to World Health Organisation global statistics, we have some 650,000 seriously/severely mentally ill in Australia. We treat only some 260,000,[Mental Health Council of Australia, 2009]. These people suffer the treatable but incurable 'brain disorders' of schizophrenia, bipolar and severe affective disorders. The suicide rate is high. There are also an unknown number who suffer the treatable and curable 'mind disorders' of depression, phobias, personality and identity problems, and the life problems of bereavement, finances, relationships, employment. Most persons respond to therapy, some may need medication for a time, some need prolonged help. There is a low suicide rate.
The terms used are not medical, merely made up to indicate that, for these two groups, separation and definition are a necessity. That will also add more meaning to the 'statistic' so much quoted from psychiatrists "I in 5 Australians has a mental illness". "Brain disorder" does have some meaning, in so far as such diseases may be physically defined post mortem; "mind disorder" may not sound acceptable, but these are the curable 'worrying' mind problems.
Definition may stop the disastrous underfunding of those who are acutely mentally ill; this results in a high rate of preventable suicides.

Dr Dillon is correct in what he says. He presents a logical and true arguement. It is very concerning that so many more children could be medicated as a result of this screening and all without a shred of scientific proof that the child has the "disorder."

Kids absolutley have problems, but parents and teachers should ask for the sceintific proof that the child has the "disorder." That proof will not be given as there are no blood tests, scans or any tests to prove the child has the "disorder. Only a checklist is used to diagnose mental illness. This is not medicine and is purely somone's opinion. We need the GPs to do thorough checks on our kids to see if they are physically ill and see if that is the cause of the problem for the child.

If the child does have problems and the cause is not found, a label and psychiatric drug will not rectify it. Causes of some problems can include such things as bullying, problems at home, physical illness,being behind at school, bad diet, lack of exercise, etc. The cause varies and if a child is having problems, the real cause needs to be found, not a lable and drug given, that can have horrific side-effects. This screening is a bad omen for Australain children

Great article - it's a shame that such an outrageous proposal as screening three year olds for mental illness is what it takes to get these kinds of articles published (articles that dare to stand up and say "I don't agree with this and this needs to be sorely questioned"). The fact that no scientific testing for mental illness exists, and yet it gets held up as a health issue on the same order as diabetes or asthma is most alarming, and parents being told to get their child checked for mental illness need to know what they're in for. Thank you for your article - may it make a big difference by curbing such reckless and experimental ideas.

Dr Dillon is right. How can we be labelling people with "mental illnesses", giving them mind altering drugs -when the 100% workable technology and science is not being used. The stats are in, today's modern pseudo-science of psychiatry is not working. If we continue down this path, we will end up with more created 'disorders', no real answers and misdiagnosed zombies for a society. The only party that will be happy are the drug companies.

Great article. This is an area that really does need some attention. These days there are too many prescription drugs given out to handle so called mental illnesses. However these "mental illnesses" are based on what? There are no physical tests that can be done - it is just based on someone's opinion or viewpoint. How can you look at a three year old child and say he has a mental disorder due to his behaviour. Kids will be kids and they will be happy one minute and sad or angry the next. They can't tell you what's wrong you just have to be there for them. Giving them drugs is only going to make it a lot worse and can lead to so much more - even death. Please lets do something to stop this atrocious push to screen, label and medicate children!!

What a sensible, reasoned and factual article Mr Dillon has provided.
To play loose with dubious diagnoses - none based on any provable findings - on our most vulnerable and expose them to the serious dangers that psychotropic drugs present, especially to the very young, is as abominable as it is absurd. We have already caused far too much damage in needlessly and harmfully drugging a generation under the pretext of treating an unprovable condition called "ADHD" - the parameters of which are so flexible and subjective as to make the diagnosis a scientific sham and a social catastrophe. Let's pause and reason clearly and honestly: just as Mr Dillon has just so helpfully done.

This article reminds me of a front page article in The Daily Telegraph a couple of years ago titled "Stop Drugging Our Children" which covered the ADHD drugging of our children. ADHD is one of the diseases voted into existence into the DSM by a show of hands. It does not have any medical or scientific basis whatsoever and there is no blood test, scan, Xray etc to validate it"s existence. It is most often treated with powerful psychotropic drugs which may have unpredictable horrific side effects including violence, suicidal behaviour and stroke ie Russian Rou;lette with the children who wholeheartedly trust us as parents to protect them. Young children go through different stages of emotioal and physical development. In their vulnerable state as they try to find their way in the world there behaviour maybe be normal or it may be influences by real medical or emotional cirmstances. Maybe your child is just crying out for a little bit more love and attention.

