User talk:Psychiatrick

Review

See here and the section above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Soviet Barnstar
		For you work on Soviet articles, especially Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, and for your Template:Soviet dissidents INeverCry 00:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Abuse article

I see you are working on it. Drop me a note on my talk if you want me to take a look at it. And I understand if you don't. Happy New Year.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Psychiatry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Illness

Authors such as Ivan Illich have noticed that far from helping to understand the medicalization of life, it merely serves to the medical monopoly over and against life. Certainly authors like Sasz have solely criticized the psychiatry and attempted to present other parts of medicine as allegedelly scientific and reasonable founded, while authors like Vicente Navarro, and Ivan Illich have criticized the medicine as a whole. Navarro for example noticed that medicine disguise the underlying causes of disease. Illich also noticed that medicine practice is an important source of damages so called iatrogenic illnesses and goes further when he notices the social effects of medical monopoly over life. Let me cite Illich: "Social iatrogenesis designates a category of etiology that encompasses many forms. It obtains when medical bureaucracy creates ill-health by increasing stress, by multiplying disabling dependence, by generating new painful needs, by lowering the levels of tolerance for discomfort or pain, by reducing the leeway that people are wont to concede to an individual when he suffers, and by abolishing even the right to self-care. Social iatrogenesis is at work when health care is turned into a standardized item, a staple; when all suffering is 'hospitalized' and homes become inhospitable to birth, sickness, and death; when the language in which people could experience their bodies is turned into bureaucratic gobbledegook; or when suffering, mourning, and healing outside the patient role are labeled a form of deviance [...] Like its clinical counterpart, social iatrogenesis can escalate from an adventitious feature into an inherent characteristic of the medical system. When the intensity of biomedical intervention crosses a critical threshold, clinical iatrogenesis turns from error, accident, or fault into an incurable perversion of medical practice. In the same way, when professional autonomy degenerates into a radical monopoly8 and people are rendered impotent to cope with their milieu, social iatrogenesis becomes the main product of the medical organization[...]Medicine is a moral enterprise and therefore inevitably gives content to good and evil. In every society, medicine, like law and religion, defines what is normal, proper, or desirable. Medicine has the authority to label one man's complaint a legitimate illness, to declare a second man sick though he himself does not complain, and to refuse a third social recognition of his pain, his disability, and even his death.22 It is medicine which stamps some pain as "merely subjective," 23 some impairment as malingering,24 and some deaths—though not others—as suicide.25 The judge determines what is legal and who is guilty.26 The priest declares what is holy and who has broken a taboo. The physician decides what is a symptom and who is sick. He is a moral entrepreneur,27 charged with inquisitorial powers to discover certain wrongs to be righted.28 Medicine, like all crusades, creates a new group of outsiders each time it makes a new diagnosis stick.29 Morality is as implicit in sickness as it is in crime or in sin.".

