The New Fascism-State and Medicine E-Book

Dr. Stanley Wilkin

• Herausgeber: Pencil
• Kategorie: Für Kinder und Jugendliche
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Seitenzahl: 74

Beschreibung

About the Book: Medicine functions outside of the law and has fashioned its own codes of conduct. Although an arm of government it also functions as a state within a state in which doctors act as little more than commissars. If a patient does not do as the doctor demands, he or she can suffer punishments such as the withdrawal of treatments.
In psychiatry, the doctor has absolute control of patients and can perform invasive brain therapies on very young children, employ memory-destroying ECT on the basis of subjective judgement and medical authority. In this specialisation, as a patient you lose many of your democratic rights on the word of a doctor.

About the Author: Dr Wilkin is a lecturer and writer who has written numerous works on history, psychology and medicine. His series on religion, Ancient Fictionality, deals with Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. His series of books, An Unusual Power, details the historical development of medicine and the efficacy of psychiatry. To his credit, he has several books of poetry.  For a few years he practised as a counsellor. He has worked in many colleges thoughout the United Kingdom, Africa, Egypt and the Far East. 
His work as a therapist created a concern in him on the overall validity of psychiatry and other medical specialisations. Medicine as a whole but psychiatry in particular has its own rules, which often conflict with national law codes. Pervaded by group and individual arrogance, bad medicine, including harmful drugs and doubtful invasive treatments, is propagated as effective and idealised as a science.  

Leseprobe

TheNewFascism-StateandMedicine

BY

DrStanleyWilkin

ISBN

978-93-90463-40-4

©

Dr

Stanley

Wilkin

2020

Published

in

India

2020

by

Pencil

A

brand

of

One

Point

Six

Technologies

Pvt.

Ltd.

123,

Building

J2,

Shram

Seva

Premises,

Wadala

Truck

Terminal,

Wadala

(E)

Mumbai

400037,

Maharashtra,

INDIA

E

[email protected]

W

www.thepencilapp.com

All

rights

reserved

worldwide

No

part

of

this

publication

may

be

reproduced,

stored

in

or

introduced

into

a

retrieval

system,

or

transmitted,

in

any

form,

or

by

any

means

(electronic,

mechanical,

photocopying,

recording

or

otherwise),

without

the

prior

written

permission

of

the

Publisher.

Any

person

who

commits

an

unauthorized

act

in

relation

to

this

publication

can

be

liable

to

criminal

prosecution

and

civil

claims

for

damages.

DISCLAIMER:TheopinionsexpressedinthisbookarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotpurporttoreflecttheviewsofthePublisher.

Authorbiography

Dr

Wilkin

is

a

lecturer

and

writer

who

has

written

numerous

works

on

history,

psychology

and

medicine.

His

series

on

religion,

Ancient

Fictionality,

deals

with

Egyptian

and

Mesopotamian

religions,

Judaism,

Christianity

and

Islam.

His

series

of

books,

An

Unusual

Power,

details

the

historical

development

of

medicine

and

the

efficacy

of

psychiatry.

To

his

credit,

he

has

several

books

of

poetry.  For

a

few

years

he

practised

as

a

counsellor.

He

has

worked

in

many

colleges

thoughout

the

United

Kingdom,

Africa,

Egypt

and

the

Far

East. 

His

work

as

a

therapist

created

a

concern

in

him

on

the

overall

validity

of

psychiatry

and

other

medical

specialisations.

Medicine

as

a

whole

but

psychiatry

in

particular

has

its

own

rules,

which

often

conflict

with

national

law

codes.

Pervaded

by

group

and

individual

arrogance,

bad

medicine,

including

harmful

drugs

and

doubtful

invasive

treatments,

is

propagated

as

effective

and

idealised

as

a

science.  

Contents

STATEANDMEDICINEwheredoesoneendandtheotherbegin

DARKTRIADManichean,ZoroasterandStarWars

PSYCHIATRYANDEUGENICS-THEWHITEMANSSCIENCE

Psychiatry,Power,UniversalIdeologiesandtheNazis

Criminology,Psychopathology,Dehumanisation,andMorlocks“TheAnatomyofViolence”

STATEANDMEDICINEwheredoesoneendandtheotherbegin

While the concepts of wellness and the present development of medicine into all areasof life is in many ways a welcome development on the other hand it invades individualautonomy. On the basis of professional (a state in fact fairly new to modern societies)perception in the west people can involve themselves in your life. Professionalinterference modes are due to social change such as the shrinking of families andfamily life, with outside distractions eminent, as well as family breakdowns.

