Re: state-sponsored psych exams, SSI, anyone?

[Guest guest]

Pardon me, , while I flame-broil my typist...

>It'd be nice to know what to expect. They had sent an evaluation form

>to my doctor, who told them she wasn't qualified but that I had a shrink

>who was, and could they please send her the forms to send to him. And

>instead I have to see a random shrink in my area who may or may not have

>any idea what autism is.

Oh, yick... Why isn't your doctor qualified? Is there someone else in the

area that might be intelligent about it?

I haven't had a psych exam for SSI before, but I sat in on my mother's a

couple of years ago. It was actually fairly laid-back... The guy basically

just asked questions about how well she functioned in everyday life -- what

help she needs to do things, whether she hallucinates or has suicidal

tendencies, how much she can do on an average day, etc. If you've gotten

the standard SSI semi-annual review forms that ask about what you do with

your day, what your social life is like, etc then if you throw a few

dx-specific questions in you basically have the exact layout of the psych exam.

Anyway, I hope your experience is better than the one I had the other day

-- the first of 3+ sessions for legal HFA diagnosis. I shall quote the

psychiatrist:

" Because of your complicated history, I think we should lean towards NVLD

and assume that your more severe traits are the result of problems in your

past. "

This is after I told him repeatedly that the reason I was abused was

*because* of my autistic behaviors. There's at least two more sessions

(i.e. 3+ months) before I'll have an answer, and he told me that I should

research NVLD on my own to see if I feel it fits. Of course, the first

thing I noticed was that NVLD excludes people with " narrow interests " ,

" repetitive behavior " , and that NVLD individuals have " poor visual memory "

-- all of which instantly disqualifies me from that semi-diagnosis. I'd be

angry at the stupidity involved in such a misdiagnosis, except I get a

chance to refute it next month, and in the meantime it's ridiculously funny

to think that I of all people might have a *lack* of perseverations.

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

You may not be able to change the world,

but at least you can embarrass the guilty.

-- Mitford

[Guest guest]

At 07:06 PM 5/31/03 -0700, wrote:

>Has anyone ever had a state-sponsored psych exam when your SSI came up

>for review?

Yes, twice.

>It'd be nice to know what to expect.

I'm sorry to hear that you can't see a doctor who's familiar with you. I

had to see strangers both times and it felt very intrusive, humiliating and

frightening.

But on the bright side, it turned out well both times.

The way the evaluations go, the doctor doesn't really have to know anything

about your diagnosis. What's most important is that they get a clear

picture of your areas of impairment and how those impairments affect your

day-to-day life.

Some doctors will leave things open-ended and let you do most of the

talking. Others will have a rigid structure they like to adhere to and only

want you to directly answer things they ask you.

You want to try (as much as possible within whatever structure the doctor

routinely uses) to let them know things like: have you ever worked before?

what happened? do you have problems eating or getting enough food? Do you

have problems getting dressed or getting dressed in a timely manner? Do you

have problems walking or other problems that make it difficult for you to

get to places such as the grocery store or a workplace? Do you have

difficulty communicating with others? What happens when you try to

communicate? Does your disability cause any psychological problems such as

depression or anxiety? What effects do the psychological problems have in

your life? Do you have any cognitive difficulties such as problems

remembering things or problems getting tasks in the proper order? How,

specifically, do these cognitive difficulties affect your daily life?

The important thing to keep coming back to is concrete examples of

imapirment in your daily life. For example, they don't just want to know

that you have trouble remembering things, they want to know that you lost a

job because you forgot to put away the chili and it costs the company $500

as a result. Or that you lost a job because you habitually forgot to clean

your uniform or bring your hard hat or whatever. In part, they want to know

about causes, but mostly they want to hear about results.

If you do have depression or anxiety, don't be afraid to talk about it

because sometimes doctors who don't understand your actual diagnosis will

sign you off anyway because they decide that you have a crippling amount of

depression and/or anxiety. Above all, you want to be sure that they're

clear about *why* you can't work and *what happens* when/if you do try to

work.

For a little personal perspective, here's a short bit about my two

experiences:

The first time was during a particularly low point in my life. I was

homeless and also pregnant though I didn't know it at the time (but, of

course, still full of those yucky hormones.) I went into the doctor's

office and he asked me one question. I don't even remember what the

question was now. For all I know, it might have been " how are you? " But I

burst into tears and huge sobs and he handed me some tissues and told me we

were done. (He signed off on approval for me.)

The second time was about a year ago. The doctor was very distant and even

sat waaaaaaaaaay across the room from me which, for some reason, felt kind

of disconcerting and even almost felt like he was disdaining me. He spent

about an hour asking me things. I was lightly crying, but that's mostly

because going to any mind doctor is automatically traumatic for me after

having been in the psych system since 1971. I wasn't sobbing like the last

time and I could easily talk through the tears.

He asked me stuff like " what would you think I meant if I said 'still

waters run deep'? " And " Why is it bad to tell a lie? " (My answer was that

if you lie, people will eventually find out and then they'll never believe

anything you say again. I wonder if that's the " right " answer or, if not,

what is.) At one point he asked me to remember three words, something like

" tree, garbage, freedom " and then about twenty minutes later he asked me

what the three words were (I remembered them.) He asked me what I'd had for

dinner the night before. (I couldn't remember other than to say that I had

beets at some point yesterday.) And he asked me what my plans for the

future were. (I told him that I'd had so many disappointments that I didn't

dare to plan for the future any more.) (It struck me the next day that I

had perfected the new-age principle of " living in the moment. " I couldn't

remember what I did yesterday and I had no plans for tomorrow. As much as

people talk about the importance of living in the moment, if someone

actually does it, they'd be labelled dysfunctional!)

I think maybe he asked me to repeat some numbers back to him. A lot of his

question were standard IQ test stuff but nothing written, all oral

(probably so he could also observe my affect.)

I'd say to not worry, and to just go in and answer truthfully. From how

you've described yourself, you'd be best off to just answer honestly and

not try to sway things at all. I chose to be honest and I really didn't

think I'd get approved but I was surprised when I did. I guess I come

across as more impaired than I generally consider myself to be. The

state-appointed SSI psych meeting is one time when society's judgements of

our eccentricities runs in our favor!

The only " trick " I might ever reccommend is to stay up the night before.

The reason is that sometimes lack of sleep will make my symptoms more

pronounced and more noticeable (and might do the same for you.) I never

intentionally stayed up the night before but did because I was so concerned

about the meeting the next day. I do think it's important for the doctor to

see what you're like under stress. Going into his office at all is a

stressor. If you add the stressor of not getting enough sleep the night

before, he'll very clearly see the impairments and all you have to do is

just be honest and sincere.

