ABSTRACT
Do people who claim that God is speaking to them or that they can see God, so “out of line” that they must be slapped with the diagnostic label of a schizophrenic? Is it keeping in line with the mandate of this helping profession to condemn, to the categorical prison of OCD, an individual who prays excessively and becomes extremely distraught when kept from praying? Is it ethical, (or even scientific) to mistake what is probably just an unconventional way of living as a pathology? It is an incredible invasion of one’s personal freedom and dignity when medical treatment and interventions are forced on them by concerned family members (not that they can be blamed) and more sadly, by scientific doctors (psychiatrists) and clinical psychologists. In a culture such as ours, where stories of men-God rendezvous and encounters are passed on for generations with reverence, surely such a belief (or delusion, for the less enlightened!) should not warrant disapproval? When nexus with the Almighty, by way of dialogues or through visions, is endorsed by our society, how are they so lightly dismissed as madness in the common man? The main tenet of this paper is to explore the “rights” and “wrongs” done to individuals experiencing other worldly states and how clinical psychologists and psychiatrists address them in the clinic. We will be interviewing conventional practitioners as well as those mental health professionals who think about things a little differently so it will enable us to gain greater appreciation of the standpoint of both sides.
Suggestions and comments are so welcome!:)
Varun Vishwanathan, Jyothi Ravichandran
what happens when this 'voice of God' asks someone to 'sacrifice themselves for a larger purpose, or hurt someone or walk through fire? where do we draw the line? would it be ethical for us to stand by and watch a person go trhough life struggling with these delusions..? it is not in out power to suggest that people dont hear or see God..however after years of research and development of evidence based treatments we are fortunate enough to know that scizophrenia is a debilitating disorder that cannot merely be reduced to a supernatural experience and with approapriate interverntions whether 'forced' or not it does help those people who were previously unable to function or live their lives beacuse of these delusions and hallucinations . (u shud watch 'the soloist'..i think u wud find the movie interesting)
ReplyDelete*schizophrenia
ReplyDeleteInteresting observations! Hoping that Jyothi and Varun would respond to Leila's comments, which are very relevant. Also,we all should watch The Soloist :-)
ReplyDeleteI can't resist playing the Devil's advocate here:
ReplyDeleteA stark contrast between the OP and the first comment is very interesting to note: OP poses the question of "reducing" a supposed connection with god to the (unjust?) label of a schizophrenic whereas the first comment states it would be incorrect to "reduce" this empirically backed disorder of schizophrenia to just a supernatural experience - especially when there is self-harm / aggression involved.
At one level, I suppose the OP is trying to question THIS very evidence - what if it is entirely, or for the most part, occidental research and not relevant to a culture which speaks highly of the man-god rendezvous? What if they WANT to function with those very delusions and hallucinations, although it may be inconceivable for an external observer to imagine how, given that they live in a reality very different from ours?
But then again, it is very much valid to point out - HARM is harm! Whatever his/her reality, no one can deny that the person in being physically harmed as a result of "divine" instructions. And being in the so-called "helping profession" how can we stand silently by and allow this to happen. He/she will realise what we did was for for him/her after completing the treatment.
On this note, a similar argument can be made - I am aware that this sounds far fetched but I would appreciate it if you saw the line of argument:
If we are going the evidence based way - if there was ANY topic backed by an extremely high and strong body of research, it is that smoking tobacco causes not only cancer (among other health hazards, and causes millions of deaths), but also alters the very DNA structure of the smoker AND that nicotine is addictive. Given this, there are millions of regular, volitional smokers in the world. A common justification given, despite the above knowledge is that - what i choose to do with my body is my business, and none others'. But Medical practitioners and researchers know that it is harmful - so would it be fair to claim that these smokers don't know what they are talking about since it is the influence of nicotine which is talking and not personal choice? Harm is, after all harm! The empirical evidence that smokers are harming themselves is easily obtainable. So should they be forced to giving it up, so that they can function and live better?
As i write, I am aware that this is a totally far out, but I still would claim, it is not without a minusucult level of similarity. I urge you to give it due consideration.
Point taken..but when we talk about harm,we have to talk about insight..and since choice is a factor you chose to bring up,we have to note that nicotine or drug usage for that matter are personal choice and schizophrenia is not.it happens to the person with no margin of choice..and there is no use or way of asking them whethr they want to stay in state of hallucination because they dont know that!whereas,a drug abuser when comes out of his/her hallucinatory state,does know that it was due to the drug,i.e,insight.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, since we are in a 'helping profession',we will try to eradicate the symptoms of a person with schizophrenia with the same rigor with which we help a person with substance dependance to quit.Because it is our primary concern to reduce 'harm' to self or others,with or without insight.
minuscule*
ReplyDeleteHi guys,
ReplyDeleteIts so exciting to get such awesome comments! Leila's point is fully taken. It's very important to look at both sides of any problem to take an informed stand and in that spirit, this paper is no exception. To address her concern that given the sound research backing, it will be very short-sighted and downright wrong to 'reduce' schizophrenia to supernatural experiences, I hasten to assure you that no such reductions are attempted in this paper. The focus here is on how to deal with religious symptamatology that sometimes presents itself merely as part of the disorder. We are not attempting to advocate a new definition of schizophrenia. As you would have read in the abstract, we have also spoken about the religious obsessions and compulsions in an OCD. Hence, our area of interest is how religious symptamatology present in various disorders is dealt with in our clinics today.
To quote from the abstract, "The main tenet of this paper is to explore the “rights” and “wrongs” done to individuals experiencing other worldly states and how clinical psychologists and psychiatrists address them in the clinic. "
@Kripi
As we are on the premise of 'choice', how much of a choice do we take our 'sanity' to be? What makes 'our' chance sanity somehow more superior than 'their' chance insanity? I barely think there exists a sanity, insanity continuum. It's in much better taste if they can be thought of as two separate but real worlds that are off- limits to the 'others'. Fair enough?
The abstract was written with the intention (now that i have used the term 'intention', it most definitely means that it was not backed by reading :)), and amateur enthusiasm of trying to inquire as to how culture is any different for the common man than it is to spiritual gurus but that will remain the tone of this paper. And of course, the 'harm' angle is an extremely valuable direction that must be addressed for a complete picture. So, thanks :)