User:Aspro/Sandbox

fhdkhkh.

References

---

Have been writing for the enemy, otherwise it will be more difficult for the reader to identify further down in the article what are the valid criticism of psychiatry from the non sequiturs and other misunderstandings. The history of American psychiatry starts off slightly different, then starts coming together in the 1880s so I suggest keeping the early parts before then (1880) seprate. I haven't yet attempted fully referenced what I have added. It is spread through many books, and until I know exactly what you think should stay and what gets cut, I don't see the point in spending many hours (days) looking them all up. Also, I have left out most the dates as I'm not sure off the top of my head.

In some parts of Europe the insane were legally bared from inheriting. This lead to further abuse as uncles had the nephews of a dead brother committed, in order to enjoy their late brothers inheritance themselves. In England and elsewhere, no single profession held a monopoly for caring for the mentally distressed. It had been traditionally shared between monks, nuns, apothecaries, physicians and surgeons -as well as lay people running private asylums for profit.

With the coming of social reforms through a succession of Lunacy Acts being passed in Parliament and large asylums built with public money there was great competition between the professions for the right to take charge of this group of patients. The social reform was driven by the Justices of the Peace who also had control over how these new 'pauper' asylums spent the money. They came to favour men with a military background who knew how to efficiently organize a large body of people. (ref:Andrew Skull) If they (the asylum superintendants) happened to be medical men as well, then that saved having to pay another salary. As applicants were drawn from the upper and upper middle classes, this also meant that the jobs would invariably fall to a physician, since surgeons and apothecaries -in that order- came from the lower strata of society.

The concession physicians made by agreeing to practice this 'moral management' and 'non-restraint' turned out to be professionally harmless and they could still look after the physical health of those charged to their care. However, with the coming of the Anatomy Act of 1832 allowing post mortems to be carried out on any unclaimed corpse of a pauper patient, they observed the physical changes of the brain brought on by infections such as tertiary syphilis and encephalitis lethargica etc. This brought a small but far reaching change in view point:

The Christian belief was that the soul (or to the philosopher: the mind) was immaterial and therefore incorruptible. Some monks therefore believed that insanity was due to an evil spirit dwelling within and and so reasoned that by beating and making things as unpleasant as possible for the victim, the evil spirit would eventually leave to find some where more comfortable. This meant, the physicians could not hold that insanity was a disease of the mind (soul) as this would have made treatment the responsibility of the clergy. However, to occasionally observe differences in brains of some of their deceased patients meant insanity could be a disease of the flesh. Gradually, the physicians no longer saw themselves restricted to just looking after the bodily needs of their patients but their mental state as well. Thus started the decline of the halcyon days of moral treatment which had started roughly a hundred years before.

It is ironic therefore, that after having the powers to inspect asylums under the 1774 Act. taken away from them due to complete failure to perform; and conceding to the introduction of moral treatment pioneered in England by religious lay persons like William Tuke and apothecaries such as Dr. Robert Gardiner Hill, the physicians succeed by default. Not of only of running the new, very large pauper asylums but to metamorphose into the speciality of alienists and phrenologists which was the forerunner of the discipline now known as psychiatry.

However, not having seen the spirochaete of syphilis and with out an understanding of viruses and immunology they where to prove no more successful at designing effective treatments the second time around, than they had been before.

Map sources for Aspro/Sandbox at grid reference TQ145799

---

   [1]  [2][3]

1. ^ Johnson, Bob (2003). "AN INFORMED CONSENT FORM for ELECTRO CONVULSIVE THERAPY (ECT)" (PDF). Draft 1.
2. ^ Diana Rose, senior researcher1, Pete Fleischmann, researcher1, Til Wykes, professor2, Morven Leese, statistician3, Jonathan Bindman, senior lecturer3 (2003). "Patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review". British Medical Journal. 326 (7403): 1363–0. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1363. PMC 162130. PMID 12816822.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Texas Legislature (2004). "Health & safety code Chapter 578. Electroconvulsive and other therapies Sec.578.001".
4. ^ Rose D, Wykes T, Bindman J, Fleischmann P (2005). "Information, consent and perceived coercion: patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy". British Journal of Psychiatry. 186 (1): 54–59. doi:10.1192/bjp.186.1.54. PMID 15630124. S2CID 4674870.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations

---

Literature

---

Peter Lehmann, ed. (2002). Coming off Psychiatric Drugs. Germany: Peter Lehmann Publishing. 1-891408-98-4.

---

---

If these trials have been well designed and are successfully duplicated by independent laboratories or field trials, then the papers can be reviewed by an independent body such as the Cochrane Collaboration to serve as a authoritative source of clinical guidance. Regrettably the majority ^[4] of research trails published today are done or sponsored by the very same companies who have developed the drug or medical device. Moreover they a frequently poorly designed and executed and exhibit bias^[5] therefore most papers should not be taken too seriously. Although each new publication of a survey is often greeted with a sycophantic fanfare of trumpet blowing, few thoughtful and clued up^[6] clinicians would change their treatment protocols solely on the bases of just a few research papers. Thus, doctors have expressed their despair when patients bring in printouts of the latest research downloaded from the internet with the high expectation that it will make a significant difference.

1. ^ Ben Thornley and Clive Adams (1998-10-31). "Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years" (PDF). British Medical Journal.

1. ^ "The Journal of the American Medical Association". Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials. Retrieved February 4, 2006.

