%203d.jpg)
Discovery of the New World
Discovery of the New World
What is a "normal" person ?
In this room filled with 100 people, there is one person who is living with schizophrenia. 1% of the worldwide population is living with this mental illness.
If you add to this the people living with any mental illness at all, what portion represents "normal" people?
In my book, a mental illness is a mental deviance in comparison to the norm.
Do you see the red dot towards the bottom-left of this image here below?
According to Cambridge University Press, the proportion of violent crime in society attributable to schizophrenia consistently falls below 10%. Which means that in a room filled with 100 people afflicted with this illness, less than 10 commit violent crimes. This also means that in a room filled with 1000 random people, less than one person is likely to commit a violent crime because of schizophrenia.
Taboo
One on every 100 people in this world has schizophrenia. In some countries, people with this illness are considered as people who have a gift… that of being able to communicate with spirits.
I’m being told by fellow schizophrenics that I am “symptomatic” and therefore ill because I believe and experience it. I’m being told by a Christian community that I am a sinner if I communicate with spirits. I am being told by my healthcare providers that, as in color-blindness, my brain tricks me into believing this. Some communities on the web deny me the right to write about this because it seems to “encourage delusions”.
Even some of my good friends say, without having read any of my story, which is on a blog accessible to everyone, that I may hear voices but that they are created by schizophrenia and therefore I am wrong to think that my voices are communications from spirits.
Some of these friends I find are reasonably educated, but they stand firm on their position without knowing the facts.
I received my first psychotic diagnosis and antipsychotic prescription back in 1999 from a psychiatrist who hadn’t taken any blood, no biopsy, had not done any scans, no physical exam or anything but had a 20 minute interview with me in which I only tried to explain to him that I had experienced a manifestation from an invisible being, a voice, or as I see it, spirits.
Knowledge, belief and doubt
How does a fish in an aquarium explain to its roommates that the light that appears when the owner switches it on, is not the Sun?
How does a baby boy explain to his little sister that the other man there is their father’s twin?
How does a monkey explain to its siblings that the zookeeper just performed a magic trick?
How does Papa-bear explain to Mama-bear that he encountered a mirror in the forest?
How can I convince you that I’ve seen a ghost, and although this may have caused me to become sick, it is in no way a “symptom” of mental illness?
It's one thing to see and want to describe the things you see. It is quite another thing to be able and to succeed in describing them.
The portrait of a ghost is made by writing.
There is a difference between not believing because you have a reason not to believe and not believing because you have no reason to believe.
If I have a reason not to believe, it does not imply that I have proof to provide but certainly that I have at least experienced something that leads me to be convinced that I am justified in not believing.
If I have no reason to believe, it simply implies that I have not had an experience that would allow me to make an informed decision on the matter.
Someone who understands is a person who has experienced what is necessary to understand. Someone who claims to be an "expert" on an issue and who has not had the experience relevant to the question should refer to the person who has experienced it.
When an individual who does not believe because he has no reason to believe and who is in a position of authority because he calls himself a "specialist", subjects a subject by this authority to his beliefs, he must necessarily yield the passage if his subject manifests that he believes because he has reason to believe.
When a psychiatrist who has not experienced a psychospiritual manifestation forces a patient to undergo anti-delusion treatments because he openly states that he is communicating with the afterlife, the one who has no reason to believe administers authority over the one who has reason to believe.
When the psychiatrist is the specialist to whom an entire society turns to learn about a reality and the psychiatrist says that he "knows" because in fact he only "does not believe because he has no reason to believe", this defines a margin of error into which all those who believe without being able to prove fall and suffer unjustly.
A poorly recognized double-standard
There are people who say that they can discover things about a person simply by reading cards or the palm of their hand. However, there is another way that seems easier to me.
I consider that one can analyze the spirit of a person by analyzing all his extensions. What I call an extension is anything that can be affected by one's intention, by speaking, and by one's behavior. For example, its vehicles. These may include, for example, an aircraft; Nowadays, owning an airplane is a testament to a person's income and power.
An automobile can also reveal things about its owner. Is the car clean, in good condition and expensive, or is it very affordable and dilapidated?