Thank you for you article Anthony. The screening of 3 year olds smells very much of more drugging of of our children and an excuse for Psychiatrists to add more made up diseases into the DSM. Shame on Psychiatry and hands off our children. This screening is like an insidious corrupt force permeating into our children's lives

I compeletely agree with the views expressed in this article. Children are our future and they MUST be protected from those who wish to over prescribe drugs, drugs. drugs!! There may a small percentage of mentally unbalanced children, however to then decide to screen and "diagnose" all children is a complete pendulum swing and shows an ability to differentiate, by appplying a broad "band aid" to a whole section of life! Leave our kids alone!

There's a huge percentage of academics who are more unbalanced than any other group in our society yet they pick on three year olds. Typical !

Dr Dillon makes sense -A significant number of ill folk and given psychiatric labels are suffering from a medical condition. Here’s a quote from the author of “A dose of sanity”, Dr Sidney Walker III:
"As a practicing psychiatrist and neurologist, I've successfully diagnosed and treated hundreds of patients whose emotional and behavioral symptoms were caused by tumors, infections, toxins, medication errors, genetic diseases, and other physical problems. Most of them came to me after being tagged with psychiatric labels - manic depression, anxiety disorder, attention deficit disorder - and being given powerful mind-altering drugs or referral for psychotherapy. By the time they called my office, many were desperate, some were suicidal, and few had been significantly helped."
e

I agree with Dr. Dillon. Every year there are more mental disorders, every year more medications prescribed, every year more is given to 'treat' mental disorders, and the mental health ambassadors and pharmaceutical companies continue to make more and more profit. And what is the result of all of this growing 'treatment' of 'mental disorders.' The result are easy to see - every year the crime rate increases, every year the suicide rate continues to increase, every year there are more acts of domestic violence, every year more people appear to be 'depressed' or 'bi-polar' and the list goes on! Why do the statistics continue to grow as we continue feeding the mental health sector with increasing resources and money. And the answer is - because it is a lie! There is no 'chemical imbalance', there is no 'mental disorder' there is no 'bi-polar' or 'mental disease.' So as long as we continue to label and treat normal human emotions as diseases and prescribe 'modification' drugs - our society as a whole will get worse and our level of morality will decline! Could it be that the 'treatment' is the cause of the problem in the first place? The day we realize behavioral drugs cause the very thing they are supposed to prevent will be the biggest step towards a better world in the past century! Keep up the good work Dr. Dillon - your supporters are many!

Oh no, it seems I’m in the minority here…

But I’m going to stick my neck out and say that from my perspective this article presents one singular quality: philistinism (though with apologies to Palestinians… I’m referring to the Westernised sense of the word, ie being satisfied in your ignorance!)

Essentially the author seems to be suggesting that where no concrete evidence of an illness is present/observable, then its existence is cast into doubt. He asks “at what point does behaviour become a mental illness?” as if the answer is somehow ephemeral.

However I would suggest that it’s pretty uncontroversial to make the claim that once a behaviour starts to negatively impact on a person’s ability to live a satisfactory life, and exceeds that person’s ability to bring under control, it becomes an illness. As long as a discernable pattern of a manifestation is there, what more do you need to designate it an illness? And if it is the case that a majority of health professionals develop a consensus that a particular set of phenomena constitutes an illness, what’s wrong with that? If these professionals are suitably qualified to analyse data and make conclusions through the application of accepted methodologies, then how is that any less valid than a conclusion made through the appeal to more concrete forms of evidence?

I agree that it is more difficult to talk about mental illness in children. However I would argue that it is likely that the difficulty lies not so much in conceptualising whether children can have mental illnesses as it does in them not having the vocabulary and insight into their own thinking states to be able to notice and explain that there is something wrong… and with my social worker hat on I’d say also that I believe there is something of a social prejudice against taking as valid the views and perspectives of children

[cont]

The basic problem here I think is that the discipline of psychiatry is still in its infancy, and the technology available for pinpointing the precise brain activity associated with particular mental illnesses doesn’t yet exist. Further, given that our understanding of brain function is still relatively unsophisticated, the medications available to target particular areas of it are correspondingly so. But instead of giving up, and using techniques such as cynicism and pseudo-phenomenology to analyse this stuff, we should be supporting psychiatrists to keep working and debating. It was after all less than 100 years ago that we used to chain schizophrenia patients to the wall and leave them there for their whole lives. Advances in psychiatry have given us reasons to stop doing this… but it’s still only just begun to unravel the complexity of what it’s dealing with.

Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of the human condition… so get used to it!

