source:
Philip Hensher: The so-called 'insane' whose lives are thrown away
In English Please:
You have to ask how many people are in mental institutions who professionals think are harmless
Tuesday, 2 October 2007
In 1972, the psychologist David Rosenhan conducted an experiment into the validity of diagnoses of mental health. Eight associates of his, all in perfect mental health, went to psychiatric hospitals and told them that they were hearing voices. Their behaviour in all other respects remained normal. All eight were admitted to hospital, mostly with diagnoses of schizophrenia.
Where records were kept, almost all the other patients realised immediately that the researchers had no mental health problems. It took the hospitals, however, up to 52 days to realise the same thing, and in one case, the researcher was only discharged with considerable difficulty. Subsequent to the publication of Rosenhan's paper, numerous people with real problems were turned away from American hospitals in the belief that they were psychology researchers.
The debate over Rosenham's experiment goes on, but we've just been reminded in a heartbreaking way that the institutional tendencies he exposed can destroy entire lives. When Rosenham conducted his experiment, Jean Gambell had been in mental institutions for exactly 35 years, for almost no reason. She was to remain in them for another 35 years, and now, at the age of 85, there seems no point in removing her.
Her story begins when she was working at a doctor's surgery as a cleaner, at the age of 15, in 1937. Half a crown – perhaps the equivalent of five pounds now – went missing and she was accused of stealing it. Instead of being prosecuted, she was sectioned under the 1890 Lunacy Act and committed to a mental institution. The money turned up some weeks later. A normal criminal case would have been dropped, but by that point she was institutionalised.
Her family was subject to other pressures; her brothers were themselves placed in care homes. Her family broke up, and when her mother died, a quarter of a century ago, all connection between her and her nearest relations was severed.
Heartbreakingly, she went on insisting to her carers that she did have a family, describing them and giving their names. The institution did not explore this adequately, and indeed seems to have dismissed this as the fantasies of Miss Gambell, who by now had been characterized as feeble-minded. She remained where she was, unvisited.
By chance, one of her brothers went on living in his mother's house, and it was there that a letter recently arrived, addressed to his late mother – it does not seem to have occurred to anyone involved that a woman of 85 might not have a parent still living, though in this case the negligence had a benevolent result. He noticed that the envelope had the name "Jean Gambell" written in the corner, and opened it. It was a questionnaire inquiring whether his mother was satisfied with the care being given to her daughter. He carried out his own inquiries, and discovered that a sister he barely knew about was still living.
When he and his brother visited her for the first time, they were warned that she could only communicate through writing and was unlikely to be able to understand who they were. She came into the room, looked at them, and unhesitatingly said "Alan ... David." and embraced them. A whole life gone.
The medical authorities of the time were, clearly, not just negligent but actively wicked. Whoever engineered the incarceration of Miss Gambell should be reviled, even at this distance in time. But whoever it was, they do not hold the responsibility for keeping her inside for 70 years. The relevant institutions took no effective action to discover why she was there; whether she could be released; what benefit was served by throwing away a person's lifetime. When "care in the community" started to be the watchword of mental health services, it did not seem to apply to one harmless lady already old.
As many observers have established, lives are destroyed not just through the act of incarceration, but through the pressures of mental health care themselves. Erving Goffman's wonderfully-entitled study "Making Out In Mental Institutions" has shown that mental patients "go mad" when under observation, urinating on radiators and so on, when under the microscope. When unaware that they were observed, many in Goffman's study were perfectly rational and well-behaved. The idea, popularised by Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, that mental institutions make mental patients is not just an absurd Sixties trendy dogma. Some people genuinely are mad. Some people are just in madhouses.
We have no idea at all whether Jean Gambell had, or has, mental health problems.
If she has, that would not be surprising after the three-quarters of a century of incarceration. Signs of perfect lucidity – her descriptions of her family – were dismissed as if she were ranting about aliens. And that can only be because the professionals saw nothing but a mental patient.
You have to ask the question of how many people there are still in Britain's mental institutions who are regarded by the professionals as harmless, or a pet, who have been there for many years with no particular reason; people who were put there at someone else's convenience who never had the wit or articulacy of David Rosenhan's highly-educated researchers, and could not argue their way out. I don't know. I suspect we never will know.
--
Comment by Ricky Saunders: Psychiatry is known to have caused countless of abuse to patients.
find out more here.
--
“Time is money”. B.F1789
“I just love to have lots and lots of Time” © Ricky Saunders 2008
--
According to research at an English university, it doesn't matter in what order the letters
in a word are, the only important thing is that the first and last letter is at the right place.
The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without problem.
This is because we do not read every letter by it self but the word as a whole.
--
In Gobbledygook please:
You hvae to ask how many ppoele are in matnel itsntitunois who prsefosianols tnihk are hlmrases
Tuseady, 2 Obotcer 2007
In 1792, the phcysgolosit Divad Resoahnn cnoudcted an eepxremint itno the vdilaity of dngaiesos of mneatl hetlah. Eihgt assotaices of his, all in pecefrt matnel helath, wnet to pyshctaiirc hipsolats and tlod tehm taht tehy were haenirg vecios. Thier beahuoivr in all oehtr repsetcs rmeniaed nromal. All ehgit wree aimdettd to hoipsatl, moslty with daisonges of shcziorhpeina.
Wrehe rroceds wree kpet, asomlt all the oehtr peitatns resilaed idemmailety taht the reserachres had no matnel htlaeh prelboms. It took the hoipstals, hewover, up to 52 dyas to rilaese the same tihng, and in one case, the reaeshcrer was olny dihcsegrad wtih cnodisarelbe dfficiluty. Sesbuneuqt to the publtaciion of Rnesoahn's paepr, nremuuos peolpe wtih rael porbmels wree tuenrd away form Aremiacn hoipslats in the bleeif taht tehy were pshcygoloy resehcraers.