 [1]

Although the family is still seen as the traditional, emotional and relationship core ofsociety, the state has made continuous inroads. 

At some point, mainly as a consequence of the breakup of family life and a consequentlack of interest in each other, everyone below a certain income becomes theresponsibility of the state. This means care, possible hospitalisation, and submission tomedical drugs. Quality of life is unlikely to be sustained and individuals becomeobjects of obedience, their existences subject to record, the processing of data,diagnosis and inspection. Data stored on all of us becomes fixed and immutable.Bodies and minds become one; objects of inspection. For many this unremittingreductionism is acceptable as thinking, choice and intentionality become unnecessary.

To what degree are the claims of modern medicine true or are we subject to the effectsof propaganda? In 

Medicine’s Symbolic Reality On a central problem in the philosophyof medicine 

Arthur M Kleinman writes of modern medicine as a cultural system inwhich symbolic meaning plays a part in disease formation, the classification of andcognitive management of disease and treatment. For an example, medicine is oftenfilled with martial or management statements of control. Often the words and phrasesemployed reflect the hierarchical, political systems in play within medicine itself.

Science

 , as an engaged word, is a symbolic indicator of efficacy, which involves thesymbolic rejection or putting off of death and in psychiatry represents stasis, exorcismand a thankful return to middleclass norms. A narrative of mind and body is formedthat demonstrates the location and power of physical decay through the clinician’sforestalling of the inevitable: not quality of life but simply life. 

While Michel Foucault

 [2]

 held that the clinic is the rationale of medical empiricism (anewly translated Madness and Civilisation covers much more ground than the original1961 translation), throughout the twentieth century this became as much the GeneralPractioner’s surgery situated at the core of the community but representative of an elitegroup. The doctors, members of an elite, lived and functioned elsewhere and had andhave little to do with the community.  The surgery was and is the place where treatmentand drugs are dispensed, although now it inhabits a business model where treatmentbecomes a form of economic activity. Treatments that have become increasinglyutilitarian fixed to a profit margin; treatments which the community itself does notqualify as effective or ineffective but only the medical profession; patients are objectsthat receive treatments, failing to engage or be engaged. 

Doctors remain the central actors in medical institutions of all varieties, and are held aslargely responsible still for its development even though now they are merely by andlarge agents for medical bodies and drug companies. Much power is invested indoctors and they remain a cornerstone of government.

 [3]

 Like solicitors and barristers,doctors symbolise the nature of professionalism based upon a knowledge base, notskills, and are considered the guardians with autonomous control of the knowledgebase. Although instructed as to what is and is not effective treatments they remain abarrier to others acquisition of this knowledge.  Doctor’s immense control of bothmedicine and patients is generally ascribed to the growth of capitalism (Weber, neo-Marxism) exemplified by their huge salaries. Doctors are certainly models for middleclass lifestyles, status and elite power. They have formed an unchallenged patriarchy ormatriarchy.

State within a state

 G.V. Larkin writes in 

Medical Dominance in Britain: Image and Historical Reality

that the medical profession forms a state within a state with (118) ‘

 either acquired orinvested sovereignty.’ 

He remarks that economics has made headway into theirsovereignty but not to any great extent. Psychiatry indeed has retained and spread itsdominance over the discourse of human potentiality and patients’ lives. As will beseen, psychiatry is effectively as close to being an autonomous state within a state thatis possible to be, enjoying not only its own rules but also perceptions.  Nevertheless,Larkin specifies that although medical dominance may not have expanded in theUnited States (sic) it seems to have in the United Kingdom. 

Psychiatry anyway remains a special case and should be analysed differently. Freidsonspecifies that medical dominance is retained through doctors changing the nature ofmedicine and their part in it. Where psychiatry is concerned, the specialisation changesthrough its choice of treatments and by altering treatments (from the 1930s shocktreatment followed by lobotomy and then drugs) has allowed them to expand theirpower base as well as remove public and government gaze from the failures ofprevious treatments. At present, the specialisation is developing the idea of bacteria asthe aetiology of mental illness in order to cover up the failure and long term damage topatients of drug treatments. In that way it retains its power even if it does notnecessarily expand it.