Hope anything I've said is helpful and best wishes on your evaluation.

(note that I've used words like " impairment " and " symptoms " in the sense

the evaluator will and not to indicate that we're in any way lesser beings.)

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

Sparrow wrote:

(some stuff)

It's nice to see you back, Sparrow!

[Guest guest]

At 12:10 AM 6/1/03 -0700, Klein wrote:

>Sparrow wrote:

>

>(some stuff)

>

>It's nice to see you back, Sparrow!

And look, here's a-my front, too!

(Said in Chico Marx voice)

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

> >It'd be nice to know what to expect.

> I'm sorry to hear that you can't see a doctor who's familiar with you. I

> had to see strangers both times and it felt very intrusive, humiliating and

> frightening.

Yeah. That's what my initial interview was like, although I zoned out

for most of it.

> But on the bright side, it turned out well both times.

I hope it turns out well for me. My initial interview worked so " well "

(or so badly, depending on how you look at it) that I got SSI on the

first try with no appeals. I think the fact that I have a box in my

room stacked 2 feet high with psych records, which is incomplete, might

help.

> The way the evaluations go, the doctor doesn't really have to know anything

> about your diagnosis. What's most important is that they get a clear

> picture of your areas of impairment and how those impairments affect your

> day-to-day life.

Interesting. On the forms they'd sent out that this is trying to

verify, they had " alleged diagnoses " and wanted proof of all of them.

> Some doctors will leave things open-ended and let you do most of the

> talking. Others will have a rigid structure they like to adhere to and only

> want you to directly answer things they ask you.

I can't do open-ended stuff very well.

> You want to try (as much as possible within whatever structure the doctor

> routinely uses) to let them know things like: have you ever worked before?

> what happened? do you have problems eating or getting enough food? Do you

> have problems getting dressed or getting dressed in a timely manner? Do you

> have problems walking or other problems that make it difficult for you to

> get to places such as the grocery store or a workplace? Do you have

> difficulty communicating with others? What happens when you try to

> communicate? Does your disability cause any psychological problems such as

> depression or anxiety? What effects do the psychological problems have in

> your life? Do you have any cognitive difficulties such as problems

> remembering things or problems getting tasks in the proper order? How,

> specifically, do these cognitive difficulties affect your daily life?

They already sent out a questionnaire about this stuff, is the problem.

Now they want to see me in person.

> The important thing to keep coming back to is concrete examples of

> imapirment in your daily life. For example, they don't just want to know

> that you have trouble remembering things, they want to know that you lost a

> job because you forgot to put away the chili and it costs the company $500

> as a result. Or that you lost a job because you habitually forgot to clean

> your uniform or bring your hard hat or whatever. In part, they want to know

> about causes, but mostly they want to hear about results.

Okay.

> If you do have depression or anxiety, don't be afraid to talk about it

> because sometimes doctors who don't understand your actual diagnosis will

> sign you off anyway because they decide that you have a crippling amount of

> depression and/or anxiety. Above all, you want to be sure that they're

> clear about *why* you can't work and *what happens* when/if you do try to

> work.

Part of my problem is that I have PTSD that was induced by

psychiatrists. (This is one of the impairments I wrote on the form.)

Going to a shrink's office is not going to be fun in the first place.

:-(

But they already know I have a psych record several feet thick and a

PTSD diagnosis, so I'm not above talking about psych stuff.

> For a little personal perspective, here's a short bit about my two

> experiences:

> The first time was during a particularly low point in my life. I was

> homeless and also pregnant though I didn't know it at the time (but, of

> course, still full of those yucky hormones.) I went into the doctor's

> office and he asked me one question. I don't even remember what the

> question was now. For all I know, it might have been " how are you? " But I

> burst into tears and huge sobs and he handed me some tissues and told me we

> were done. (He signed off on approval for me.)

Wow.

I'm not very likely to burst into tears, but I wouldn't be at all

shocked if I hid under a table or something (one impulse would be

violence, but it's one I try to curb).

> The second time was about a year ago. The doctor was very distant and even

> sat waaaaaaaaaay across the room from me which, for some reason, felt kind

> of disconcerting and even almost felt like he was disdaining me. He spent

> about an hour asking me things. I was lightly crying, but that's mostly

> because going to any mind doctor is automatically traumatic for me after

> having been in the psych system since 1971. I wasn't sobbing like the last

> time and I could easily talk through the tears.

Yeah, that's the same reason I'm going to have trouble. However,

sitting across the room from me would feel good in my case, because a

lot of the shrinks I knew in the system sat close to me and demanded eye

contact, one of them hitting me repeatedly until I'd look him in the

eye. One of my biggest fears is actually that he'll sit close and lean

towards me.

> He asked me stuff like " what would you think I meant if I said 'still

> waters run deep'? " And " Why is it bad to tell a lie? " (My answer was that

> if you lie, people will eventually find out and then they'll never believe

> anything you say again. I wonder if that's the " right " answer or, if not,

> what is.) At one point he asked me to remember three words, something like

> " tree, garbage, freedom " and then about twenty minutes later he asked me

> what the three words were (I remembered them.) He asked me what I'd had for

> dinner the night before. (I couldn't remember other than to say that I had

> beets at some point yesterday.) And he asked me what my plans for the

> future were. (I told him that I'd had so many disappointments that I didn't

> dare to plan for the future any more.) (It struck me the next day that I

> had perfected the new-age principle of " living in the moment. " I couldn't

> remember what I did yesterday and I had no plans for tomorrow. As much as

> people talk about the importance of living in the moment, if someone

> actually does it, they'd be labelled dysfunctional!)

I've had a lot of exams before that run the way you're describing, but

only when being admitted to special ed or psych wards.

> I think maybe he asked me to repeat some numbers back to him. A lot of his

> question were standard IQ test stuff but nothing written, all oral

> (probably so he could also observe my affect.)

I don't talk, so I don't know how he'll observe my affect by doing

something orally.

> I'd say to not worry, and to just go in and answer truthfully. From how

> you've described yourself, you'd be best off to just answer honestly and

> not try to sway things at all. I chose to be honest and I really didn't

> think I'd get approved but I was surprised when I did. I guess I come

> across as more impaired than I generally consider myself to be. The

> state-appointed SSI psych meeting is one time when society's judgements of

> our eccentricities runs in our favor!

Yeah. I have basically no reason to try to sway things, because I

clearly can't work.

> The only " trick " I might ever reccommend is to stay up the night before.