The dbetae over Roshneam's eepxemirnt geos on, but we've jsut been rmeednid in a htraeaerbnikg way taht the isntitoituanl tdneecneis he eopxesd can drtseoy eitnre lvies. Wehn Roesnham cudnotced his erepxinemt, Jaen Gebmall had been in mneatl initsitutnos for etcaxly 35 yraes, for amlost no rosaen. She was to riamen in tehm for anehtor 35 years, and now, at the age of 85, tehre smees no pniot in reivomng her.
Her sroty bgenis wehn she was wroknig at a dcootr's sruregy as a caelenr, at the age of 15, in 1397. Hlaf a cworn - pahreps the eqaviulent of five puonds now - wnet missing and she was acsuced of setlanig it. Isnaetd of bnieg pesorucetd, she was sitceoend uednr the 1890 Lanucy Act and cmmoettid to a mneatl intsutition. The menoy truend up smoe wkees letar. A noraml cmiranil case wluod hvae been dreppod, but by taht piont she was isnittutnoiilaesd.
Her faimly was sejbuct to oehtr perussser; her btorhres were tmehvleses plcaed in crae hemos. Her flimay bkore up, and when her mhtoer died, a quetrar of a cneruty ago, all cnotcenoin bteewen her and her neraest rtalenois was sveeerd.
Htraeerbakignly, she went on isisnitng to her cerars taht she did have a flimay, drcsebinig them and gvinig tiehr naems. The initsituton did not eolpxre this adauqelety, and iedned semes to have dimsssied tihs as the fnatisaes of Msis Gbmalel, who by now had been cahartczireed as fee-elbnimedd. She rmeeniad wrehe she was, usivnetid.
By chnace, one of her borrehts went on lnivig in his mtoehr's huose, and it was tehre taht a ltteer receltny airrevd, arddsseed to his ltae mhtoer - it deos not seem to hvae occrured to aynnoe ilovnevd that a woamn of 85 mhgit not hvae a perant sitll lnivig, thuogh in tihs case the nelgnegice had a bveneonelt reuslt. He notcied taht the enolevpe had the name "Jaen Gbmalel" wttiren in the croenr, and oenepd it. It was a qtseuioannire iiuqnnirg whteher his mehtor was ssitaifed wtih the care bnieg gevin to her dhguaetr. He cirraed out his own iqniriues, and diocserevd that a ssietr he braley kenw abuot was slitl lnivig.
When he and his broehtr visietd her for the fisrt tmie, they wree wenrad taht she colud only cmoumacinte tuorhgh wrtinig and was unlekily to be able to uednsrtnad who tehy wree. She came itno the room, loekod at tehm, and uhnseiatitgnly said "Aaln ... Divad." and earbmced tehm. A whloe lfie gone.
The meacidl atuohtireis of the time were, craelly, not jsut nlgeginet but avitcley wikced. Weohevr eignreened the iracnctareoin of Msis Gabmell suohld be relived, even at this dtsicnae in time. But weohevr it was, they do not hlod the ropsesnlibitiy for keepnig her idisne for 70 yraes. The reavelnt iitsnutnoits took no eefftcvie acoitn to dcsievor why she was three; wehehtr she colud be rleeesad; waht bneifet was sreevd by thiworng aawy a peosrn's litefmie. When "crae in the cmomnutiy" satetrd to be the wtaowhcrd of matnel htlaeh svreecis, it did not seem to apply to one haelmrss lday alreday old.
As many oesbvrers hvae eslbatiehsd, lvies are drtseyoed not jsut trhguoh the act of iacnrecraoitn, but torhguh the perseruss of mneatl hetlah crae thmelesves. Evrnig Gmffoan's worednfyllue-itneltd sutdy "Maikng Out In Matnel Intsutitnois" has swohn that mtneal ptaitnes "go mad" when udner oesbvrtaion, uanirtnig on rdataiors and so on, wehn udner the mcircsopoe. Wehn uawanre taht tehy were oresbevd, mnay in Gfoamfn's stduy were pefreltcy ritanoal and wlleb-aheevd. The ieda, poupaliresd by Ken Kesey's One Felw Oevr the Ccuoko's Nset, taht mneatl intitsoituns mkae matnel paeittns is not jsut an asbrud Sxiteis terdny dmgoa. Smoe pepole geniunely are mad. Smoe ppoele are just in mohdaesus.
We have no ieda at all wtehehr Jaen Gbmalel had, or has, meatnl helath pborlmes.
If she has, taht wluod not be spruirisng after the terhq-etraures of a cutnery of icncraretaoin. Sngis of pefrcet ldicuity - her drcsepioitns of her fimaly - wree dsissimed as if she wree ritnang abuot aleins. And taht can olny be bcesuae the porfisseanols saw nhtonig but a matnel peitant.
You hvae to ask the quesiton of how many ppoele trehe are slitl in Batirin's matnel insituttnois who are rrageedd by the profsesianols as haelmrss, or a pet, who hvae been three for mnay yraes with no pratucialr rsaeno; ppoele who were put tehre at soemone esle's coevneincne who nveer had the wit or atriluccay of Divad Resohnan's hilhge-ycudtaed rseaeehcrrs, and cluod not agrue tiehr way out. I don't konw. I supscet we never wlil konw.
--
"Tmie is moeny". B.F8719
"I jsut love to hvae ltos and ltos of Tmie" © Rkciy Saudnres 2008
--
No comments:
Post a Comment