Eliot Freidson

 [4]

 notes the powerful connection of medical authorities to governmentpolicies. The closing down of asylums several decades ago provided an opportunity forpsychiatry to move into the community out of hospitals and propagate more effectivelyits ideas and extend even further its treatment tally. The visibility of mental healthtropes may be an extension of this. Eliot Freidson

 [5]

 q ualifies 

profession

 , especiallythe medical profession, as within the desire for freedom to act outside of the oversightof laypeople, a position radically emphasised and achieved by psychiatry that insiststhat no layperson can understand its processes (sic), and within division of labour.Patient problems are re/structured and managed, and a new social reality established.In psychiatry, a patient goes from one reality

of family, work, domesticity and responsibility into another of complete subservienceand often complete control by others: of indeed autonomy of some degree to non-existence. 

One salient point is that in the United Kingdom the medical profession expandedthrough the consent of ruling elites who in the past and now were often related to oneanother. The national state anyway seems to have been sympathetic to enhancedmedical authority. In the United Kingdom, medical doctors remain representative ofthe middle class, with, in the National Health Service their cliental belonging to thelower classes-those with often limited education and a subservient attitude towardsdoctors. 

The National Health Service was probably the first and greatest aid to medicalexpansion, providing large salaries for doctors as well as enhancing their status.Deeply connected to governments, medical groups blossomed and deepened theirpower, which prior to the NHS had been less directional and more fragmented.

History

The nature of present medicine, its narrow focus, is a consequence of stateinvolvement with medicine and medical authorities’ contradictory desire to limitmedicine’s range. In the early part of the 20th century, herbalists and osteopaths weredenied state registration which meant that neither could apply for state employment.Although both occupations are now not considered genuine medicine by the generalpublic this is mainly due to the activity of medical authorities and the class structurethey inhabit. Medically trained members of the Ministry of Health made sure thatcertain medical treatments were excluded from the public arena but left to the privatearena only. Psychotherapy came under the same restrictions, but as much through itsown organisational desire not to become another arm of the state,

 [6]

 adding to itsdemotion today in favour of the state financed biological interpretation of mentalillness and the use of drugs.    Psychotherapists have resisted the data led, quota based,economic mindset of modern medicine, especially psychiatry, for the deeper truths ofthe human personality that psychiatrist’s mock.  Depersonalisation of patients isroutine in psychiatry but an anathema in psychotherapy.  

Although Larkin claims that medical power is constrained and directed bygovernments, its power limited by a greater authority, this is not the case withpsychiatry. In fact psychiatry is directive of governments, providing hypothesis toradically increase funding from government bodies. This involves the byzantine natureof psychiatric processes, its poor research methods, persuasive if fabricated claims, andthe general state fear of madness and chaos.

Larkin raises the point that often doctors within the NHS are managers as much aspractitioners and this again is clearer in psychiatry where the work is mainly done forthem and connections to drug companies mean that psychiatrist’s play a transmissionor supervisory roles putting into practise the conclusions of others, agents rather thanactive participants. Even when researching they limit their efforts to an approvednarrow range. Mainly they only diagnose, the DSM and pharmaceutical companiesproviding remedies again within an approved range. 

Doctor and state

Doctors close association with governments means they affect political culture, doingthis from an elite perspective hewing the biological hypothesis in psychiatry forexample into possible forms of political intervention that could easily affect individualfreedoms. If difficult people are driven only by genes with no prospect of effectivepsychological or moral change, then biological swamping through drugs, lifetimeoccupation of prisons or lifetime control by psychiatrists is the only answer. The last ofthese is commonly employed. 

Joanna Moncrieff in 

Psychiatric drug promotion and the politics of neoliberalism

 [7]

connects the drugs companies to the promotion of the biological hypothesisencouraging the growth of neoliberal economic and social policies: their increase is adetermining factor in the 21st century.  

There is a danger of elite controls of the general population being tightened withconnected elite groups of social managers, politicians and doctors constructing morecontrol through paradigms of benevolence. Mental illness is structured aroundeconomics and the focus on work-effectively on capitalism. Will we become ahospitalised world run according to medical (an elite body) perceptions andinstructions, just objects in another form of capitalist and state economic developmentour lives extended, fortified to medical drumbeats? Autonomous units, benevolent ornot, within a national state are political units often functioning as such. Whilepsychotherapy for example respects those they deal with, psychiatry operates outsideof state laws surviving as an anomaly in liberal states.

Power

In terms of this book, medical authorities, particularly psychiatry, are authoritariangroups that exist within the paradigm of 

state within a state

 , functioning  outside ofthe rules of liberal society and in doing so are constructing an authoritarian group thatrepresents a New Right Wing. It conducts itself through normalcy codes withoutengaging in discourse with other groups.  It is also through medicine that the state itselfhas enlarged its areas of control, until now it rules even in personal intimacy.