> The reason is that sometimes lack of sleep will make my symptoms more

> pronounced and more noticeable (and might do the same for you.) I never

> intentionally stayed up the night before but did because I was so concerned

> about the meeting the next day. I do think it's important for the doctor to

> see what you're like under stress. Going into his office at all is a

> stressor. If you add the stressor of not getting enough sleep the night

> before, he'll very clearly see the impairments and all you have to do is

> just be honest and sincere.

During my first SSI interview, I had been so scared that I didn't sleep,

and then travelled a long way to get there. I think that's part of the

" got it on the first try " factor -- I'm told I actually walked through

the office dropping papers behind me and didn't notice.

I'd already decided not to take the OTC anxiety stuff I take before

going in, even though I would normally, because I don't think watching

me in that state would give him a good idea of what I'm normally like.

> Hope anything I've said is helpful and best wishes on your evaluation.

Yes, it has. It's concrete information I want.

> (note that I've used words like " impairment " and " symptoms " in the sense

> the evaluator will and not to indicate that we're in any way lesser beings.)

Me too.

, a bit less scared now (which might be the result of you

providing a concrete explanation and might be the result of anti-anxiety

stuff, but whatever it is it's better than running around like I was an

hour ago feeling like there was a psych nurse watching over my shoulder)

--

" All people are real, in the deepest sense of that word. That means

there is no such thing as a non-human human. " -Eugene Marcus

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> , a bit less scared now (which might be the result of you

> providing a concrete explanation and might be the result of

> anti-anxiety stuff, but whatever it is it's better than running

> around like I was an hour ago feeling like there was a psych nurse

> watching over my shoulder)

Think of it this way. This shrink is being paid only to evaluate you

for SSI. He knows that he will not have you as a patient long-term, no

matter what he says. He is not there to evaluate you in order to form a

treatment plan. Even if he thinks you are a major loony-tunes wacko

that needs to be institutionalized, he's not going to do anything to

make that happen, because that is not what he is being paid to do. He

is being paid to evaluate you for disability, not to treat you.

This was a huge concern for the friend I am helping to get disability

now. She too was tortured in a mental hospital, and was terrified of

psychiatrists. She has been really good about it, though-- she has seen

several already, has told them all of the nasty details about the depth

of her depression and her unusual behaviors, and she's still hanging in

there. She is less afraid now, I think, than when I first told her she

would have to see one to get disability. Now that she has seen three

shrinks and told them about what she thinks and feels, and has

experienced that they have not locked her up or done horrible things to

her, she is less afraid. A psychiatric exam is still not pleasant for

her, but it does not provoke her PTSD like it used to.

Things have changed a lot in US psychiatry in the last ten to fifteen

years. It is a lot harder to be involuntarily hospitalized now... to

the point that some people that really obviously need it (people that

are violent or have no ability to take care of themselves) are not

taken, and they often end up homeless (or in the criminal justice

system, where they may or may not be treated). Given the damage that

shrinks do to people who cannot say NO to their " therapies, " I am not

sure that this is not the way it should be. Mentally ill people should

not be punished for crimes they MIGHT commit.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I'm also afraid of getting my SSI dropped, given budget cuts.

>

> I've been told by a friend that there's no way on earth anyone could

> possibly consider me capable of working, but I'm still worried.

That is why disability determination is done by the state, not the

Federal government. It is the State of California that will be making

this decision for Social Security.

>> Things have changed a lot in US psychiatry in the last ten to

>> fifteen years.

>

> People have been saying that for decades, though.

Perhaps, but one thing I am pretty sure about... the things that I heard

my friend say to several shrinks did not get her locked up, and people

have been locked up for a lot less in the past.

> There's also a difference between the adult psych system and the

> child psych system. Children have fewer rights, and it is easier to

> get them locked up. Which does work in my favor now, as does the

> fact that I'm on government assistance (less money to give them --

> all my money comes from them in the first place).

For sure. The attitude of the parents makes a huge difference in

whether the kid gets locked up or not. Some want them locked up, and

that's pretty much what happens when they want it.

> I know people who've chosen homelessness over being locked up. It

> shouldn't have to be a choice between neglect and abuse though.

There should not be any abuse, period. There's no need for it.

> But

> I don't think the current power structures within psychiatry will

> make most institutions safe places to go. There has to be an

> alternative of some kind, more than just putting so-called

> " consumers " in the role staff used to play (which I witnessed at one

> place recently, and it turns out with " consumers " (I hate that word)

> acting like staff).

Psychiatrists, it seems, suffer from a mass delusion that their abuses

are not harmful, and in fact that they are helpful. I cannot quite

believe that all psychiatrists are sadistic bastards... it does seem

that they THINK they are helping. Sometimes they do help people (even a

blind pig [with no sense of smell] finds a truffle sometimes), but it

seems that this is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe a little

compassion, and the recognition that people that are different are still

deserving of respect and all of the civil rights that normal people

have, will help. Not terribly likely, though.

[Guest guest]

> > , a bit less scared now (which might be the result of you

> > providing a concrete explanation and might be the result of

> > anti-anxiety stuff, but whatever it is it's better than running

> > around like I was an hour ago feeling like there was a psych nurse

> > watching over my shoulder)

> Think of it this way. This shrink is being paid only to evaluate you

> for SSI. He knows that he will not have you as a patient long-term, no

> matter what he says. He is not there to evaluate you in order to form a

> treatment plan. Even if he thinks you are a major loony-tunes wacko

> that needs to be institutionalized, he's not going to do anything to

> make that happen, because that is not what he is being paid to do. He

> is being paid to evaluate you for disability, not to treat you.

Yeah.

I'm also afraid of getting my SSI dropped, given budget cuts.

I've been told by a friend that there's no way on earth anyone could

possibly consider me capable of working, but I'm still worried.

> This was a huge concern for the friend I am helping to get disability

> now. She too was tortured in a mental hospital, and was terrified of

> psychiatrists. She has been really good about it, though-- she has seen

> several already, has told them all of the nasty details about the depth

> of her depression and her unusual behaviors, and she's still hanging in

> there. She is less afraid now, I think, than when I first told her she

> would have to see one to get disability. Now that she has seen three

> shrinks and told them about what she thinks and feels, and has

> experienced that they have not locked her up or done horrible things to

> her, she is less afraid. A psychiatric exam is still not pleasant for

> her, but it does not provoke her PTSD like it used to.

The thing is bad things happen when I see doctors all the time, so it

still gets reinforced. And it's usually, while not doctors wanting to

institutionalize me, doctors wanting to take away tangible benefits to

my life.

> Things have changed a lot in US psychiatry in the last ten to fifteen

> years.

