1. Is my body the flesh that “I,” the cognitive, ethereal I, only happen to inhabit, or is whatever “I” am only to be found as my body? Do I HAVE a body, or AM I a body?
    — Arthur Frank, The Wounded Storyteller, p 33.
     
  2. When a trout rising to a fly gets hooked on a line and finds himself unable to swim about freely, he begins with a fight which results in struggles and splashes and sometimes an escape. Often, of course, the situation is too tough for him.

    In the same way the human being struggles with his environment and with the hooks that catch him. Sometimes he masters his difficulties; sometimes they are too much for him. His struggles are all that the world sees and it naturally misunderstands them. It is hard for a free fish to understand what is happening to a hooked one.

     
  3. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and according to the journal PLOS Medicine, “69% of the DSM -5 task force members report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry.” The corruption of the APA by Big Pharma is nothing new. In 2008, theNew York Times reported the following about APA: “In 2006, the latest year for which numbers are available, the drug industry accounted for about 30 percent of the association’s $62.5 million in financing.” Congressional investigators in 2008 also discovered that then president-elect of the APA (Alan Schatzberg of Stanford University) had $4.8 million stock holdings in a drug development company.

    Perhaps Big Pharma’s biggest bang for their buck has come through “thought leader” psychiatrists who popularize new diagnoses and drug treatments. One of psychiatry’s most influential thought leaders is Harvard’s Joseph Biederman who put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map. Due in great part to Biederman’s influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003.

    Biederman’s financial relationships with drug companies was discovered by the public in 2008, when Congressional investigationsrevealed that he was on the take for $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007. As part of legal proceedings, Biederman was forced to provide documents about his interactions with Johnson & Johnson, the giant pharmaceutical company; Biedermanpitched Johnson & Johnson that his proposed research studies on its antipsychotic drug Risperdal would turn out favorably for Johnson & Johnson—and then Biederman delivered the goods.

    Biederman is not alone among psychiatrists lining their pockets with drug company money. The New York Times (“Top Psychiatrist Didn’t Report Drug Makers’ Pay”) reporting on the 2008 Congressional investigation of psychiatry, stated this about Charles Nemeroff: “One of the nation’s most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007.”

     
  4. 
As in my chapter on the politicization of patienthood, in this chapter on doctors’ narratives I show the possibility of resisting the power/knowledge nexus that Foucault called “biopower,” this time from the doctor’s side of the binary. Deleuze and Guattari are interested not only in the ways in which power/knowledge operates but also in the minority discourses (like Foucault’s “subjugated knowledges”) that can and do emerge not from beyond or behind the operations of power/knowledge, but from within it. This does not mean, however, that doctors become patients in reality, but that they are constantly becoming-patient through the process of desubjectification (a giving up of their identity as, or only as, doctor within the doctor-patient binary), deterritorialization (a movement away from the institutional spaces and practices of medicine that create distance rather than proximity between doctor and patient), and disarticulation (an unlearning of certain modern meical knowledges and practices cultivated in medical school). I consider the possibility of doctors’ becoming-infected and becoming-affected by their patients; again, not in reality, by HIV itself, but by their patients’ stories.

—Lisa Diedrich, Treatments: Language, politics, and the culture of illness. p xxi

    As in my chapter on the politicization of patienthood, in this chapter on doctors’ narratives I show the possibility of resisting the power/knowledge nexus that Foucault called “biopower,” this time from the doctor’s side of the binary. Deleuze and Guattari are interested not only in the ways in which power/knowledge operates but also in the minority discourses (like Foucault’s “subjugated knowledges”) that can and do emerge not from beyond or behind the operations of power/knowledge, but from within it. This does not mean, however, that doctors become patients in reality, but that they are constantly becoming-patient through the process of desubjectification (a giving up of their identity as, or only as, doctor within the doctor-patient binary), deterritorialization (a movement away from the institutional spaces and practices of medicine that create distance rather than proximity between doctor and patient), and disarticulation (an unlearning of certain modern meical knowledges and practices cultivated in medical school). I consider the possibility of doctors’ becoming-infected and becoming-affected by their patients; again, not in reality, by HIV itself, but by their patients’ stories.