1. ^ "Quackwatch". Why Quackery Persists. Retrieved February 4, 2006.

---

1. ^ "Institute of Food Research". Why your best friend could be a Brassica. Retrieved 2006-01-21.

First Tentative Proposal to Reduce the Underlying Reason Behind Many:

(i) Edit Wars

(ii) the desire to create POV_fork

Background:

Computerised Information Technology (CIT) now means that information can flow rapidly without the past tradition of discovering some common ground of understanding between the sender and intended recipient. Also many other individual now see that information for whom it was not intended.

Thus, information -however worthy- may just become noise if it is injected into the wrong signal. See: information theory.

This is particularly apparent in articles of a medical nature.

The String theory physicists were taken to task recently over their lay use of the term theory instead of hypothesis.

(see: New Scientist [Mind your scientific language];Reed Business Information; 3rd December 2005, issue 2528, p 23 )

Maybe Wikipedia can take better advantage of its mode of content expansion ( i.e.. people of divers talents -contributing online) by asking contributes to be aware of what category of information they are editing and to strive to keep them clearly separate and thus avoid confusion between contributors from different background (i.e.. arguing from deferent premises). Premise Deductive_reasoning Philosophy

<--- tentative proposal starts --->

Proposal:

Starting with medical articles and effort is made to make clear in each article which section deals with:-

Hypothesis (inc. speculations which can be shown to be widely held)

Theory (that have some experimental evidence)

Fact (those things which have now been independently confirmed)

Current Medical Dogma

(that which medical clinicians depend upon to treat - the leaned and practised skills) and/or (Pronouncements from Government Health Agencies, etc.) and/or (that which is most commonly taught)

Industry sources

And finally commentary from journalist.

And finally: Commentary on how the press and other media report it -if needs must- but only to acknowledge that the subject became news.

(and certainly not to feature the views of individual journalists)?

Where different flavours compete they can be sub divided to hypothesis: one, two, etc.

(maybe some brave soul could even give each such sub category a 'weight' or pie chart symbol to denote its overall peer group support.) <--- tentative proposal ends --->

Yes! messy I appreciate. But at the moment people are working towards cross purposes and much heat gets generated -so much time gets wasted unpicking it. This leads to the current situation where articles can look exceedingly amateurish.

There must be many research specialist who are at present put off contributing when they see, even general medical practitioners editing out information that disagrees with what was taught to them many years ago. This can be a minefield, where incorporating the best scientific method may have the effect of degrading the overall out come from treatment. But by separating the categories: clinical aspects can be explained in real world context and thus have divergents not misunderstood.

Also: students, who are sweating to fill their young heads with what will satisfy the 'examiners,' may not be ready to handle the Cognitive_dissonance that comes to us all, as we discover from experience (A_posteriori) or scientific advance, that most of what we learnt thirty to forty years ago turned out to be wrong -and in some fields completely and utterly wrong. (this applies especially to those that have to keep their knowledge up to date.) Categorising will help students to ignore all that avon guard stuff, that the boffins rant on to each other about -and which is often- at odds with what the text books all say. This will save technologists from getting exasperated with the pontifications of a pedantic green horn who imagines their learning is set in stone.

Others: take their information from news papers which have got the science horribly muddled and mangled or have given a problem far more factual credibility than the matter deserves. Often in an effort to be fair and give both sides of an augment equal 'ink on the page'.

(Add your own personal grips here: ......................................................................................................) To finish: Unlike a traditional encyclopaedia of old, where a tight editorial policy could be followed, to limit the content to a suit specific readership -at the expense of those considered the hoy poloy- Wikipedia can brake free and be a place where unconnected fields can make connections and create new insights -or be a 'place' to cross pollinate as some people like to say. I could go on at length, but this I think should be enough to give the gist and illuminate the benefits.

---

web ref

JAMES M. MATHEWS, AMY S. ETHERIDGE, JOHN L. VALENTINE, SHERRY R. BLACK, DONNA P. COLEMAN, PURVI PATEL, JAMES SO, AND LEO T. BURKA (July 20, 2005). "PHARMACOKINETICS AND DISPOSITION OF THE KAVALACTONE KAWAIN:INTERACTION WITH KAVA EXTRACT AND KAVALACTONES IN VIVO AND IN VITRO" (PDF). Drug Metabolism and Disposition. Retrieved December 14, 2005.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Kava (Piper methysticum)

=Kava ref

Siegel, Ronald K (2005). Intoxication: The Universal Drive for Mind-Altering Substances. Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont. ISBN 1-59477-069-7. (paperback edition)

Siegel, Ronald K (2005). Intoxication: The Universal Drive for Mind-Altering Substances. Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont. ISBN 1-59477-069-7. (paperback edition) Note: new ISBN comes in 1 January 2007 and is 978-1-59477-069-2

Edwards, Griffith (November, 1 2005). Matters of Substance : Drugs--and Why Everyone's a User (Hardcover). Thomas Dunne Books: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-33883-X. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Harm Reduction

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7530/1484 Giving heroin users a dose of naloxone to carry around with them

see also:http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_05_040900/lenton/lenton.html

Addiction and other drug info

The evolutionary origins and significance of drug addiction

A paper by

Tammy Saah http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1174878

Effects of chewing betel nut (Areca catechu) on the symptoms of people with schizophrenia in Palau, Micronesia ROGER J. SULLIVAN http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/177/2/174?ijkey=6ca581b128776d9c9226621e35ce008e939766e6