People have been saying that for decades, though.

I talk to people who were locked up or otherwise psychiatrized in the

'60s and '70s, and I look at what happened to me in the middle to late

'90s ('95-'99), and the thing all of us find frightening is the lack of

difference. In fact, one of the major criticisms I get online if I talk

about my experiences is, " You have to understand things were changed

since the '70s. " When I tell people I wasn't alive in the '70s, they

don't know what to think.

> It is a lot harder to be involuntarily hospitalized now... to

> the point that some people that really obviously need it (people that

> are violent or have no ability to take care of themselves) are not

> taken, and they often end up homeless (or in the criminal justice

> system, where they may or may not be treated).

I suspect actually -- and there was a recent discussion on

alt.support.autism that seemed to confirm this -- that both go on, and

that there hasn't really been a change from one to the other, as much as

a change of focus from one to the other depending on who you're talking

to. My friend who was locked up in the '70s wasn't locked up nearly as

long as I was -- and was turned away from such places more readily --

because her family was working-class and mine was middle-class.

Upper-middle-class and rich people can get locked up even longer.

There's also a difference between the adult psych system and the child

psych system. Children have fewer rights, and it is easier to get them

locked up. Which does work in my favor now, as does the fact that I'm

on government assistance (less money to give them -- all my money comes

from them in the first place).

> Given the damage that

> shrinks do to people who cannot say NO to their " therapies, " I am not

> sure that this is not the way it should be. Mentally ill people should

> not be punished for crimes they MIGHT commit.

I know people who've chosen homelessness over being locked up. It

shouldn't have to be a choice between neglect and abuse though. But I

don't think the current power structures within psychiatry will make

most institutions safe places to go. There has to be an alternative of

some kind, more than just putting so-called " consumers " in the role

staff used to play (which I witnessed at one place recently, and it

turns out with " consumers " (I hate that word) acting like staff).

Wow, a *very* apt .sig quote popped up. <grin> I'd forgotten this one

existed.

--

" This standard of 'danger to self or others' is not about protecting

people or stopping people from hurting themselves or others, it's about

medical liability. " -Rae Unzicker

[Guest guest]

> Has anyone ever had a state-sponsored psych exam when your SSI came up

> for review?

I had to see a psychologist when I applied for vocational rehab. I did

lots of standardized tests, some with a pencil and paper, some with

building blocks, some with pictures. I don't recall what kind of questions

I answered. Something about what kind of work I wanted to do, how well I

got along with my family, and how many friends I had.

On my evaluation the doctor wrote that when I arrived for the test he had

a hard time getting me to stop reading the bulletin board (I literally did

not hear his assistant asking me to come in because I was concentrating on

the bulletin board), that I was unambitious because I did not want to go

into management, and hinted that I was lazy because I said I would rather

work part-time than full-time. He said that I was the most depressed

person he had ever seen, and that he thought I was exaggerating how

depressed I was in order to get sympathy. He said that I did not want to

get a diagnosis of AS (that is not true; what I said was that I wanted

one, but I did think it would get me any extra help because there are no

services for autistic adults in my community) and that he thought I didn't

have it anyway because everyone knows girls don't get AS.

Iris

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did

indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his.

-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

> > I'm also afraid of getting my SSI dropped, given budget cuts.

> > I've been told by a friend that there's no way on earth anyone could

> > possibly consider me capable of working, but I'm still worried.

> That is why disability determination is done by the state, not the

> Federal government. It is the State of California that will be making

> this decision for Social Security.

Yes, but the state of California pays into part of your payments (in

lieu of food stamps), does Medicaid (which anyone who gets SSI is

eligible for), and so forth. And the state of California has been

making massive budget cuts, targeting mainly education and " healthcare " .

> >> Things have changed a lot in US psychiatry in the last ten to

> >> fifteen years.

> > People have been saying that for decades, though.

> Perhaps, but one thing I am pretty sure about... the things that I heard

> my friend say to several shrinks did not get her locked up, and people

> have been locked up for a lot less in the past.

The thing is, this was true even when I was locked up.

You could say to some psychiatrists at some times, " I want to die, all I

want to do is die, and I'm going kill myself and take everyone else out

with me, " and they wouldn't barely blink. Then you could walk down the

street with the wrong body language and get locked up rapidly. I've

been locked up for all kinds of reasons, some of which were legal (if

not ethical) at the time, and some of which were not, and I've been

ignored when doing all the same things that got me locked up.

The fact that it *does* happen doesn't mean it's necessarily happening

more now than it used to. I really think it's more situation-dependent

than an actual trend, because people used to say how hard it was to lock

people up when I was locked up, and people were saying it when my

friends who were locked up 10, 20, or 30 years before I was, were locked

up. It's very hard or very easy, depending -- it's not an either/or

thing.

> > There's also a difference between the adult psych system and the

> > child psych system. Children have fewer rights, and it is easier to

> > get them locked up. Which does work in my favor now, as does the

> > fact that I'm on government assistance (less money to give them --

> > all my money comes from them in the first place).

> For sure. The attitude of the parents makes a huge difference in

> whether the kid gets locked up or not. Some want them locked up, and

> that's pretty much what happens when they want it.

Yeah.

> > I know people who've chosen homelessness over being locked up. It

> > shouldn't have to be a choice between neglect and abuse though.

> There should not be any abuse, period. There's no need for it.

Definitely true.

> > But

> > I don't think the current power structures within psychiatry will

> > make most institutions safe places to go. There has to be an

> > alternative of some kind, more than just putting so-called

> > " consumers " in the role staff used to play (which I witnessed at one

> > place recently, and it turns out with " consumers " (I hate that word)

> > acting like staff).

> Psychiatrists, it seems, suffer from a mass delusion that their abuses

> are not harmful, and in fact that they are helpful. I cannot quite

> believe that all psychiatrists are sadistic bastards... it does seem

> that they THINK they are helping.

People probably go into that job with many motivations.

Some go in because it provides them power they want -- those are the

sadistic bastards and power-mongers.

Some go in because they want to help people, and genuinely believe in

the lies that tell them they can help people a lot that way. Many of

these will either become disillusioned and jaded, or will have their

natural compassion or its expression trained out of them.

Some go in because they were in the system once, too. They were

indoctrinated and now believe in the cliched notion that, " I want to be

a psychiatrist because then I can help people like me. " I used to be in

that category, and it was pure Stockholm syndrome.

I believe that my current psychiatrist faces more of the harm his

profession has done than most will, but is too afraid to look too

deeply. I know he still harms patients less fiesty than I am, but that

he thinks he's helping them.