    —Lisa Diedrich, Treatments: Language, politics, and the culture of illness. p xxi

     
  5. 01:16

    Notes: 27

    Reblogged from azspot

    In India, the 300 million of us who belong to the new, post-IMF ‘reforms’ middle class—the market—live side by side with the spirits of the nether world, the poltergeists of dead rivers, dry wells, bald mountains and denuded forests; the ghosts of 250,000 debt-ridden farmers who have killed themselves, and the 800 million who have been impoverished and dispossessed to make way for us. And who survive on less than half a dollar, which is 20 Indian rupees, a day.
    — Arundhati Roy (via azspot)
     
  6. image: Download

    we-are-star-stuff:

As we now know the Earth is round. Therefore, the challenge of any world map is to represent a round Earth on a flat surface. There are literally thousands of map projections and each has certain strengths and corresponding weaknesses, but the one you’re now picturing in your head most likely isn’t the area accurate representation.
The most widely used map today is the Mercator projection map. Mercator maps often appear in businesses, in libraries and in classrooms where geography is taught. This popularity is surprising, given the fact that the Mercator projection was first constructed in 1569. The more accurate representation of land mass is the Peters Projection Map:

Here’s a direct representation of the previously assumed factual map with the real flattened version:

The Peters Projection Map shows how Africa is larger than the combination of China, the US, Western Europe, India, Argentina, three Scandinavian countries and the British Isles. 
Mercator maps show Europe as being larger than South America. In reality, South America is almost twice the size of Europe. Alaska appears to be three times larger than Mexico, although Mexico actually is larger than Alaska. Greenland looks roughly the same size as Africa, when, in fact, Africa is fourteen times larger than Greenland. Africa also looks considerably smaller than Russia, even though Africa is actually 33% larger.
To see how big the western countries have become, it’s hard to see how this has nothing to do with suppression; to make us believe they are ‘bigger’ and ‘on top’. A simple change in the look of a map can cause a reconsideration of your fixed ideas about a place.
Bonus:
The world turned upside down.
Who says North is up?

    we-are-star-stuff:

    As we now know the Earth is round. Therefore, the challenge of any world map is to represent a round Earth on a flat surface. There are literally thousands of map projections and each has certain strengths and corresponding weaknesses, but the one you’re now picturing in your head most likely isn’t the area accurate representation.

    The most widely used map today is the Mercator projection map. Mercator maps often appear in businesses, in libraries and in classrooms where geography is taught. This popularity is surprising, given the fact that the Mercator projection was first constructed in 1569. The more accurate representation of land mass is the Peters Projection Map:

    Here’s a direct representation of the previously assumed factual map with the real flattened version:

    The Peters Projection Map shows how Africa is larger than the combination of China, the US, Western Europe, India, Argentina, three Scandinavian countries and the British Isles. 

    Mercator maps show Europe as being larger than South America. In reality, South America is almost twice the size of Europe. Alaska appears to be three times larger than Mexico, although Mexico actually is larger than Alaska. Greenland looks roughly the same size as Africa, when, in fact, Africa is fourteen times larger than Greenland. Africa also looks considerably smaller than Russia, even though Africa is actually 33% larger.

    To see how big the western countries have become, it’s hard to see how this has nothing to do with suppression; to make us believe they are ‘bigger’ and ‘on top’. A simple change in the look of a map can cause a reconsideration of your fixed ideas about a place.

    Bonus:

     
  7. 08:02

    Notes: 361

    Reblogged from diasporicroots

    missbostonsays:

From the gallery of martyrs of the 20th century at Westminster Abbey: (left to right) Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Russia, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Archbishop Óscar Romero.

    missbostonsays:

    From the gallery of martyrs of the 20th century at Westminster Abbey: (left to right) Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Russia, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Archbishop Óscar Romero.