Sam Jandwich,
Yes society has moved on from the ignorance based physical cruelties in the past. Nowadays we have ignorance based experts ruining peoples' lives psychologically. Are these experts really learning ? Isn't this industry just another bandwagon ? I know several mental health professionals who really are in dire need of help from sane people. One of them, a Doctor is so utterly ignorant he is actually a danger to sane people as he has been given power over sane people by some ignorant bureaucrats.
Let parents live their lives & let them discipline their children. In other words the experts should stay out of sane peoples' lives & we'll have a better society.
If these experts really want to do good & be beneficial to our society they should talk to our Law & Policy makers. After all, most stress & subsequent mental illness stems from the yoke of authority.

I'm certainly not in favour of medicating en masse, and it does appear to be growing phenomenon in the West.

However, if a child is formally assessed and found to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of autism, for example, then it is imperative that this is recognised and that the child receives extra assistance and understanding in a school setting. (often children with high-functioning autism or Aspergers are very close to neuro-typical, except when greatly stressed as is likely to occur in a rigid institutionalised setting) Many diagnoses are for that reason - also for the implementation of early intervention procedures. Institutionalised schooling isn't formulated for children who may present as developmentally delayed or who display as behaviourally, socially or sensorially challenged.
Without a formal assessment and diagnosis, these children are often left to sink in the system, as aides are usually only provided upon formal diagnosis.

I applaud this article. It takes courage to make a stand against the status quo. What is at stake here is the future well-being of our children, and whether they even can be kids. To start off life with a psychiatric label that will stick for life is unspeakable, unconscionable and frightening. I have just been attending a 3 day conference in Perth run by the Richmond Fellowship. It included much discussion about psychiatric diagnosis, the methods, the treatments and the results. Most of the speakers were psychiatrists including some of the biggest international names in modern psychiatry, or those who have survived psychiatric treatment and want it all to change.

When hundreds of delegates almost booed the idea of this screening, and even the psychiatrists said it is at best risky and at worst dangerous, it makes it clear that the idea is not science or evidence based. The comments made at the conference, on and off the stage, supported the skepticism in this article. Early diagnoses were discussed as unworkable, unreliable and unwanted. Proper physical health checks were promoted. Hearing, eyes, blood; these things were considered required. The delegates I saw in the auditorium were cheering for children to be well treated as normal kids, with care and love, and against any labeling, coercion or drugging. It would very reassuring to Anthony that so many people who work in and around the current psychiatric system are speaking out against this controversial proposal.

A good article about a deeply concerning topic. I am steadfastly against what amounts to state interference with child rearing. To accept psychological/psychiatric evaluation of our children(our future!) when there is no guaranteed success from these psychiatric "treatments". It shocks me!
But it shocks me into action. I'll be discussing this with my pollies & everyone else. And I'll be supporting those that can recognise a conniving marketing exercise when they see it.
I've seen many tough children in my time but will give you one example as to why this is all claptrap: a young male I knew, who was quite wild and irreverent, yet good natured, was always getting into trouble at school and on the streets. It was suggested to his parents that he be placed into a "special needs" school - one where most of the teenagers were on some kind of drug/medication - but the parents refused to take this path, persevering instead through some "tough times" knowing that a loving, caring positive forward motion would eventually win. And it did. Now, that young man is a very successful businessman who can competently deal with very tough customers; he is very self confident and secure as he has a broad base of unfiltered(raw) experience from which to draw. He is kind & considerate and does not need or take drugs/medications to "correct the imbalance". The parents are very proud and are dead against psychiatric/psychological intervention as they too have seen negative results from this type of interference. I've seen far too many examples from both sides of this story which support my view to say to the "authorities": KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR KIDS. LOVE, NOT LABELS. SUPPORT AND HELP RESTORE PARENTAL/FAMILY RIGHTS.
(as a final point, if you look at almost all the stellar personalities who have dazzled us - take Walt Disney for example - you will find many were "difficult" and many would undoubtedly be straight jacketed by these proposals. Lets continue to be dazzled, not dazed. HANDS OFF OUR KIDS! ...and "Let 'em grow, let 'em grow, let 'em grow!)

People who are short or fat or are not appealing to the eye are a drag on our Tourism sector.

The best way to improve tourist dollars & the profits of the 2% decent money earners in our society is to breed such scum out of society.

Marginalising them although a useful ongoing strategy is not sufficient.

The new ability to label less than perfect citizens "mentally ill" offers a seamless way to delete sub humans & improve our economic posture.

After all of OUR marginalisation these sub humans are genuinely ready for the funny farm anyway so what's the diff?

Many thanks to the author for bringing this vital topic up.