This is probably a common problem. One dedicates all this work to

helping people, and one does not want to think that one is hurting

them. This can also cause one to become angry when they don't act as if

one is helping them. One starts believing they are ungrateful.

Unpleasant and sometimes blatantly abusive dynamics can ensue.

And if you want a scary read sometime, look up Sally Satel.

> Sometimes they do help people (even a

> blind pig [with no sense of smell] finds a truffle sometimes), but it

> seems that this is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe a little

> compassion, and the recognition that people that are different are still

> deserving of respect and all of the civil rights that normal people

> have, will help. Not terribly likely, though.

I don't think compassion will help on its own. I think there needs to

be a complete and fundamental overthrow of the power dynamics that make

up the foundations of psychiatric practice. Those power dynamics are

already designed to render compassion -- where it exists in the first

place -- ineffectual or at least greatly reduced in its effectiveness.

Sort of like the Stanford prison experiment.

--

" Experts are just trained dogs. " -Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

At 01:45 AM 6/1/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote:

>

>

>> Has anyone ever had a state-sponsored psych exam when your SSI came up

>> for review?

>

>I had to see a psychologist when I applied for vocational rehab.

I've been to voc rehab, too. The stuff they do there and the inherent

attitude they have towards clients is very different from the state docs

examining for SSI.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

At 12:49 AM 6/1/03 -0700, wrote:

>

>> The second time was about a year ago. The doctor was very distant and even

>> sat waaaaaaaaaay across the room from me which, for some reason, felt kind

>> of disconcerting and even almost felt like he was disdaining me. He spent

>> about an hour asking me things. I was lightly crying, but that's mostly

>> because going to any mind doctor is automatically traumatic for me after

>> having been in the psych system since 1971. I wasn't sobbing like the last

>> time and I could easily talk through the tears.

>

>Yeah, that's the same reason I'm going to have trouble. However,

>sitting across the room from me would feel good in my case, because a

>lot of the shrinks I knew in the system sat close to me and demanded eye

>contact, one of them hitting me repeatedly until I'd look him in the

>eye. One of my biggest fears is actually that he'll sit close and lean

>towards me.

Now that I think about it, the first doctor took me into a room that was so

tiny, we were practically on top of one another. That probably didn't help

my state of mind. (I got the impression from the room and the office that

he wasn't even a shrink but a regular M.D. who examines everybody

regardless of disability.)

Part of my problem with the guy who say way across the room was that it was

a HUGE room and I was having a hard time hearing him sometimes. I was

sitting roughly twenty feet away from him. And he had the kind of attitude

that made me feel like I was an unpleasant bug he was required to dissect

for class. I don't want a doctor right on top of me (I've had plenty of

that myself) but I would have liked him to be, say, ten feet away instead

of twenty.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>> That is why disability determination is done by the state, not the

>> Federal government. It is the State of California that will be

>> making this decision for Social Security.

>

> Yes, but the state of California pays into part of your payments (in

> lieu of food stamps), does Medicaid (which anyone who gets SSI is

> eligible for), and so forth. And the state of California has been

> making massive budget cuts, targeting mainly education and

> " healthcare " .

But they are still required by law to follow the rules set by the

federal government as to eligibility for disability. I am aware of the

$200 a month bonus California residents get above the rest of us in the

country (which is part of the reason I am considering moving back

there). The " in lieu of food stamps " is downright comical. I get SSI

in Arizona, and the state pays me a whopping $8.00 a month in food

stamps. I'd much rather have the $200.

Personally, I don't think this is a big risk. It's easier to keep SSI

than to get it, and you got it.

When does this review thing come up anyway? I have had mine close to

two years now, and no one has asked me about that. My mother has had it

several years longer than that (probably six years at least), and she

has not had a review either. Who decides which people get reviewed?

> The fact that it *does* happen doesn't mean it's necessarily

> happening more now than it used to. I really think it's more

> situation-dependent than an actual trend, because people used to say

> how hard it was to lock people up when I was locked up, and people

> were saying it when my friends who were locked up 10, 20, or 30 years

> before I was, were locked up. It's very hard or very easy,

> depending -- it's not an either/or thing.

Well, the fact that the state-funded facilities that exist now are a

fraction of what used to exist means that they have to have higher

standards. There is simply not the room for the " hospitalize them all "

mentality any more.

> This is probably a common problem. One dedicates all this work to

> helping people, and one does not want to think that one is hurting

> them. This can also cause one to become angry when they don't act as

> if one is helping them. One starts believing they are ungrateful.

> Unpleasant and sometimes blatantly abusive dynamics can ensue.

Remind me again-- which party is the one that supposedly has the mental

illness? The hypothetical shrink in that example could probably be

diagnosed with at least three things based just on that paragraph.

> I don't think compassion will help on its own.

I think that a shrink that had enough genuine compassion would see that

he is hurting people he is supposed to help, and would be bound by his

own ethics not to keep hurting people. By extension, this would mean

that the compassion motive would have to exceed the other motives, like

the desire for power, sadism (which is the antithesis of compassion), et

cetera.

> I think there needs to be a complete and fundamental overthrow of the

> power dynamics that make up the foundations of psychiatric practice.

> Those power dynamics are already designed to render compassion --

> where it exists in the first place -- ineffectual or at least greatly

> reduced in its effectiveness. Sort of like the Stanford prison

> experiment.

I am not aware of the Stanford prison experiment. I see the problem as

being more than a psychiatric industry problem. The problem is that

most people want the mentally ill just to go away-- and the mental

hospitals that have existed thus far are designed primarily for that

purpose. They are a dumping ground, a warehouse for the dregs of

society that happen not to be in prison. The goal is to keep the

inmates quiet and controllable (to make it easier on the staff), not to

secure the patient's mental health. The shrinks don't really know much

at all about how to make mental health happen (far less than they delude

themselves to believe), but it would be a start if that were actually

the goal. I think that lip service is paid to rehabilitation, just

enough to allow the shrinks to sleep at night, and for the powers that

be to be able to justify the existence of these warehouses for society's

rejects. As long as everyone can pretend that the days of Bedlam are

long gone, the good people of the world (full sarcasm attached to the

word 'good') can sleep soundly, knowing that the mentally ill are locked

away where they will bother no one, where they can get the " help " they need.

[Guest guest]

> >> That is why disability determination is done by the state, not the

> >> Federal government. It is the State of California that will be

> >> making this decision for Social Security.

> > Yes, but the state of California pays into part of your payments (in

> > lieu of food stamps), does Medicaid (which anyone who gets SSI is

> > eligible for), and so forth. And the state of California has been

> > making massive budget cuts, targeting mainly education and

> > " healthcare " .