     
  8. Good Health IT is IT that provides a good user experience, enhances cognitive function, puts essential information as effortlessly as possible into the physician’s hands, can be easily, substantively and cost-effectively customized to the needs of medical specialists and subspecialists, keeps eHealth information secure, protects patient privacy and facilitates better practice of medicine and better outcomes.

    Bad Health IT is IT that is ill-suited to purpose, hard to use, unreliable, loses data or provides incorrect data, is difficult and/or prohibitively expensive to customize to the needs of different medical specialists and subspecialists, causes cognitive overload, slows rather than facilitates users, lacks appropriate alerts, creates the need for hypervigilance (i.e., towards avoiding IT-related mishaps) that increases stress, is lacking in security, compromises patient privacy or otherwise demonstrates suboptimal design and/or implementation.

    — Health Care Renewal 4/16/14, 7:39 AM Informatics MD noreply@blogger.com
     
  9. Lisa Diedrich on Patient Counternarratives

    … at the end of the twentieth century we entered a new episteme, one that was characterized by the emergence of a new figure—the politicized patient—and a new genre—the patient’s counternarrative to medical discourse as exemplified by doctor’s charts and case histories. In order to suggest the complexity of this moment of emergence, I discuss three writer-activists—Susan Sontag, Audre Lourde, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick—and the particular forms of politicization their work demonstrates. Through readings of Sontag’s Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors, Lourde’s Cancer Journals, and Sedgwick’s “White Glasses,” I investigate how each author does illness and understands politicization. Although all three have been outspoken breast cancer survivors and were motivated to write their books because of thier own experiences with cancer, Sontag chooses … not to tell an affective history, while Lourde and Sedgwick, on the other hand, tell illness narratives that are both effective and affective histories.
     
  10. The link at the title will take you to a 15-minute interview with 

     
  11. image: Download

    1boringoldman:

… In some ways, the way the University of Minnesota has tried to deal with the Markingson case [refusing to let it to see the light of day, denying all allegations, trying to limit any investigation to the present corrections] turns out to be a microcosm of how American Psychiatry is dealing with the overall problem of corruption in the ranks in the specialty. If you look at the APA Convention program for next month’s meeting, none of these unpleasant and shameful topics made it to the program. Yet the theme for the meeting addresses them… .
So we’re interested in Changing The Practice and Perception of Psychiatry, but we’re not mentioning why it needs to be changed? Like the President of the University of Minnesota, the APA is saying “look at us now, not then.” For that matter, the pharmaceutical industry is doing something similar. They’re finally giving in to Data Transparency but presenting it as a magnanimous act rather than a position they’ve been forced to occupy.
I know of no situation in the history of medicine that matches what happened in psychiatry in these last twenty plus years. Fundamental medical values like trust and honesty were repeatedly pushed aside. How can we now ask people to change their perceptions, if we’re not even honest enough to acknowledge why they have them? The reason to keep bringing up things like Dan Markingson’s suicide is because they happened – that’s reason enough. In medicine, sometimes we learn from the living, but often-times, we learn the most from the last autopsy.

    1boringoldman:

    … In some ways, the way the University of Minnesota has tried to deal with the Markingson case [refusing to let it to see the light of day, denying all allegations, trying to limit any investigation to the present corrections] turns out to be a microcosm of how American Psychiatry is dealing with the overall problem of corruption in the ranks in the specialty. If you look at the APA Convention program for next month’s meeting, none of these unpleasant and shameful topics made it to the program. Yet the theme for the meeting addresses them… .

    So we’re interested in Changing The Practice and Perception of Psychiatry, but we’re not mentioning why it needs to be changed? Like the President of the University of Minnesota, the APA is saying “look at us now, not then.” For that matter, the pharmaceutical industry is doing something similar. They’re finally giving in to Data Transparency but presenting it as a magnanimous act rather than a position they’ve been forced to occupy.