Zeich Heil!

Junior O'Farrelly
President
NSW Chamber of Tourism, Commerce, Business, Banking, Insurance, Lewdly Profitable Unsustainable Property Developments(the LPUPD) and Corporate Mergers & Casinos.

The responses to Dr Dillon's letter shows an overwhelming rejection of the drugging of children and the growing practice of labeling all and sundry with a mental disorder.Is it possible that any specialized field such as psychiatry could fail to make any progress for well over a century without coming under scrutiny as to its validity in the the field of mental health and warrant huge government funding at the expense of the taxpayer in every budget?What of the future?Surely all of the problems of mental health are not solved by the futile and debilitating use of pychotropic drugs,act,brain probes and so on.

I applaud Dr Dillon for putting the spotlight on this gravely important issue. To use the ADHD label to describe for medicare purposes the symptoms of hyperactivity, poor attention, etc may seem harmless enough. However, when the psychiatric profession uses this label convince over 60,000 children in Australia that they have a medical illness justifying the use of pharmaceuticals then the danger of this diagnosis becomes apparent. We must not lose sight of the fact that ADHD is a label for a group of individual symptoms which must be addressed individually so that the cause of each symptom such as diet, lack of attention from parents, lack of exercise, other medical causes, etc can be addressed, if needed. To mis-assign the cause to a "chemical imbalance" or other brain cause for which there is no x-ray, blood test or other way of scientifically proving is grossly irresponsible and the reason why pharmaceutical companies are forever being tied up in legal action for the damage caused to children as a result of their fraudulent ghost written studies supporting the use of their drugs.

Psychiatry will not stop their relentless march, driven by pure greed, until we are all taking their poisonous drugs just in case we may 'catch' or 'develop' a mental 'illness'. The fact that they cannot define their terms or that they have any scrap of science to prove their ridiculous claims seems to have escaped everybody. Money talks and science walks I guess in this new age.
Psychiatry is a sham and a fraud and the fact that our Government supplies them with the money and resources to subject any citizen, let alone our precious little 3 year olds, to their barbarism is beyond an outrage. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing - never were truer words spoken when it comes to Psychiatry and their false science. The PR behind this outrageous attack on innocent children is dripping with platitudes around 'doing no harm' but the reality will be anything but that. The only outcome that these clowns are looking for is more poeple on mind-destroying psych drugs - and that will be the result of this ridiculous program. Labels and drugs is ALL psychiatry has - they do NOT help because they know they CAN'T! But that doesn't stop their insanity! The only real mental illness on this planet today is Psychiatry!

when men think they are god they give answers to questions that are not even being asked. The further we get away from the Word of God the less commonsense we have and the more people suffer. Often it is children if fortunate enough to survive the womb. These 'scientist' really think they are god.

Why is it that unacceptable child behaviour is now being looked at being mental illness. ?

Why is diet and parental control ignored ?

Who is wanting the population on drugs and who will benefit ?

When will people realise psychiatry and psychology are NOT sciences, they have no scientific basis and yet they put forward as if they are.

Screening 3 year olds - come on, let's confront the true causes and give REAL solutions that don't cause other problems.

Well said, Sandwich - though apparently falling on deaf or otherwise occupied ears on this thread - which appears to have brought some strange conceptions (or misconceptions) about medical psychiatry out of the woodwork. Reading many of these posts one might be forgiven for reaching a conclusion that at least a portion of our society really think there is no such thing as a psychiatric condition, or at least none that can't be resolved by a hug, a change of diet and some mild exercise.

So, because no simple blood test or scan can be used to positively diagnose a 'mental illness' it must follow that there can be no such thing, and the whole of psychiatric science is a deception and a money grab by a collusion of witches and drug companies?

It is a pity that someone's strange idea about subjecting children to mental health assessment should bring down such a torrent of abuse against the whole of psychiatry and psychology, deeming them unnecessary, unconscionable and a total waste of taxpayer's money. (It's also going to be something of a shock to all those who have benefited from psychotherapy and psychiatric drugs to learn that they weren't really 'sick' at all, and just needed to have a friendly chat with the local garbo to resolve all their 'issues'.)

If people can't suffer from a psychiatric or behavioral disorder, so how could children? Well, wake up Australia, mental illness is real, and it's on the rise - and why wouldn't it be, with all the pressures of modern life. But not all disturbed thinking arises from life pressures.

We have a magnificent but complex brain, whose chemistry will probably never be fathomable, and which can and does sometimes fail to function properly. Thankfully some portion of our medical fraternity take such 'human' problems seriously enough to try to help, to do research, and to use the best means currently available in a conscientious endeavour to relieve the distress of those who are genuinely suffering from what some posters here would contend are imaginary, or merely attention seeking. Give over.