[1]

 Ferguson, D M, et al. A Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown. 

Journal ofMarriage and Family 

Vol. 46, No. 3 (Aug., 1984), pp. 539-549

[2]

 Foucault, Michel.  On Madness and Civilisation:A history of insanity in an age of reason. PsychologyPress 2001.

[3]

 Medical Dominance in Britain: Image and Historical Reality. 

The Milbank Quarterly

Vol. 66, Supplement 2: The Changing Character of the Medical Profession (1988), pp. 117-132 (16pages)

[4]

Profession of Medicine

 . Harper and Row. 1970, 

Professional Dominance,

 New York, Dodd: Mead.1970.

[5]

Profession of medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge 

University of Chicago Press.1988.

[6]

The state regulation of counselling and psychotherapy: sometime, never…? Richard HouseMagdalen Medical Practice, Lawson Road, Norwich NR3 4LF, UK

[7]

 The British Journal of Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press. 2018.

DARKTRIADManichean,ZoroasterandStarWars

The

term

The

Dark

Triad

resembles

the

title

of

a

Hammer

horror

film

of

the

1950s

and

1960s

but

is

indeed

a

psychiatric

description

of

three

so

called

personality

types

of

an

apparently

distinctively

nasty

nature-Narcissism,

Machiavellian

andsychopathy.

[1]

As

often

in

psychiatry

there

appears

to

be

a

literary,

indeed

in

this

case

filmic,

aetiology

and

it

is

a

surprise

not

to

have

the

Wolfman

suddenly

appear.

Dracula

inhabits

all

three

of

the

above

so

effectively

he

is

included

in

everything

but

name.

With

the

Dark

Triad

it

seems

reasonable

to

expect

comic

book

villains

to

emerge

bearing

M,

for

Machiavellian,

N,

for

Narcissist,

and

P

for

Psychopathy

to

jump

into

the

room

and

snarl.

Or

failing

that,

the

Joker

spring

into

life

from

off

a

DC

Comics

page

or

one

of

the

better

Bat

Man

films.

These

are

of

course

archetypes

and

psychiatry

holds

that

archetypes,

principally

literary

techniques

or

used

in

films

to

hold

the

audience’s

attention

and

pin

down

the

narrative,

are

the

real

measure

of

human

beings. 

The

subtleties

of

character

delineation

of

Shakespeare,

Tolstoy

and

D.H.

Lawrence

have

no

place

in

psychiatry,

nor

does

environment

reveal

its

many-layered

head.

Biological

aetiology

usually

overwhelms

all

complexities

of

thought

as

a

light

switch

takes

prominence

over

light. 

This

article

will

concern

itself

with

the

way

that

psychiatry

creates

negative

variations

out

of

positive

traits

such

as

risk

taking,

an

element

of

genius

and

talented

artists,

and

why

it

does

it.

At

this

stage,

in

what

will

be

an

exploratory

article,

the

notion

is

raised

that

psychiatry

is

concerned

at

all

times

with

normalcy

codes

of

mediocrity.

It

will

also

look

at

the

symbolic

nature

rather

than

scientific

nature

of

much

psychiatric

thinking

and

analyse

why

psychiatry

rarely

provides

any

genuine

explanations

of

the

disorders

it

identifies

but

simply

raises

a

notion/image/hypothesis

and

then

works

for

years

to

try

and

prove

it

while

of

course

at

the

same

employing

the

above

to

substantiate

treatments.

All

prisoners

are

bad!

The

three

personality

traits

of

The

Dark

Triad

are

considered

as

archetypal

and

fixed

and

psychiatric

papers

tend

only

to

establish

the

degree

of

fixation

through

certain

traits,

in

this

case

risk

taking.

Does

each

type

take

different

attitudes

to

risk,

experiencing

risk

differently?

Now

in

any

academic

or

scientific

article

it

would

be

deemed

necessary

to

define

risk.

What

do

the

authors

believe

it

is?

Also,

what

do

other

scientists

and

academics,

who

consider

these

matters

with

equal

professional

intensity,

believe.

In

most

psychiatric

papers

other

disciplines

are

routinely

ignored.

If

a

psychiatric

researcher

is

alluding

to

events

in

history,

historians

are

ignored,

if

alluding

(of

course)

to

the

mind,

psychology

is

ignored,

if

alluding

to

human

culture,

anthropology

is

ignored.

Perhaps

by

doing

so

it

is

easier

for

psychiatric

commentators

to

construct

myths

without

fear

of

expert

contradiction?