    I know of no situation in the history of medicine that matches what happened in psychiatry in these last twenty plus years. Fundamental medical values like trust and honesty were repeatedly pushed aside. How can we now ask people to change their perceptions, if we’re not even honest enough to acknowledge why they have them? The reason to keep bringing up things like Dan Markingson’s suicide is because they happened – that’s reason enough. In medicine, sometimes we learn from the living, but often-times, we learn the most from the last autopsy.
     
  12. "[I]f one is interested in doing historical work that has political meaning, utility and effectiveness, then this is possible only if one has some kind of involvement with the struggles taking place in the area in question. I tried first to do a genealogy of psychiatry because I had had a certain amount of practical experience in psychiatric hospitals and was aware of the combats, the lines of force, tensions and points of collision which existed there. My historical work was undertaken only as a function of those conflicts. The problem and the stake there was the possibility of a historical truth which could have a political effect."
- Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge p. 64 (quoted in Treatments by Lisa Diedrich).

    "[I]f one is interested in doing historical work that has political meaning, utility and effectiveness, then this is possible only if one has some kind of involvement with the struggles taking place in the area in question. I tried first to do a genealogy of psychiatry because I had had a certain amount of practical experience in psychiatric hospitals and was aware of the combats, the lines of force, tensions and points of collision which existed there. My historical work was undertaken only as a function of those conflicts. The problem and the stake there was the possibility of a historical truth which could have a political effect."

    - Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge p. 64 (quoted in Treatments by Lisa Diedrich).

     
  13. image: Download

    rtamerica:

Oligarchy, not democracy: Americans have ‘near-zero’ input on policy – report
The first-ever scientific study that analyzes whether the US is a democracy, rather than an oligarchy, found the majority of the American public has a “minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy” compared to the wealthy.
The study, due out in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, sets out to answer elusive questions about who really rules in the United States. The researchers measured key variables for 1,779 policy issues within a single statistical model in an unprecedented attempt “to test these contrasting theoretical predictions” – i.e. whether the US sets policy democratically or the process is dominated by economic elites, or some combination of both.
"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” the researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University wrote.

    rtamerica:

    Oligarchy, not democracy: Americans have ‘near-zero’ input on policy – report

    The first-ever scientific study that analyzes whether the US is a democracy, rather than an oligarchy, found the majority of the American public has a “minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy” compared to the wealthy.

    The study, due out in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, sets out to answer elusive questions about who really rules in the United States. The researchers measured key variables for 1,779 policy issues within a single statistical model in an unprecedented attempt “to test these contrasting theoretical predictions” – i.e. whether the US sets policy democratically or the process is dominated by economic elites, or some combination of both.

    "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” the researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University wrote.

     
  14. Non-white, Non-patriarchal Narratives

    This literary, ethical, spiritual and philosophical tradition is compelling for two reasons: first, it offers a profound critique of the systemic and cultural distortions and costs of racism that whites need to hear and understand. Second, it provides narratives of engaged goodness: there are no heroic pretensions, no grand narratives of certain triumph but a life-affirming refusal to submit to cynicism, alienation, and despair.

    The first reason is straightforward: there are differences in this tradition, new and challenging insights that people of my race and class need to hear. The second reason, though, has a different tone. These narratives, though startling in their critique of dominant power and ethics, are also as familiar as breath. This is the shape of “nonheroic goodness” that I have seen in my family, friends, and in parts of my communities. These are the textures of their moral and spiritual lives. These are not narratives of alienation, isolation, and suspicion but testimonies to the power of lives lived in connection and, from that connection, lives lived for justice, for beauty, for compassion.

    — Sharon D. Welch on the Womanist tradition as it relates to her ethic of risk in A Feminist Ethic of Risk.

    JK-S »> As a narrative therapist, these are the kinds of life narratives I’m always looking and listening for as I sit with people. In fact, some conversations are like rescue missions where we are seeking to reunite these narratives with a historical record of memory. When I’m thinking about concepts like “engaged goodness” and “the power of lives lived in connection” I’m more inclined to notice the ways these narratives are multistoried and richly peopled. The aim of all this is not so much about reaching particular outcomes or goals as it is about pursuing possibilities. 

    (via jasonkaesmith)

     
  15.