Do these characteristics also identify with his home? Indeed, all the goods of a person can be characterized according to his spirit, and vice versa.
A person's property includes their primary vehicle, i.e. their body. A mark on a person's arm speaks as much as a mark on another extension, whether it's their vehicle, furniture, tools, etc.
Thus, these extensions of a person extend over his entire property. They also extend to his works and his speech and writing (his language, his jargon, the refinement and type of his speeches and the tone used).
However, there is one factor that can invalidate this way of judging a person: the foundations of a person's mind may be largely out of step with those to whom this system of interpretation (depending on the extensions) applies. There is therefore a double standard that is being created and that must be taken into account.
A mental illness like schizophrenia can redefine the starting point of a person's journey, and even slow or stop their progress in terms of functioning in a society. This can knock down the foundations out of their spirit so that the standards of evaluation by extensions do not apply. In my case, by my illness, I got lost in the woods. The forest was beautiful and I didn't come out until more than 10 years later.
I understand today that, despite the very good support offered by Quebec professionals, this double standard is poorly recognized. In addition, I understand that this double standard applies to many more people than those with schizophrenia.
The bonsai and the oak
The oak is life-size. It has braved the bad weather of its habitat for more than 100 years... A colossus of exceptional beauty.
The bonsai that has matured in the shade of the oak tree since the same time is a miniature clone of the latter.
Its small size is part of its charm.
Its appearance is refined and its foliage is of a balanced aesthetic and worthy of the spirit of its creator.
Just like the oak, some people sport a charisma of prestige that can deeply impress.
The physical size of the bonsai does not deny it the possibility of possessing the same attributes.
With life experience, stability and endurance, all can shine with the rich characteristics that nature can bestow.
Response to my complaint by the Medical Examiner
September 16, 2008
Sir
Your complaint was forwarded to me by Ms. (X), Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner, on July 22, 2008. I have just completed the study.
To do this, I reviewed the wording of the complaint, met with you, carefully reviewed your medical records, and met with Dr. (your current psychiatrist).
During my visit with you, you handed me a document entitled: "Soins de Santé?!! Ben waillons donc", which I read with great interest. I note a copyright 2008 where it is forbidden to reproduce, etc. I will therefore not reproduce any excerpts here. We notice, however, that you have an original philosophical mind and an undeniable talent for writing.
In the letter of July 27, 2008, we note that on April 7, 2008, you filed a complaint concerning a lack of response to "this document" (the one reproduced on August 15, 2007).
This document tabled on August 15, 2007 read as follows: My document entitled "Cartography of the New World" is my statement and covers what I have to say to psychiatry. I personally filed it with psychiatry on May 29, 2007. I volunteered to answer all questions from my psychiatrist, Dr. (your current psychiatrist), about the document honestly, accurately and completely. At the end of that meeting on August 15, 2007, she made it clear to me that my file as it currently stands and even in consideration of my written statement, does not justify any change in diagnosis or prescription.
I demand a reply to this document as soon as possible. Please choose one or more of the following options:
A- If you choose not to respond, you can simply sign this document and mail it to me at the address indicated above.
B- I demand a written, formal and official acknowledgement of the fact that any connotation of "false belief" associated with my communications with the afterlife by the diagnosis with which I am associated by psychiatry is not verifiable.
C- If my communications with the afterlife are delusional, I demand clearly documented proof.
D- I demand that my file be clearly and officially dissociated by the name of my diagnosis...
1. of all the schizophrenics who were delusional and
2. of all schizophrenics who are aggressive.
E- If I am not schizophrenic, I demand a written confession from the chief authority concerned
In the letter you sent me on July 31, 2008, after accusing the Dr. (your previous psychiatrist) of being devoid of ingenuity for scientific nomenclature, you propose to help me "rename" your diagnosis. You argue that the word "schizophrenia" inspires an ugly creature that eats its own stools and you propose instead that of "psychospiritual perceptive", an expression that would aim to neutralize the false connotations of "delirium", "hallucinations" and "false beliefs" associated with your name since 1999. I must admit that this is a way that is not lacking in originality to solve this thorny problem of diagnosis. However, when we met in early August 2008, I asked you what you thought your diagnosis of your illness was; You answered me without any hesitation: schizophrenia.
