Jehovah’s Witnesses and psychiatric diagnoses?

by Marvin Shilmer 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LongHairGal

  ARBOLES:

  A man in my office once said to me that people who join the JWs have "issues". I was insulted because I joined because I was interested in end-time prophecy.

  In the early years, most of the people in the congregation were responsible working people. Over time I did see people with "issues". Whether or not they had issues before they joined the religion or developed them after, I do not know.

  FRANTICFRAN:

  What you observed about there being an inordinate amount of people on meds is something that seems to have developed after the '80s and it became a "norm". I also observed a tendency of JWs to look for government benefits.

  As was said to me by a man I knew: anybody who can go out in service several hours a day has no business collecting a check.

  As for the few responsible working people in congregations today: sadly, that is the case. Back when I was in though, most were responsible working people.

  If I, as a responsible working woman, were to set foot in a kingdom hall NOW, what would I encounter?? Do you think I would tolerate being targeted by deadbeats and delusionals???

  I think not.
• 

  steve2

  What you observed about there being an inordinate amount of people on meds is something that seems to have developed after the '80s and it became a "norm". I also observed a tendency of JWs to look for government benefits.

  Long Haired Gal, your observation is probably accurate, but keep in mind the "third" explanatory variable question. Does the increased incidence of JWs on medication in the 1980s suggest worsening mental health or increased awareness of mental health issues and the now widerspread availability of psychtropic medication?

  Statistically, the 1980s saw increased levels of medication use even in the general population.
• 

  steve2

  Thanks Marvin, I appreciated your response. Yes, I am familiar with the study you wrote about and I noted also your good cautious use of language in that article. Compared with Bergman's "work" the study you cite is more rigorous and more caution in its conclusions.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Long Haired Gal, your observation is probably accurate, but keep in mind the "third" explanatory variable question. Does the increased incidence of JWs on medication in the 1980s suggest worsening mental health or increased awareness of mental health issues and the now widerspread availability of psychtropic medication?”

  Steve2,

  Before the advent of SSRIs medications available to treat psychiatric disorders was relatively meager, not to mention far more dangerous. Of course you know this.

  I remember patients being treated with drugs like lithium or chlorpromazine to reduce delusional episodes solely because nothing else seemed to work. If that didn’t work then shock treatment. Those were horror stories. Of course those treatments can and did help quite a few folks. But improperly administered or managed it was horrible. I always felt so bad for those patients. But everyone was doing the best they knew how.

  As you allude, today it’s common for general practitioners to prescribe SSRI medications to treat and manage otherwise serious mental illness. Undoubtedly this is one major reason we see so much of this medication in use today.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  sizemik

  Marvin, good discussion.

  - What if anything does the Watchtower organization do to improve the mental health of whoever ends up among its adherents? . . . Marvin Shilmer

  There's the other side of that coin too . . .

  - What among thier practices or beliefs can be postively identified as a threat to mental health? Or is it a general lifestyle effect?

  Also, this question begs addressing . . .

  - What of those who contract a mental illness as a result of leaving or D/F'ing - who are no longer "JW's" Should they be recognised? How?

  Opinions can be offered but that's all.

  It's been said before, but obtaining reliable survey data that joins all the dots, is sadly still scarce. My personal experiences paint a dark and pervasive problem, but that may not be typical.

  Trouble with formatting that info on Big Pharma . . . I'll try and re-post.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “To state the obvious . . . It's probably wise to take a cautious and educated approach to it nowdays.”

  sizemik,

  Your ideas and views are well said and taken. The advice you lead readers to is sage.

  That said, pharmaceuticals have made tremendous strides in the last couple decades for sufferers of life disabling mental illness. But these medications are no better than the physicians who prescribe them for patients. Seeking competency among clinicians is as important as what they treat with. Even then there is no replacement for good diet and exercise, which as it turns out is the overall most efficacious therapy for mental health. Patients suffering with mental illnesses such as depression are well advised to improve their diet and exercise habits first, then talk psychotherapy, and only afterward consider pharmaceuticals.

  It looks like you’ve done much work in the field.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  sizemik

  Big Pharma. We all know who. No names needed. What we, the average person, get to see of them is usually in pill form. You can get a pill for damn near everything now; from your hair falling out, pimples, "personality" disorders and mental illness (don't get me started), travel sickness, that rash that won't go away. Need a good stiff erection? No sweat ... there's a pill for it. And then of course there's that stuff some gulp down by the truck load . . .

  http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/2483026/Painkiller-addictions-rise

  more ...

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379181/Alarming-rise-painkiller-use-House-drug-Vicodin-hits-time-high.html
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/28/painkiller-addiction-plague-united-states

  Let's not forget vaccines . . .

  http://www.naturalnews.com/035588_polio_vaccine_India_paralysis.html

  Even the supermarket varieties, you know, the ones that used to be prescription only?, well . . . that could be some nasty shit too . . .

  http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/09/pain-relievers-increase-hearing-loss-risk/

  I'm deliberately avoiding the psychotropics. To hell with going down that rabbit hole today.