Why

I

wonder

do

psychiatric

papers

tend

not

to

believe

that

comparison,

synthesis

and

explanation

are

ever

necessary.

A

risk

is

a

risk

is

a

risk

.

An

action

or

series

of

actions

preceded

by

states

is

fundamental

to

politics,

business

and

cultural

innovation

and

requires

exploration,

but

psychiatry

will

have

none

of

such

wishy/washy

intellectuality.

Perversely,

while

not

offering

tangible

proof

on

the

actual

nature

of

the

conditions

they

identify,

reluctant

to

engage

in

abstract

examination,

they

take

their

existence

as

read.

First

Paper

The

Utility

of

the

Dark

Triad

Model

in

the

prediction

of

self-reported

and

behavioural

risk-taking

behaviours

amongst

adolescents.

Marta

Malesza

and

Pawel

Ostaszewski.

Personality

and

Individual

Differences.

90.

2016.

7-11.

These

papers

are

referenced

through

a

random

process

of

selection.

One

psychiatric

paper

rarely

differs

from

another

as

usually

they

fail

to

question

the

basic

tenets

of

an

idea

or

subject

but

merely

attempt

to

prove

it.

The

first

paper

considered

here,

a

worthy

example

of

the

genre

(for

that

is

what

these

papers

are),

deals

with

adolescents

of

this

supposed

or

imagined

type.

The

actual

nature

of

assessments

is

somewhat

predictive.

In

this

instance

248

German

adolescents,

109

boys

and

139

girls

with

an

age

range

of

14

to

18

years,

were

selected

for

the

trials

by

their

parents.

In

other

words,

parents

had

come

to

negative

conclusions

about

their

own

children.

The

authors

do

not

find

this

shocking

revelation

important

or

strange.

In

psychiatry,

all

parents

likewise

fit

archetypes-that

is

kindly

and

responsible.

As

testing

and

experimenting

with

prisoners

from

nearby

jails

apparently

produces

predictable

results,

the

researchers

chose

adolescents

instead.

According

to

the

researchers,

occupants

of

jails

fit

the

above

stereotypes

by

the

nature

of

their

predicament.

In

their

thinking

it

seems

there

is

a

demarcation

line

between

normality

and

The

Dark

Triad,

which

appears

desperately

like

‘

respectability

.’

A

falsely

imprisoned

businessman

or

carpenter

is

thereby

narcissistic,

Machiavellian

and/or

psychopathic.

Such

normalising

and

prejudiced

thinking

is

common

in

the

construction

of

this

dreaded

threesome. 

It

seems

not

to

occur

to

them

that

the

part-time

inhabitants

of

senates,

parliaments

and

psychiatric

training

colleges

might

be

better

breeding

grounds.

The

assumption

that

all

people

in

jails

inhabit

these

states

is

simply

childish

and

misinformed,

demonstrating

little

genuine

understanding

of

the

world.

[2]

Indeed,

it

is

to

some

extent

what

can

be

expected

from

relatively

well-off

members

of

a

bourgeoisie

viewing

those

less

fortunate

than

themselves.

In

Victorian

times

the

very

poor

stole

or

engaged

in

prostitution

to

survive;

they

were

simply

desperate.

Many

ended

up

in

prisons,

or

in

asylums

as

sufferers

of

the

made-up

category

of

moral

insanity

.

At

the

same

time

the

rich

employed

child

prostitutes

but

escaped

both

incarceration

and

moral

censorship.

The

complexities

of

human

communities

are

outside

the

obscurantist

vision

of

psychiatry.

Questionnaires

as

science

The

children

gathered

together

are

given

questionnaires

to

determine

which

trait

they

most

fit,

if

at

all.

The

questions

seem

leading

with

few

if

any

variables.

Two

behavioural

tasks,

Balloon

Analog

Risk

Task

and

Probabilistic

Discounting

Task

(on

a

reward

basis),

were

also

given

to

the

young

people.

Each

was

done

in

laboratory

conditions

but

without

variables.

The

questionnaire

employed

is

the

Adolescent

Risk-Taking

Questionnaire

.

In

addition,

for

good

measure,

the

Dirty

Dozen

(no

bias

there)

measure.

Each

was

given

randomly.

Investigator

effect,

whereby

the

researcher

influences

results,

is

not

anywhere

considered,

or

does

not

appear

to

be.

Immediately

the

risk-taking

positive

and

negative

indicators

strike

the

casual

observer

as

odd.

The

positive

is

conceived

of

as

thrill

seeking

and

recklessness,

which

can

present

danger

to

others-car

racing