HI Saltpetre. You say "mental illness is real". That may be true, but what is it? Why does being depressed get called a mental illness, but being angry does not? We say "he is angry" but don't typically say "he has anger". I think that is where the problem lies - failure to provide a definition. For many people, they assume that a mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain, and that's where the debates and arguing starts.

Hi Anthony,

You posted: >For many people, they assume that a mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain, and that's where the debates and arguing starts.<

From my passing experience of mental health issues, it does certainly seem that some 'problems' are at least partly based on brain chemical imbalance - and bi-polar and schizophrenia appear to be prime examples. In some cases medication has proven helpful, such as serotonin re-uptake inhibitors or dopamine balancing agents, etc. But this is an exceedingly complex field, which is why psychiatry is such a demanding profession, requiring many years of post graduate and continuing study - possibly also accounting for our continuing shortage of these important professionals.

This is not to say all 'disabilities' are brain chemical problems, for in some cases it is actual brain wiring that causes a problem - as in dyslexia and some optical and other sensory issues (but these would be categorised as disabilities and not as an illness).

Unfortunately, with various behavioural issues, it appears that diagnosis and treatment can often be a lengthy process, particularly with the young, and success may well be determined by the expertise and experience of the practitioner. While it may be relatively straight forward to identify, even to classify, aberrant behaviour, determination of cause and appropriate treatment - with or without chemicals - is obviously much more complex.

We really need a practicing professional to shed proper light on these issues, but they are probably too busy to bother with OLO.

That mental illness is 'real', I have no doubt whatever. That appropriate chemicals can often help (but not always), I also have no doubt. That all aberrant behaviour is either physical or physiologically based, I do doubt - though I cannot offer proof for this conviction, just a suggestion that environmental experience can sometimes be a major factor (as in post traumatic stress disorder). Our brain is not just a physical entity, but an inherently complex neurological system subject to a broad range of potential failings, and all of its mysteries may never be fully understood.

You stated "from my passing experience of mental health issues, it does certainly seem that some 'problems' are at least partly based on brain chemical imbalance - and bi-polar and schizophrenia appear to be prime examples." Can you elaborate on your 'passing experience' with regard to these “prime examples”? From my passing experience (reading journals everyday, keeping abreast of latest developments, etc.) these chemical imbalances have not been discovered yet.

You mention "In some cases medication has proven helpful." Well they don't seem to be working any better than placebos. What does that tell you? Can you give some examples of "actual brain wiring that causes a problem"?

You say "That mental illness is 'real', I have no doubt whatever." I think anger, fraud, rape are all real also. What I don't believe is that such behaviours are the result of faulty brain chemistry. What do you mean by ‘real’?

I shall leave you with a couple of quotes from Dr Dan Carlat (a psychiatrist) from his book "Unhinged."

"Naming psychiatric disorders reassures patients, who often improve markedly just be hearing that they have a condition that is well-recognised and treatable. But just because it has a name, is it actually a disease?"

“I wonder whether the essence of the psychological problem is really being addressed; generally, modern psychiatry has no way of even understanding what the ‘underlying problem’ might be. In treating emotional problems with medication, I worry that we are discouraging patients from learning life skills that they could use to truly solve their problems.”

Anthony,

My passing experience was a direct five year relationship with two young teenage men and their mother. The boys both had problems which were helped by medication and behavioral counseling. Without the medication only limited or no counseling was possible. They are both now mature responsible men, and medication-free. The medication utilised was to 'correct' a brain chemical imbalance. It worked. You may believe placebo effect was at play, but I have seen what happened when either of the boys forgot their medication, and when one decided to go off it too early. They got there eventually with perseverance, but the medication made that journey and outcome possible.

Brain wiring - try dyslexia and some related optical (eyesight) difficulties, including dysgraphia. Tinted lenses and eye exercises can be very helpful, and even facilitate eventual correction. Talk to a clinical optometrist or Professor Robinson at Newcastle University.

I don't call mental illness or aberrant behaviour a 'disease', and don't think relevant clinicians would either. Disease is something you contract or develop physically; and though some mental conditions may have a foundation in physiology or a physical abnormality (of genetic or other cause) I don't believe one could correctly classify such as a disease. As for anger and overly-aggressive behaviour, there is anger management counseling, and both the condition and the treatment are 'real'.