This seems to respond "de facto" to item "E" of your complaint. In addition, Dr. (your psychiatrist) maintains the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. This also responds to item "A" of your complaint. I do not think it says in your record that you are delusional and aggressive. We must all agree that not all schizophrenics are delusional or aggressive. This adequately addresses your complaint in item "D". As for your complaints about item "B" and "C", I do not believe that your psychiatric diagnosis should be associated with it: it is recognized and accepted that some people have this power of medium to communicate with the afterlife. It is quite obvious that no one can prove whether this power exists or does not exist. Therefore, we cannot call a "mentally ill person who is delusional" one who says he is able to communicate with the afterlife.
As for your letter dated August 2, 2008 concerning (a nurse), the "model" employee, this type of complaint does not concern the Medical Examiner, but rather the Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner. The Medical Examiner is only concerned with complaints against physicians.
In this letter of July 27, 2008, you argue that after seven and a half years of cooperation with prescribing, your choice was to completely cease cooperating with the prescription of antipsychotics two months after filing a request for clarification on August 15, 2007. You note, rightly, that there is no law that requires you to comply with the psychiatric care plan.
You have consulted for pain with a diagnosis that eventually turned out to be that of ankylosing spondylitis for which you will be treated. After waiting eleven hours in the emergency room, you were committed to psychiatry without your authorization, by order of the Court. These court documents indicate that psychiatry declared your mother to be the respondent. Your mother assured you that she had strongly forbidden psychiatry to insinuate her authorization in the slightest. No physical threat was the subject of any of your three internments.
Your letter of August 6, 2008, which concerns a new complaint, joins the other letters in which you maintain that you were hospitalized in psychiatry by mistake. The rest of this missive where you say you were placed in a damp room etc... does not concern the medical examiner.
Your letter of August 6, 2008 concerning your weight does not concern the medical examiner either, although I read it with interest.
A last document, read with great interest, does not bear a date: it is the text where you note:
1. Consequences of internment on your health: three months in early 1999 and one and a half months in early 2000.
1. Psychological shock at the time of your knowledge of the internment order.
2. Painful and ineffective adjustment to the life of an undeserved internment that does not promise to end. You feared that you would never get out and this anguish lasted until the last hour of your two internments.
3. Painful and ineffective adjustment to the conditions of internment (i.e. atmosphere of perpetual internment difficult to bear, type of company (mental illness) that weighs heavily on morale, freedom and privacy very restricted, requirement of very rapid adaptation to difficult conditions (e.g. having to sleep in a room with a patient with a very strong body odor due to lack of hygiene or with chronic problems of snoring that interfered with my sleep).
4. Compounding effect on stigma.
5. Frustration with serious harm to my freedom.
1. Consequences of medication on your health (Prescription established on February 9, 1999, withdrawn in July 2008)
1. Psychological shock at the time of your knowledge of the treatment order.
2. Heavy physical effect that made waking painful and awake incomplete and difficult to maintain, which led to a marked decrease in psychological alertness and therefore a decrease in self-esteem.
3. Excessive weight gain (up to about 50 pounds) that has led to a loss of self-confidence.
4. A marked accentuation of back pain and dermatitis in the face.
5. Since the beginning of 2007, serious problems of gastric acidity.
6. Psychological difficulty in having to ingest a product you do not trust on a daily basis.
7. Increasing effect on stigma.
8. Frustration with the gross injustice of an abusive intrusion.
1. How stigma affects your health.
1. Strong psychological shock at the time of your diagnosis of mental illness (the lack of awareness and education in your life about mental illness, the very strong contrast between your way of seeing what you are experiencing and what suddenly a specialist tells you what you are experiencing.
2. Severe psychological shock at the time of your admission to the social group called "paranoid schizophrenia" given the severe characteristics associated with it (the reputation associated with this diagnosis is seriously defined by people who tend to commit serious wrongdoing or to behave in an immoral or particularly non-exemplary manner).