But PF/SPK (Huber) goes even beyond noticing that the basic ground of medicine is a war against illness which necesarily drives to a war against patients as it occurred during the so called Third Reich, you could read for example: (www.spkpfh.de/Again.htm) which I will cite here: "It is a historical fact, made public for the first time in 1970/71 by the SOCIALIST PATIENTS’ COLLECTIVE and meanwhile having become an integral part of general knowledge, that the mass murder of people, declared by medical doctors as patients, during the so-called Third Reich – at least 275,000 people killed – was carried out by medical doctors in the name of "health". The so-called eugenics movement of the medical doctors throughout the whole world had prepared the mass murder of people. That mass murder was not the doing of the Nazis but rather the medical doctors’ doing, who had found in Nazi-Germany the suitable conditions to put into practice the extermination of people they had been planning and preparing for ideologically already since the 19th century, and it was carried out in the name of "health". It was by the use of the propagandistic term "health" that they had been preparing the grounds for the programmed killing of people. And the Jews, too, were being fought and killed as patients, for instance, as "a cancerous ulcer in the people’s body". On the other hand, Jews were exempted from prosecution when they were found to have got "good, healthy blood". Thus Jewish women (!) for instance were made pregnant by SS-men in the so-called Lebensborn ("Fountain of life") institutions, in order to create "healthy" offspring. Thus, solely what the doctors had defined as "health" constituted the criteria of selection for those being allowed to live or forced to die. Hitler was but the executor and the highest henchman of this ideology, which, as a therapeutic one in its ravaging against all "unworthy life", had been common to the world and not only to the Germans, and that a long time before the Nazi era. Even so-called leftist Parties in the Prussian Landtag and Reichstag had introduced relative bills in the Parliament long before 1933. And it was not only in Germany, but also in Scandinavia, France, Switzerland, and who knows where else, that patient people were murdered in institutions, and that continued for a long time after the end by force of the so-called Third Reich. Thus the doctors’ international "health"–ideology had prepared the grounds for the murder of hundreds of thousands of patient people already long before. The medical profession as a whole had done in public calculations as to the cost the "national community" had to bear for maintaining the patient people in life, and painted with glaring brightness the threat patient people would represent for the "people’s health" according to the motto: "first of all they are expensive, and in the second place they are monsters" [Denn erstens sind sie teuer, und zweitens Ungeheuer]. The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy.[...] Also the sterilization laws against the so-called "hereditarily sick offspring" were not an invention of the Nazis. Already in 1907, sterilization legislation for so-called eugenic reasons had been passed in Indiana / USA. At least other 30 US-States had joined in. Compulsory sterilization was continued in the USA, as well as in the Scandinavian countries – e.g. Sweden –, till the end of the 1970s[...]The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy, and that by far not only in the so-called Third Reich. The parallels to nowadays cannot be ignored. Not even in the party manifesto of today’s Greens, by the way. Nowadays too, an extremely aggressive long-running HEAL-political propaganda under the sign of "health" is being pressed ahead from part of the doctors. "Health" doesn’t exist, has never existed. All the more so today: from the genetic point of view, nobody is "healthy", everybody is genetically defective, everybody is ill. And once again calculations are being spread in which patients are presented mainly as a "cost factor" that ought to be "reduced", because otherwise the national economy would collapse under the expense of illness. Through the cost-benefit accounting the lives of the single persons are being registered, summed up, are made an economic balance of it, are evaluated and devaluated. Numbers are being turned into supernumeraries, i.e. "unworthy life", nowadays as well as in the past. To give priority to aspects of profitability in the case of illness, that means in the end to practice coercive euthanasia (euthaNAZIa). Others are in for it today; you will be in for it tomorrow. So, no one takes notice. It’s because of their money that they decide who’s allowed to live and who’s going to die. Who ignores in this the ruling class of the jackers, there included your family doctor, has not reckoned with the most important thing. It’s the doctor who decides, who selects, as the Master of death and life, at the death-life selection platform in Auschwitz and everywhere where the only thing they care about are "healthy" numbers and ill ‘supernumeraries’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.6.129 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You have been doing much good work in psychiatry-related areas and it is much appreciated. Thank you for making a difference on WP. Happy editing! Johnfos (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I am pleased to receive this barnstar. --Psychiatrick (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Your recent edit to Medicalization removed quotation marks from text which is almost an exact quote of a sentence in PMC1122833, to which it is sourced. This has the effect of passing off someone else's work as your own and is regarded as plagiarism, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit. Having read your edit summary, I have no idea what issues you have with the other user, but the text was not a "paraphrase" as you seem to think; it was a copy. Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Plagiarism and take care to ensure you do not make the same mistake in future. --RexxS (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve fixed this problem. --Psychiatrick (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you as well