As for the use of chemicals >discouraging patients from learning life skills that they could use to truly solve their problems.”< This may well be accurate - where relevant counseling, psychotherapy and such may be effective without the use of medication. It is horses for courses, and not all horses have the same problems or needs - and it is up to the qualified clinician to determine.

Anger, fraud, rape - real? Sure, and some perpetrators may be diagnosed to be psychopaths, or as suffering from another underlying mental illness, or they may just be hoods, criminals, miscreants or opportunists - whose 'illness' may be a lack of conscience. Where to draw the line? It's up to a court, a psychiatrist, or both to determine.

Saltpetre, glad to see we share points of view on this. Reading the other comments it almost makes me wonder whether they are supporters/friends of Dr Dillon, out there in the real world. It's just too weird otherwise.

"In treating emotional problems with medication, I worry that we are discouraging patients from learning life skills that they could use to truly solve their problems.”

Anthony, this is a legitimate concern, but this is not the essence of psychiatry - it is the *misapplication* of psychiatry. It's what happens when psychiatric intervention is attempted by someone who is lacking in knowledge, or is being irresponsible in their approach to therapy, and I think you'll find the psychiatry profession is just as concerned about stamping out this sort of thing as you are.

As I said earlier, the science still has a long way to go in this area - but it's still science. If you disagree with it, then what you should be doing is using science to put forward an alternative way of conceptualising these phenomena. But with all due respect, what you are doing instead is purveying quackery - which if I may be frank is not something I'd advise an early career academic to do.

Sam, you start with "Reading the other comments it almost makes me wonder whether they are supporters/friends of Dr Dillon" and then go down hill from there. I do not know the people who have commented, but I suspect that like me, they are very enthusiastic when an article like mine comes up, given that the 'chemical imbalance' myth is so pervasive and unchallenged. you say "But with all due respect, what you are doing instead is purveying quackery - which if I may be frank is not something I'd advise an early career academic to do." I happy to discuss this, if you can point out to me what it is I have said that gave you the idea that it relates to quackery.

"It's what happens when psychiatric intervention is attempted by someone who is lacking in knowledge," Why don't you do some research and find out what proportion of people who see a psychiatrist come away with a presciption.

"As I said earlier, the science still has a long way to go in this area - but it's still science" Just because something carries the label of science, it does not mean that it is. Science deals with objectivity, truth, cause and effect, not consensus and voting on what is a mental illness.

"If you disagree with it, then what you should be doing is using science to put forward an alternative way of conceptualising these phenomena."
Well the burden of proof is always on the claimant, not the skeptic. These 'phenomena' have already been well conceptualised using non-medical language.

Anthony Dillon,

On the contrary - why don't you do some research. You might like to begin with an in-depth study of autistic behaviours and hypersensitivities. You might then learn that a small child displaying deficits in these areas is in need of extra understanding and support by those who will be commandeering his school hours. You might also find that a "label" is required if school authorities are to recognise that this particular child needs extra assistance to fit their square selves into society's institutionalised round holes. You might also learn of the hell that some children and families endure when these needs are not diagnosed and addressed.

I'm not particularly in favour of mass screening for these types of developmental and behavioural "conditions", however, if a child is clearly demonstrating tell-tale behaviours and sensitivities and struggling to keep up or integrate with their peers, it is vital in a homogeneous situation (such as is found in Western mass education) that these be addressed.

Just wanted to add that by the term "extra assistance", I'm not referring to medication. I am not in favour of medicating children so that they will "sit down and shut up" while in class. My point was that extra assistance is often required to help these children in an instutionalised setting - more one-on-one attention. This cannot happen unless the child's problems are assessed in the first place.

Saltpetre, quite a respectful response. Thank you. The effects of placebos are perhaps more powerful than what you might think. Have you read the book 'Bad Science" (I can't recall the author, and a colleague has borrowed my copy)? It gives some amazing studies that look at the effects of placebos. With regard to the 'healing' effect that psychotropic medication appears to have, I suggest you look at the book by psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff called: The myth of the chemical cure: A critique of psychiatric drug treatment." The drugs have an effect, but it is not one of correcting a chemical imbalance.

I agree that mental disorders, are not generally called diseases, but there are many health professionals who do. I am currently writing a journal article on this now where I make reference to that.

You say "It is horses for courses, and not all horses have the same problems or needs - and it is up to the qualified clinician to determine." What exactly is it that the 'qualified clinician' determines?

You say "It's up to a court, a psychiatrist, or both to determine." That is how it is on our society. But how is it done? The psychiatrist simply makes a claim and is considered to be an expert.