  So ... do we collectively gulp a lot of crap we don't really need to? The bottom line is that the pharmaceutical side of health care is big business. And, what big business is, big business does ... it maximises profit. It develops, manufactures, packages, markets and sells a product. Who does it sell to? Two markets; In the case of over-the-counter products, it's direct to the public. That's why it's all over your TV screens. The advertising is more along the lines of lifestyle choice than health remedy . . . eg;

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=VsPXQJQlqwM&feature=endscreen

  The other is the Health Industry. This too is a rabbit hole with some dodgy odours. The issues and structure of subsidies etc., is worth investigating, particularly the economics. But how does a pill eventually end up in your mouth? Because it's prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner who deems it appropriate for you, and most often believes it is. But the medical practitioner is a customer too now, and often the recipient of "aggressive" marketing . . .

  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853039

  I've heard of such practices in other countries, but to hear it was common here was a surprise.

  I am aware however, of two cases whereby drugs that were effectively treating the patient, were unneccesarily changed with adverse effects, before being changed back again. On one occasion the change was subsequently over-ridden by the original prescriber, a hospital specialist. The reasons were never nade clear. In light of the Herald article, clearly the choice of when and what to prescribe is NOT always influenced by patient need alone.

  But these drugs are trialled and are safe right? We hope so . . .

  http://microarray.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/widespread-fraud-in-the-clinical-trial-of-drugs-is-pervasive-event-in-united-states/

  more ...

  http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/clinical-trial-fraud-accusations-rock-mannkind-mknd-stock/2010-11-05
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2012/11/11/nine-italian-cardiologists-arrested-in-broad-investigation-of-research-fraud-and-misconduct/

  In a nutshell . . . Clinical Trials are normally carried out by the manufacturer and the data made available. If approved, Field Trials are then conducted by the Health Industry, using volunteers from the public. Naturally, the trials are compared. If finally approved for public use, the drug may then be subsidised by Govt.

  I recently participated in a field trial where the adverse effect percentage from the clinical trials was significantly less than what the field trials encountered; 14% versus a massive 44%. The experience prompted some research, some of it linked above.

  Like any Industry, Big Pharma is a profit seeking Industry that needs new markets and competes to survive in these somewhat less forgiving economic times. The pressure to steer close to ethical boundaries, or even cross them, has never been greater.

  To state the obvious . . . It's probably wise to take a cautious and educated approach to it nowdays.

  ED; Thanks for your patience . . . your paragraph (above) puts it in perspective.
• 

  steve2

  sizemilk, you raise a lot of valid concerns about medications and the pharmaceutical consortiums behind them.

  The ease with which even the "general" population (i.e., nonclinical, "normal") is prescribed antidepressants and anxiolytics by their GPs is absolutely astonishing.

  I'm frequently dealing with clients who regret having been prescribed, say, an antidepressant for work stress by their GP; it remains on their medical records even years later.

  Trouble is, if they want to take out Life Insurance, they have to complete a form to disclose if they've ever been diagnosed with a mental-health disorder or been prescribed psychotropics such as antidepressants and anxiolytics. If they honestly disclose that they were prescribed an antidepressant (but were not necessarily diagnosed with clinical depression), the insurer can decline their application (because statistically they may be assesed as a greater risk for adverse health events - including, ahem, suicide) than those who have never been on psychotropic medeication).If the omit such information, the insurer can subsequently nullify their cover. It's a catch-22. it's all very well having TV ads trying to "normalize" having clinical depression and anxiety - but the stigma shown by the insurance industry is very much centred on reducing costs.
• 

  ÁrbolesdeArabia

  Hi LongHairedGirl, my line of thinking was from the angle of the growth of the Organization. I have heard lies claim 100 percent of the Jehovah's Witnesses have mental illness. I don't think 70 percent is a realistic number and there are no large enough studies with evidence, to to back such wild claims with high numbers of the group. I can speak from my experience in the field ministry, many of the people of society who were home and would listen to the Message were not in the best health. There were other members of society who were really searching for spiritual things and their desire was to grow in God and Jesus Christ.

  Recently I had a discussion with a man who told me he read on the internet that "all Jehovah's Witnesses are suffering from mental illness", he qouted some Canadian psychologist and pulled out a pamphlet he keeps in his car to convert JWs. I have been fading but I still am not going to agree with fallacious and specious statements like the man I ran across. My point was to bash the studies that claim "almost all JWs suffer from mental illness" which is impossible to prove. I believe there are plenty of JWs who came into the Organization for their spiritual needs, wanting to know about the Bible and End-Times and decided to leave after finding out it was not what was sold to them. People can leave the Organization without damage or suffering great mental harm, I despise the "blanket studies" claiming we all are messed up from socializing with the Organization. I hope you get what I was trying to get across my friend.
• 

  sizemik

  @steve2 ...

  Your mention of insurance is extremely coincidental. Also, very close to home.

  My eldest son was treated for depression as a teenager - about nine years ago now, when he was 17. More recently, he had a nasty experience during the major quakes here. Quite a few did. For both the Sept. and Feb. shakes, he was inside buildings that suffered damage. After Feb., he arrived home 4 hours later reeking of chemicals and shaking like a leaf. Dr visit followed - prescribed fluoxetine, then citalopram. He was off work for a couple of months with the continued shaking. His income and loans insurance all denied claims based on the treatment for depression 7 years earlier, despite the questionable degree of relevance. He now faces the situation you describe. It's interesting (but not entirely surprising), to hear it's a frequent problem. Thanks for sharing that.

  Two things stick out. The ease with which prescriptions are used by GP's (with the aggressive Pharma marketing element), and the insurability problem. I have little to no doubt, that there is over-prescribing taking place worth millions; and that there are millions also being paid in premiums for insurance that is basically worthless. You have to be your own consumer watchdog nowdays . . . in everything.