> But they are still required by law to follow the rules set by the

> federal government as to eligibility for disability. I am aware of the

> $200 a month bonus California residents get above the rest of us in the

> country (which is part of the reason I am considering moving back

> there). The " in lieu of food stamps " is downright comical. I get SSI

> in Arizona, and the state pays me a whopping $8.00 a month in food

> stamps. I'd much rather have the $200.

Oh yes, I'd definitely rather have the $200. Food stamps are

patronizing, and don't provide for a lot of other necessary stuff.

> Personally, I don't think this is a big risk. It's easier to keep SSI

> than to get it, and you got it.

Okay.

> When does this review thing come up anyway? I have had mine close to

> two years now, and no one has asked me about that. My mother has had it

> several years longer than that (probably six years at least), and she

> has not had a review either. Who decides which people get reviewed?

I think it may be random, but I've heard a figure of every 2 to 4

years. I've had mine since early 2000 or late 1999.

> > The fact that it *does* happen doesn't mean it's necessarily

> > happening more now than it used to. I really think it's more

> > situation-dependent than an actual trend, because people used to say

> > how hard it was to lock people up when I was locked up, and people

> > were saying it when my friends who were locked up 10, 20, or 30 years

> > before I was, were locked up. It's very hard or very easy,

> > depending -- it's not an either/or thing.

> Well, the fact that the state-funded facilities that exist now are a

> fraction of what used to exist means that they have to have higher

> standards. There is simply not the room for the " hospitalize them all "

> mentality any more.

That much is true.

> > This is probably a common problem. One dedicates all this work to

> > helping people, and one does not want to think that one is hurting

> > them. This can also cause one to become angry when they don't act as

> > if one is helping them. One starts believing they are ungrateful.

> > Unpleasant and sometimes blatantly abusive dynamics can ensue.

> Remind me again-- which party is the one that supposedly has the mental

> illness? The hypothetical shrink in that example could probably be

> diagnosed with at least three things based just on that paragraph.

Heh.

> > I don't think compassion will help on its own.

> I think that a shrink that had enough genuine compassion would see that

> he is hurting people he is supposed to help, and would be bound by his

> own ethics not to keep hurting people. By extension, this would mean

> that the compassion motive would have to exceed the other motives, like

> the desire for power, sadism (which is the antithesis of compassion), et

> cetera.

The problem is that a lot of very compassionate people have *no clue*

they're hurting people. Many are actually trained heavily to believe

not only that harmful behaviors are helpful, but that signs of distress

in the patient are a sign the patient is responding well to the harmful

behavior toward them.

Also, there is another problem -- when I was in the system, there were a

few shrinks who would be covertly compassionate. Enough overt

compassion and they'd lose their jobs, and thereby their ability to

display compassion from within that situation.

As far as compassion motive exceeding other motives, I've seen it

happen, but again it's often done in a clandestine fashion because

compassion isn't highly valued. And it's hard to go up against an

entire system as an individual, which can wear most people down. (I

actually see the fact that one of them had a strong religious faith --

even though it was not one I shared -- as a reason he was able to do

that to some extent, because it was an anchor in a system of morality

outside the one he worked in, and " answering to a higher authority "

basically.)

> > I think there needs to be a complete and fundamental overthrow of the

> > power dynamics that make up the foundations of psychiatric practice.

> > Those power dynamics are already designed to render compassion --

> > where it exists in the first place -- ineffectual or at least greatly

> > reduced in its effectiveness. Sort of like the Stanford prison

> > experiment.

> I am not aware of the Stanford prison experiment.

They put a bunch of randomly selected people of the same general

background in a prison. Some as prisoners, some as guards. They had to

close down the experiment early because everyone fell into their roles

really badly to the point where things were getting brutal and

dangerous. And these were people who considered themselves

compassionate, ordinary people to begin with.

Power is not just something people desire; it's almost as if it's

addictive.

> I see the problem as

> being more than a psychiatric industry problem. The problem is that

> most people want the mentally ill just to go away-- and the mental

> hospitals that have existed thus far are designed primarily for that

> purpose. They are a dumping ground, a warehouse for the dregs of

> society that happen not to be in prison. The goal is to keep the

> inmates quiet and controllable (to make it easier on the staff), not to

> secure the patient's mental health.

Yes. Definitely agree on all of that.

> The shrinks don't really know much

> at all about how to make mental health happen (far less than they delude

> themselves to believe), but it would be a start if that were actually

> the goal. I think that lip service is paid to rehabilitation, just

> enough to allow the shrinks to sleep at night, and for the powers that

> be to be able to justify the existence of these warehouses for society's

> rejects. As long as everyone can pretend that the days of Bedlam are

> long gone, the good people of the world (full sarcasm attached to the

> word 'good') can sleep soundly, knowing that the mentally ill are locked

> away where they will bother no one, where they can get the " help " they need.

Exactly.

--

I'm not anti-social, society is anti-me.

[Guest guest]

At 04:43 AM 6/1/03 -0700, Klein wrote:

>Personally, I don't think this is a big risk. It's easier to keep SSI

>than to get it, and you got it.

Whether it's easier to keep SSI than to get it is debatable and varies with

the individual. I got SSI pretty much immediately when I applied for it. I

lost my SSI for two years over a paperwork error. So my perception

naturally is that it's much easier to get it than keep it. After that

experience, I'm always afraid it's going to get taken away again so I can

definitely empathize with anyone else who shares that anxiety.

>When does this review thing come up anyway?

Theoretically every five years. They actually do it about like the IRS does

audits, though. There aren't enough resources to fully re-evaluate everyone

every five years so they only re-evaluate some people. Some people randomly

come up at five years for re-evaluation (I think the computer randomly

picks people) and others come up because a flag got tripped. I think that

was my case with the paperwork error causing the computer to say " it's been

five years and something looks wrong. Do her. "

>I have had mine close to

>two years now, and no one has asked me about that. My mother has had it

>several years longer than that (probably six years at least), and she

>has not had a review either. Who decides which people get reviewed?

The computer spits out candidates and then someone possibly double-checks

those before processing. They don't want to re-evaluate everyone every five

years because they could never keep up with evaluations so they just do

selected folks. Your mother has evidently not come up randomly and didn't

have a fishy looking situation when her five years hit so she got skipped

over.

>Well, the fact that the state-funded facilities that exist now are a

>fraction of what used to exist means that they have to have higher

>standards. There is simply not the room for the " hospitalize them all "

>mentality any more.

Though that could change at any time. Clinton made major cut-backs but at

any point we could end up with a president who decides we need more funding

and *poof* there are more facilities again.