Anthony,

I'm not a psychiatrist or health worker, so I am not in a position to give a definitive response to your questions. I just have had some direct experience, as outlined before, and did some research on the internet to better understand the situation. I became satisfied, both theoretically and in that particular practical situation, that chemical intervention is sometimes efficacious in enabling corrective attention to underlying problems. Does the chemical or the counseling have the greatest effect - I am not in a position to determine. Was some trial and error involved in isolating the most efficacious medication regimen, yes. Did the medication lead to improvement, yes. Was the situation without medication manageable, yes, but was also a hairy ride on some of those occasions. Were some lessons learned on those occasions, yes.

Since there appears to be some disagreement between practicing psychiatrists on the use of medication, I suggest this serves to indicate the complexity of this most human of sciences, the complexity of the human brain and its 'chemistry', and the extensive range of variations possible in what may be termed 'mental illness', both as to cause, and to effect.

If, say, serotonin re-uptake inhibitors do not have an effect on brain chemical balance (as you seem to suggest), then what might otherwise account for the improvement experienced by relevant patients? Clinical trials would surely have established the variance in placebo and genuine medication outcomes, would they not? How else do you think these medications are approved for use in the first place.

Poirot,

Agreed some medications may be designed to make one sit down, shut up, and take notice - but I would expect such to only be used in extreme circumstances or with otherwise dangerous patients. My limited experience demonstrated that correct medication not only enabled but actually facilitated learning and development - for what it's worth.

Saltpetre, another respectful response. Thank you. Certainly there is always the possibility that for some people their moods/disorders, etc are due to a chemical imbalance which some medication can sometimes correct. But I get suspicious when people make these claims as if they were true, and the science is just not there to back up those claims. Jefferson said it is only a lie that needs defending.

You mention clinical trials. Based on your last posting, it would seem that you may not know the full story of clinical testing when it comes to psychotropic medication. I will let you purse that topic if you are keen. Quoting from Dan Carlat again: "If I relied on the published medical literature for information (and what else can I rely on?) it would appear that 94% of all antidepressant trials are positive. But if I had access to all the suppressed data, I would see that the truth is that only about half-51%-of trials are positive." Why a clinical trial shoes that a drug is not effective, why do you think it is unlikely to get published?

Here's another quote from Dr Terry Lunch from his excellent book "Beyond Prozac":

We find ways of repackaging emotional distress to make it more palatable. The main repackaging process society uses is to classify distress as 'mental illness'.

Feel free to email if you wish to continue this discussion as I think I have said all I am prepared to say here.
A

Saltpetre,

Well, yes in extreme circumstances, however, these medications are used relatively commonly for children with high-functioning autism/Aspergers. And the upshot is that it is only for school. I've heard parents brag that they only dose up their kids for school, that when the holidays arrive they take them off medication. The fact that it can often take six weeks for the body to adapt to the medication makes one wonder what a child who is periodically medicated goes through - not to mention weight loss and sleep issues.

Having said that, I do believe, as I've stated above, that these conditions do need to be recognised, but dealt with generally in a non-medicated way. Institutionalisd learning does have serious challenges for children on the spectrum.

Dr Dillon, June 22nd, states we are "packaging" distress as mental illness. Some of our top psychiatrists propagate this. Professors Mcgorry and Hickie has each been quoted by the media as stating "one in five Australians has a mental illness". This is unacceptable propaganda unless we are also given a definition of "mental illness".

We must move from this practically universal conflation of serious, treatable, incurable 'mental illness' and serious, treatable,usually transient, curable 'mental illness'. Dr Carlat says,in "Unhinged",
"...the field of psychiatry has become unhinged, pried away from its original mission - to discover the causes of mental illness and treat those causes, not merely the symptoms." How has this happened? A major problem is that too many psychiatrists have become too accustomed to the "15 minute" prescription visit and its resulting higher income. How end psychiatrists who are psychopharmacologists, not psychotherapists? I can accept a G.P. investigating the emotional well-being of children three years and older,but want strict scrutiny of the case by an expert before referral to a psychiatrist.

In the book "Loss of Sadness", Drs. Horwitz and Wakefield express the belief that psychiatry has turned normal sorrow into"Depressive disorder". My daughter had schizophrenia and died by suicide. I felt I became 'mentally unbalanced'. My psychologist wanted to put me on antidepressants. I refused, somehow sensing that this had to be lived through and was 'mad' and'normal' at the same time. He accepted this, we continued psychotherapy and after two years I was forever changed, as one is after the horror of losing a child, but also 'normal'.He had cared for the context of my life, not just its symptoms.
Dr Spitzer, in the foreword to "The Loss of Sadness", states "...the book's central thesis [is] that contemporary psychiatry confuses normal sadness with depressive mental disorder because it ignores the relationship of symptoms to the context from which they emerge." Symptoms and their context. Psychiatrists now medicate the symptoms and, by dispensing with psychotherapy, ignore the context.