3. Frustration at being unable to convey the falsity of stigma in relation to your situation thanks in large part to the public assertions of your psychiatrists.
4. Humiliation when your psychiatrist summoned your loved ones (including some of your best friends at the time) to tell them that you were mentally ill.
5. Frustration with serious harm to your rights and freedoms: Simply by stigmatization, you have been infringed on a great freedom to which you are entitled: the freedom to know that people who know you attribute to you your fair value free from a destructive connotation of madness.
It is a very realistic, appropriate and orderly document.
The detailed study of the hospitalization file from June 28 to August 28, 2008 leads us to reflect and question the relevance of your last internment.
We are, of course, sorry for the situation you have experienced and thank you for bringing it to our attention. Indeed, the feedback of our customers is valuable to us because it often contributes to the improvement of the delivery of care.
If you are not satisfied with this report, you have 60 days to have your file reviewed by the review committee. To do so, you have 60 days to have your file re-examined by the review committee. To do this, you can contact Mrs. (MC) at the 1234567.
Please accept, Sir, the expression of my distinguished sentiments.
· Medical examiner
Anti-stigma awareness tool
Having at heart the desire to free the stigmatized and people who feel stigmatized, from stigmatization, I propose this tool, a documentary project, to the readers of this blog who would have the means to set it up.
Documentary: A Skeleton in My Closet
Goal:
Coming-out of a person who has successfully reintegrated into society following an immoral, illegal or psychiatric scourge in his or her journey, in a program that aims to counter stigma.
Synopsis:
Documentary that accompanies three people in their daily lives for a week. The show broadcasts the coming out of the subject at the very end of its presentation in a daily routine that is similar to that of very "normal" people.
The documentary must not indicate the characteristic of the coming-out before the very end of the documentary.
Examples of participant profiles:
A person with mental illness:
e.g.: A person who has had paranoid schizophrenia for more than 20 years.
A former criminal:
e.g.: A murderer who completed his sentence more than 20 years ago.
A former drug addict (rehabilitated for 20 years)
All rehabilitated for nearly 20 years.
Paranoid Schizophrenic
I am currently 47 years old, and I was labeled as such in 2000. Because of this illness, I dropped out of my university studies in 1997, I isolated myself, I was kicked out of the family home, I wore handcuffs, I spent a night in a cell, I went to court, I was hospitalized 4 times for a total of almost 10 months, I had to take medications that I did not believe in. I have experienced the side effects of medication, I have experienced social stigma and I have thought I was being judged, I have thought I was being made fun of, I have thought I was being spied on, I have thought I was being pursued by the government, in short, I have suffered real symptoms of schizophrenia without realizing it until 2009.
Life has shown me that I do indeed have this disease. I have been prayed for, my medications have been changed, I have moved on. I have followed therapies and I have returned to the job market. I have graduated and am currently working at a very good job and full time since 2013. I got married and I have become a homeowner since 2017.
I will probably have to take antipsychotics for the rest of my life, but I have recovered very well from this disease.
The reason I am writing to you is to ask for your help. Indeed, I have for the longest time felt I needed to persuade others that I am not an aggressive/self-aggressive, or violent person. However, for most people, the definition of this illness is formulated according to news reports. In fact, it is only 1 person in 1,000 who, because of schizophrenia, will commit one or more acts of violence. For example, in a room filled with 10,000 people, 9,990 people will be seen as seriously dangerous cases because they all have the same diagnosis as these 10 people who will have motivated the media to describe this illness in this way. It goes without saying that this can seriously hinder one’s chances at recovering a normal life.
I asked my psychiatrist if it would be possible to assign me another diagnosis given the popular portrait of schizophrenia. She didn’t feel comfortable changing the title of the illness and I understand that there is no substitute that currently exists, simply to distinguish between a person with the disorder who is violent and one who is not.
It is very likely that no one wants to be called a “paranoid schizophrenic”. But what a label, what a horrible and stigmatizing title.
I think I speak for most schizophrenics when I say that it would be wise to create another title for people with a mental illness that has not driven them to commit serious reprehensible acts.
There is, somewhere in our society, a place where words are generated to describe an illness. Do you know it?