>I think that a shrink that had enough genuine compassion would see that

>he is hurting people he is supposed to help, and would be bound by his

>own ethics not to keep hurting people.

I think it's more complex than that. A surgeon knows that she's hurting

people when she cuts into them and that they will have a long recovery time

but she also knows that in the long run she is doing good and even saving

lives. Similarly, a psychologist can be chock full of compassion but has

been trained that sometimes you have to cause pain to heal pain so he would

often compassionately believe that he's doing the right thing because

that's what his expensive training told him to do.

>> I think there needs to be a complete and fundamental overthrow of the

>> power dynamics that make up the foundations of psychiatric practice.

>> Those power dynamics are already designed to render compassion --

>> where it exists in the first place -- ineffectual or at least greatly

>> reduced in its effectiveness. Sort of like the Stanford prison

>> experiment.

>

>

>I am not aware of the Stanford prison experiment.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

> I see the problem as

>being more than a psychiatric industry problem. The problem is that

>most people want the mentally ill just to go away-- and the mental

>hospitals that have existed thus far are designed primarily for that

>purpose.

To some extent, that's what SSI/SSD disability is about also. It's intended

to shut us up and get us out of the streets and home watching television

quietly. Much of the money that society gives to people is not out of

compassion but to shut people up. Welfare and food stamps are to prevent

rioting in the streets. The French Revolution taught the world that you

need to throw a little bread to the peasants every now and then.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

At 05:59 AM 6/1/03 -0700, wrote:

>

>> The " in lieu of food stamps " is downright comical. I get SSI

>> in Arizona, and the state pays me a whopping $8.00 a month in food

>> stamps. I'd much rather have the $200.

>

>Oh yes, I'd definitely rather have the $200. Food stamps are

>patronizing, and don't provide for a lot of other necessary stuff.

It's esepcially humiliating when you're only cleared for $8 of food stamps.

I have heard that the system of distribution has changed since I was on

food stamps, but I'm not sure if that's rumor or truth. When I was on them,

I got $20/month and I had to see a case worker every other month and once a

month I had to take a bus to the bad part of town where I stood in line for

two hours, reading insulting signs on the walls, until I got to the

bullet-proof window where the food stamp distributors would treat me like a

criminal as they doled out my allotment.

>> Personally, I don't think this is a big risk. It's easier to keep SSI

>> than to get it, and you got it.

>

>Okay.

Keep every scrap of paperwork! I lost mine for two years over a paperwork

error and my own copies of the paperwork had been destroyed in a flood so I

had no evidence to contest their decision. Every piece of informational

paperwork that touches your hand is like precious gold. Guard it with your

life.

>> I am not aware of the Stanford prison experiment.

>

>They put a bunch of randomly selected people of the same general

>background in a prison.

Not just randomly selected. They were the " good young people " of society -

college students.

>Some as prisoners, some as guards. They had to

>close down the experiment early because everyone fell into their roles

>really badly to the point where things were getting brutal and

>dangerous. And these were people who considered themselves

>compassionate, ordinary people to begin with.

I don't remember how long it was intended to run for but it only lasted six

days.

>Power is not just something people desire; it's almost as if it's

>addictive.

My impression from reading about the Stanford Experiment was that there is

something instinctual in humans that is triggered by the way prisons are

set up. Since most mental hospitals are set up the same way as prisons (and

most public schools are set up the same way as prisons except with a " day

pass " every night, weekend and summer) those dynamics will naturally occur

in hospital and school settings as well. (As I'm sure most of us have

personally observed. As much as I speak of the peer abuse I received all

through my schooling, there was plenty of abuse from teachers and

administrators as well. But for some reason, while people find it easy to

believe I faced peer abuse they most often find it inconceivable that one,

let alone a majority, of my teachers would have been abusive towards me.)

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

> At 01:45 AM 6/1/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote:

> >

> >

> >> Has anyone ever had a state-sponsored psych exam when your SSI came up

> >> for review?

> >

> >I had to see a psychologist when I applied for vocational rehab.

>

> I've been to voc rehab, too. The stuff they do there and the inherent

> attitude they have towards clients is very different from the state docs

> examining for SSI.

We don't have SSI where I live, so that was the closest I could come up

with.

Iris

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did

indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his.

-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

At 09:19 AM 6/1/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote:

>We don't have SSI where I live, so that was the closest I could come up

>with.

Oh, that's right. You're in Canada. Everything's different up there. I once

got my head chewed off on another spectrum list for " daring " to make a

comment about the U.S. disability system during a discussion of the Canadian.

From what I know of the disability system (forget what it's called) in

Canada, I'm glad I'm in the U.S. (no insult intended) because it sounds

like everything's getting cut back up there and lots of people have killed

themselves because their only means of support has been taken away because

they were deemed " not disabled enough " to keep getting cheques. :-(

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

At 09:44 AM 6/1/03 -0800, Jane Meyerding wrote:

>There is no way a guard

>and a prisoner are going to become friends, and I assume the

>same is true for psych workers and psych inmates.

The system actively discourages it. I once made something in occupational

therapy and tried to give it to one of the staff that I really liked and

she said thank you but that she wasn't allowed to accept gifts from the

patients. So I wasn't allowed to demonstrate in that way that I felt she

was valuable. I don't know what the policy would be if I had written her a

poem or letter, but I suspect she wouldn't have been allowed to accept

that, either. At least not while I was still locked up there. I really

should have written her once I got out, but I was too busy trying to figure

other things out to even think about that anymore.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

> Canada, I'm glad I'm in the U.S. (no insult intended) because it sounds

> like everything's getting cut back up there and lots of people have killed

> themselves because their only means of support has been taken away because

> they were deemed " not disabled enough " to keep getting cheques. :-(

What happened was that in this province, a new government came in and

immediately sent out letters to everyone getting disability benefits

telling them their benefits were being " reconsidered " until the government

was provided with " more information. " People were sent out a 30-page form

that they had to fill out along with their doctor and " another

professional " (psychologist, social worker, financial assistance worker,

physiotherapist) who was familiar with the person's condition.

Mentally ill people and others who do not have obvious physical

disabilities were afraid of losing their disability cheques ($786 a

month, plus medical and dental benefits) and being put on regular welfare

($500 a month, emergency medical only, no dental, all earnings deducted

from the $500, and a two-year time limit on benefits.)

The opposition has been demanding to know how many people have lost their

benefits as a result of this " review, " but so far all the government will

say is, " This isn't about cutting people off. It's about getting more

information. "

Iris

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did

indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his.