From my limited experience I have gained the impression that there is a severe shortage of qualified practicing psychiatrists, in NSW at least, leading to a great deficiency in public mental health services in this State, and in an inordinate burden on the private sector. This deficiency lends itself to an increasing reliance on psychologists, and potentially a tendency to treat symptoms rather than base cause of a debility, partly because of the pressure to 'help' as many as can be accommodated, and partly because the time and cost of long term attendance to cause and in relation to context is so often so very, very demanding - both on patient and practitioner.

I agree this is a very unsatisfactory situation.

Carol83, >I can accept a G.P. investigating the emotional well-being of children three years and older,but want strict scrutiny of the case by an expert before referral to a psychiatrist.<

I don't know where you might find such an 'expert', as even really well qualified and caring psychiatrists seem to be in very short supply, and my impression is that really 'good' psychologists are also in very short supply, and with the best of these probably worked well and truly to the bone.

Under the pressure of numbers requiring help it may be understandable for a practitioner to resort in the first instance to medication, but if some are applying this routinely as an expedient, and to maximise their income, this would have to be deplored.

The only solution I see is for there to be a great increase in the numbers of well qualified psychiatrists and psychologists available, and with detailed health commission oversight against unacceptable practices.

It is no wonder that there are increasingly strenuous calls for a substantial upgrading of public mental health services - and this call needs to be extended also to the services available in the private sector. The current situation is really very unsatisfactory.

It's an interesting debate. From my experience, I was medicated, I believe, to assuage my parents fear of judgement and guilt about the home environment.

IF your child has issues relating to the parenting, it's an easier pill to swallow that it's some random chemical imbalance. I think a lot of parents would jump at the chance for clemency in their responsibility in this way.

Having said that my experience of 'qualified psychiatrists' and mental health 'professionals' in general leaves me to think most of them would feel pretty impotent if they were to have to attempt to help someone without drugs.

It stands to reason. If people were so easily malleable as to be able to have solved deep-seated psychological problems by a stranger there is something seriously wrong. Which begs the question I suppose of who would/could anyone trust?

Thank you Antony Dillon for your insightful article.
There really isn’t any justification in the world that can explain away or rationalize away the drugging of children...nothing, not now or ever.
The concept of screening 3 years olds whilst so many health professionals are speaking out against it and ‘risk prevention theory’ needs thorough examination. Our government needs to devote an equal amount of time to both sides of this argument. I was taught the precision of science relies on rigorous testing to obtain facts and until so theories remain hypothetical theories.
It is frightening to see every year more and more children and adults labelled and drugged for some type of ‘disorder’, yet crime and suicide rates have escalating to epidemic proportions. The statistics do not show that society has become healthier or saner or happier with all the ‘labelling’ and ‘drugging’ - quite the opposite. There is more suicide and more crime – exactly the side effects of homicidal and suicidal ideation as listed among the many ‘Adverse Reactions’in MIMs. Has the government ever conducted a study to investigate the correlation between rising crime and youth suicide since the advent and increase of ADHD and related medication?
People do experience problems – it’s called the human condition and it's normal. When I think of the folk that lived through the depression or the 1st or 2nd World War and as horrific as it must have been –they got through - without drugs and labels!! They overcame incredible odds and became strong, amazing people. Not to say that mental problems don’t exist. But they do not exist to the extent that has been invented by the psychiatric industry.
It is one of the worst crimes ever to consider drugging innocent children – it is completely wrong and completely condemnable. It rips away their chance to ‘learn’ the real lessons and to develop useful life skills and instead, hooks them onto drugs before they even get a grasp of life. It is one of the worst crimes that mankind could possibly commit

Look,

Only if they enter political debate and are neither Liberal or Labor will they be diagnosed "mentally ill".

GROW UP!

Hmmfff.

Its not that big a deal.

Barry O'farrell,
Elected Premier of the citizens of nsw
&
Top Banana in the "SYDNEY" taxpayer funded - "PONZI scheme INC".

PS.

Loving it, you schmucks.

But don't worry, all the pain will go soon. Have you smelt the industrial emissions across Sydney and the state the last week? While my EPA sleeps, the weak will slowly die of respiratory distress while our understaffed emergency wards pretend to to be world class. With our sky high electricity,(uh I mean private company electricity) prices and no AirCon, it will be nothing short of the 'passover' of good Liberals in the land of PONZI (uh Sydney).

Zeich Heil!