Похоже я, вы, и Гога друг друга не поняли. Я сказал что в Википедии блокируют участников, и что в РуВики, даже через чур. Я там заблокирован бессрочно, чем и не доволен. Думал что пришел помочь хорошим людям, написал им 124 статьи... Нарушил случайно правила ВП:АП, и получил. Однако, я просил участников там, чтоб статью подправили что б она не была нарушением данного правила. Второе ваше предложение тоже не верно. Я не говорю что наставник предотвращает меня от нарушений и недоразумений. Я говорю что если после наставничества данных участников начнут опять блокировать, и блокировать не справедливо, то прошу к нам. Все участники которые в Традиции, это бывшие Википедийцы, заблокированные на РуВики. Я думаю, что я имею полное право предложить людям другой проект, для сохранения нервов. Кстати, не желаете быть моим наставником на РуВики? Если хотите, можете присоединиться в Традицию (ссылку я дал выше).--Mishae (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let’s consider your indefinite block in ruwiki as an attempt to make you a European and let’s thank Russian admins for it.Psychiatrick (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Is not Russia considered to be a European country?--Mishae (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now a European mostly means a citizen of a country of the European Union.Psychiatrick (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a European Union citizenship. What does all this suppose to do with my indefinnite block on Russian Wikipedia??? And why should I thank Russian admins for the block? I'm Russian, I was born in Moscow (o.k, I currently live in Minnesota, USA), but it doesn't mean I give up on my Russian heritage. I have duel citizenship with Russia. By the way, are you Russian or are you Ukrainian, or from Baltic states?--Mishae (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I’m Russian. I don’t suggest that you should give up on your Russian heritage that is available to you whether or not you have any blocks in the Russian Wikipedia. But if I were you, I would reject the Russian heritage rooted assumption that working under tutors, sanctions, or their threats is a normal practice. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K, I'll try. I used to do a project filmography on the Russian Wikipedia, since the Russian movies are not common there for some reason. I wasn't blocked because I wasn't Russian in their opinion. I suspect it have something to do with a Russian Wikipedia being Semi rather then Russian. Thats maybe one reason why a lot of Ukranians, or Russian-non-Jews get blocked there. O.K, so I partially Jewish, but my excidental anti-semi remarks made them to block me, even though I apologized for a grave mistake. So, yeah, we have not Russian block, we have Russian Jewish block. I don't have anything agianst the Jews, but dew to my disability, I might get angry, and misspeak. Russians never wanted to aknowledge the fact that I do have a disability, and even though one guy did mentioned it to the admins, they ignored it, since in their opinion it violated one of their rules. Currently I am very active on the Ukranian Wikipedia, even though I don't know Ukranian. People always help me there, and I slowly learn the language. English Wikipedia interests me as well, but it have too much articles, and find the one that is not yet written is very hard.--Mishae (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines seem to be only created for so-called “healthy people” and don’t take into account that someone may have disability. So admins’ banhammers “kill” every user who makes too many mistakes. Psychiatrick (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the rule that I wasn't very happy with on the Russian Wikipedia. Maybe I did violate copyvio too much on the Russian Wikipedia, but they could have just help me fix the article to the point that it doesn't violate anything. Instead, they decided to block me. I don't violate any rules because I like to violate them, I violate them because sometimes I don't understand right away what the community wants from me, and probably, same goes with other users too. As far as disability goes, keep in mind that we are people too (something that the Russian Wikipedia, or you for that matter don't want to aknowledge, altough it does says it on my user page). Like, we are here to help the project too, we just sometimes don't understand things righ away. Another thing to point out, that even though there are some users that ought to be blocked, there are some that get blocked for over reaction of the admin. In my case for example, I wasn't helped, I got over reacted, and got blocked after it. In some cases, the rules might be written so long, that you get lost at how to follow them, and which ones. For example, there are rules, yes, and there are Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, that gives you the ???. Not taking into account that someone have, or someone doesn't have a disability, is making me mad. You see, all of us are users, and we both working on a joint project, no matter what we are. But Wikipedians (The Russians especialy) need to take into consideration that there are some people that have special accomodations. Like, we need to be explained a little bit more then other users, but in the end we might get it, just not as quickly. The more users explain other users the rules (and not hiding them, like Russians did), the more chances we will follow. Banhammers sometimes "kill" good users too, like myself, of which I am not very happy about. So, I think you are getting the point what I am trying to say. By the way, if you live in Russia, why you didn't open an account on the Russian Wikipedia????--Mishae (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn’t like to return to the Russian Wikipedia because of prolonged conflicts, which surrounded me and my articles there, and the order of its Arbcom to provide it with original paid-for copyrighted journal papers. Russian Wikipedia is only one with such conflicts. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

????? What do you mean by paid-for copyrighted journal paper? How do you know about it? Did you read it on their site?--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• [1] Psychiatrick (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)