-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

At 09:44 AM 6/1/03 -0800, Jane Meyerding wrote:

>But now I'm wondering, and perhaps you know the answer,

>. Is it truly " almost impossible " for anyone

>(e.g., family members) to force a " labeled " person to

>take " medication " these days?

This recent article from my local newspaper might shed some light on that

question:

http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2003/05/25/news/local/news01.txt

Janet Holmberg is now forced to take medication ... because she is in

prison. Beforehand, though, no one forced her to take her medication and I

don't believe anyone could legally force her other than by having her

committed. The sad thing to me is all the people she talked to before the

murder. Surely some or even all of them could see that she was seriously

agitated and in a bad way yet no one seems to have done anything to help her.

I've seen news stories where someone was forced to take a medication as

part of a court order, but even then no one stands over the person and

administers the medication. In a nursing home situation, a person can

legally refuse any treatment and the only legal recourse the nursing home

has (unless they can get a court order) is to refuse to continue treatment

(in other words, to kick the person out of the nursing home.) Of course,

in the case of a nursing hom, many of the patients are not capable (whether

physically or mentally) of refusing a medication.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

At 09:56 AM 6/1/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote:

>Mentally ill people and others who do not have obvious physical

>disabilities were afraid of losing their disability cheques ($786 a

>month, plus medical and dental benefits) and being put on regular welfare

>($500 a month, emergency medical only, no dental, all earnings deducted

>from the $500, and a two-year time limit on benefits.)

Gads! I'd be afraid, too. Two year limit? Yikes! $500 is about $365 USD.

Who can live on that?

Here, people on SSI (supplemental security income) get ... oh, look at me,

I forget how much I get (thanks, Direct Deposit) someone else will have to

remember the exact dollar figure. But it's about $500 which is roughly $685

Canadian. We get all medical but only emergency dental. So it sounds like

being on regular disability there is slightly better than here.

It's all different, though, if a disabled person here has worked. I know

one guy who gets nearly $2000/month because he was a county commissioner

(local politician) and lawyer before he became disabled. At that point, you

get SSD and the amount is based on how much money you earned in the last

two years. Do you have something like that up there or do all disabled

people just get $786 regardless of whether they worked before or not?

>The opposition has been demanding to know how many people have lost their

>benefits as a result of this " review, " but so far all the government will

>say is, " This isn't about cutting people off. It's about getting more

>information. "

It sounds frustrating and angering. I think if the government only wanted

more information, they should have been more careful about how they went

about getting it so that they didn't scare disabled people half to death.

After all, some people are on disability for mental illnesses and are

extremely vulnerable to that sort of thing. (Of course it's easy for me to

sit here in another country and criticize someone else's government. My

apologies if what I'm saying is out of line or offensive. I don't mean to

be saying " you people should do things this way! " I'm just sad about people

suffering.)

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

>

> It's all different, though, if a disabled person here has worked. I know

> one guy who gets nearly $2000/month because he was a county commissioner

> (local politician) and lawyer before he became disabled. At that point, you

> get SSD and the amount is based on how much money you earned in the last

> two years. Do you have something like that up there or do all disabled

> people just get $786 regardless of whether they worked before or not?

As long as you fit the " disability " criteria (needing an assistive device

or needing help with day-to-day living tasks) it doesn't matter what you

did " before. " If the gov't believes you are able to work, then you must

prove that you are looking for work and enter into an " employment

contract. " If you work while you are on disability, you are allowed to

earn $400, and everything above that $400 gets deducted dollar-for dollar

from your cheque. If you make enough money that you don't get any

disability at all, ie, $1186 or more, you can keep your supplementary

medical benefits but must re-apply for disability if your income goes

below $1186 or you lose your job. If you get fired or quit your job, you

lose your benefits for, I think, a year, and you can't get the $500 a

month welfare at all.

> It sounds frustrating and angering. I think if the government only wanted

> more information, they should have been more careful about how they went

> about getting it so that they didn't scare disabled people half to death.

> After all, some people are on disability for mental illnesses and are

> extremely vulnerable to that sort of thing. (Of course it's easy for me to

> sit here in another country and criticize someone else's government. My

> apologies if what I'm saying is out of line or offensive. I don't mean to

> be saying " you people should do things this way! " I'm just sad about people

> suffering.)

Oh don't worry, I agree completely with what you're saying. I am very

lucky that I did not have to go through this review, because I was terried

of losing my benefits and not having enough to pay my rent, let alone pay

for food and electricity.

Iris

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did

indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his.

-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>I talk to people who were locked up or otherwise psychiatrized in the

>'60s and '70s, and I look at what happened to me in the middle to late

>'90s ('95-'99), and the thing all of us find frightening is the lack of

>difference. In fact, one of the major criticisms I get online if I talk

>about my experiences is, " You have to understand things were changed

>since the '70s. " When I tell people I wasn't alive in the '70s, they

>don't know what to think.

Someone said yesterday that her father (who is in his

mid 90s and in a nursing home) was refusing medication

for depression and it was a shame nobody could make

him take it. She said this was because, unfortunately,

the laws had been changed so that it was almost

impossible to force anyone to take medication. I said

that was a good thing, given how forced drugging was

so wildly abused whenever it was an option for those

with power-over.

But now I'm wondering, and perhaps you know the answer,

. Is it truly " almost impossible " for anyone

(e.g., family members) to force a " labeled " person to

take " medication " these days?

Jane

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>As far as compassion motive exceeding other motives, I've seen it

>happen, but again it's often done in a clandestine fashion because

>compassion isn't highly valued. And it's hard to go up against an

>entire system as an individual, which can wear most people down.

I've seen this happen with prison guards. A new person might

start out wanting to be compassionate, but she got nothing

out of it. Her colleagues would give her subtle and not-so-

subtle " grief " for it, and the prisoners have no way to

" reward " her. Plus, it's hard to be compassionate over time

when you keep running into a wall. There is no way a guard

and a prisoner are going to become friends, and I assume the

same is true for psych workers and psych inmates. Can

compassion remain real compassion in a situation where there

is no chance of changing the power-dynamic? I suspect it is

extremely hard to preserve one's compassion in anything near

pure form when one is required to treat the object of one's

compassion as undesrving of ordinary human rights and subject

instead to demeaning conditions and requirements.

About the best one can hope for, in " well-seasoned " guards

is that they continue to have enough integrity to adhere to

the standards of the industry (instead of joining fully into

the " club house " attitude of those guards who relieve the

tedium and inhumanity of their jobs by redefining the

prisoners as not desrving of respect -- or as legitimate

targets for cruel games or entertaining displays of power).

Jane