PDA

View Full Version : Should Psychology Be Administered Through the State and Taxes?



Devil's Advocate
02-23-2013, 01:48 PM
Many people worry that psychology is a guise for political correctness in which the underlying intuitions behind what's politically correct become used to justify mental disorders.

However, there's also the matter that correcting mental disorders is not something that the mentally disordered will necessarily be willing to consent to. In turn, the mentally disordered can make bad decisions which impact others in society.

Traditionally, people used to go to Church, and they would give confessions to a priest to help with life's problems. This was mandatory since everyone went to Church, and everyone donated to the Church such that the priest was "well paid". Everyone also participated in Church, so the priest could give confidential advice given his familiarity with what's going on.

Today, people don't necessarily go to Church, and there's a variety of denominations, so relying on priestly counsel isn't what it used to be. Instead, people have to see professionals, get institutionalized, and take medications. These all represent conflicts of interest because those who are privately employed only get paid as long as they have patients in need of help. If a patient is helped too fast, the professional won't be paid anymore.

Furthermore, it's possible that a professional encounters a patient with personal value conflicts such that the professional simply hides behind professional ethics while a patient wastes one's time. Professionals can also have questionable values such that patients aren't necessarily being well taken care of. After all, if a patient is disorderly and a professional doesn't help a patient, who is the patient going to complain to in society to tarnish the professional's reputation?

My argument here is that given the secular character of modern society, psychology should be administered through the government and paid through taxes. That way, patients aren't exposed to professional conflicts of interest or moral hazard. Furthermore, it prevents victims of others' mental disorders from having to pay for the disorderly's conduct.

A classic example of this is a psychopath who doesn't want to get help. If the psychopath doesn't get help, everyone else in society will become vulnerable to being abused which can lead to becoming mentally disordered (i.e. anxiety, depression, etc.). The psychopath should also have to pay for the services one receives despite not wanting to get help.

Additionally, when psychology is administered through government, the government can modify other public policies (such as education and health care) in order to alleviate and prevent mental disorders in the first place.

Peter1469
02-23-2013, 02:18 PM
The US has a long history of state run mental institutions. WIKI says Virgina had the first on, starting in 1773.

In the late 20th century these budgets were cut and many of the truly insane were tossed out onto the streets.

Adelaide
02-23-2013, 02:18 PM
In all of my years of therapy and treatment I have only come across one person who seemed to not enjoy her job or want to help. I got her fired for breaking confidentiality which is taken very seriously here, (and the two people who she shared information with supported me and backed up my claim, including another mental health professional). So, there is accountability in terms of professionals who behave or act in a way which is contrary to their position and purpose.

You can't force people to get help. It's like alcoholism; it usually takes hitting the absolute rock bottom for many to seek out professional help. If people have a brittle support system, the odds of them seeking help, getting the help they need and sticking to a treatment plan are very low. There is nothing that will change this, aside from perhaps breaking down the stigma associated with mental illness.

I support universal healthcare, but I think there needs to be a wall between the health care provider and the government; there needs to be protection, accountability and confidentiality. Too much government involvement could and would have consequences, and quite frankly, it's none of the government's business.

Modifying public health and educational policies can only be so successful. There is a very large genetic component to many if not all mental disorders. There is also a biological component. There are also environmental factors that are largely unavoidable regardless of any policies created by government. Preventing mental illness is a lofty but unrealistic goal in majority of cases.

The idea that mental health professionals waste a patient's time and continue to see patients to waste money and resources is also a bit ridiculous. There is no shortage of people suffering from mental illness. There are wait lists here that can be up to 18 months long if you're not an emergent case. Psychiatrists and social workers slowly dwindle your appointments down from once a week, to every other week, then to every four weeks, and so on. Psychiatrists require you to remain with them in order to remain on medication and for maintenance, not because they want to waste their time for financial gain. In my province, you can't get a medication script with more than 2 repeats; you must see a doctor who must renew that prescription at least every 2 months in order to avoid misuse and drug abuse, to ensure patient safety, and to avoid a patient from taking medication unnecessarily. For example, a psychiatrist might over time reduce an anti-depressant medication until the patient is considered stable or recovered. They also discontinue medications when it calls for it, and discharge the person from their service.

Psychology is an area that is quickly evolving and constantly changing. You'll hear arguments that it is based entirely on social norms (the removal of homosexuality is a decent example), which is only partly true. One of the most important "rules" that psychological diagnostics requires is that you consider social norms, cultural differences, etc.. There is a reason that clinical psychology is a specialization based on abnormal psychology, which denotes a deviation from what is considered normal behaviour. "Normal" is subjective. Psychology is not an exact science, but it's a science that is constantly aiming to become an exact science; it seeks progress and development of a more concrete understanding of human behaviour.

Mister D
02-23-2013, 02:58 PM
Many people worry that psychology is a guise for political correctness in which the underlying intuitions behind what's politically correct become used to justify mental disorders.

Psychology or Psychoanalysis?

Devil's Advocate
02-25-2013, 08:27 AM
Psychology is an area that is quickly evolving and constantly changing. You'll hear arguments that it is based entirely on social norms (the removal of homosexuality is a decent example), which is only partly true. One of the most important "rules" that psychological diagnostics requires is that you consider social norms, cultural differences, etc.. There is a reason that clinical psychology is a specialization based on abnormal psychology, which denotes a deviation from what is considered normal behaviour. "Normal" is subjective. Psychology is not an exact science, but it's a science that is constantly aiming to become an exact science; it seeks progress and development of a more concrete understanding of human behaviour.

The problem with abnormal psychology is it leads to the psychopath-autistic paradox. Psychopaths who don't want to be institutionalized will blame the victim for being ridiculously absurd. Autistics who don't read body language defensively but rather give people too much benefit of the doubt will be exploited.

I don't see how psychopaths can avoid institutionalizing their victims as autistic unless psychology is government controlled. Without government control, it's impossible to make psychopaths reform their thinking, and their victims become perpetually vulnerable.