Across the western world, a growing number of people are voluntarily getting mutilated. Some are getting their genitals surgically altered, others are having their breasts, arms, or legs cut off.

Why are they doing these things?

These individuals would make a mess — maybe even kill themselves — if they mutilated themselves. As it turns out, they almost never do. So why is society supporting their efforts? You guessed it. All for their ‘mental health.’

We can readily understand good health when it comes to the body. ‘Optimal health’ means that there is nothing wrong with our body — we are in ‘good shape’ and can breathe, act, digest food, etc. without difficulty. But is there such a thing as optimal mental health?

A recent Ann Landers column1 illustrates where the quest for optimal mental health can lead. The subject was a wife who first tried to accommodate her husband’s cross-dressing. Seems she let Bernard cross-dress in the bedroom with “sexually satisfying” results for a number of years. But after 30 years of marriage, and having raised his kids, he saw a psychologist who diagnosed him as a “repressed transsexual” who “should spend a more significant part of his time dressed as a woman.”

For better than 50 years he had been a male, for 30 a husband, and for 25 a father. But the psychologist, with arcane knowledge, realized that Bernard was a “repressed transsexual” who needed to embark on a new career. So the wife dutifully followed the psychologist’s advice. She went on shopping sprees and to concerts with Bernard all dolled-up.

This was better, but not enough. Bernard was troubled and “was referred to a doctor who prescribed a daily regimen of female hormones to help him become ‘more congruent’ with his female feelings.” Bernard was now under treatment to get ‘better mental health’ by both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. If one shrink was good, two would surely be better — and taking drugs that made his breasts swell made the whole thing really ‘medical.’

Alas, breasts were not enough. He wanted to live full-time as a woman. So he proposed that he and his wife tell the kids, neighbors, extended family, etc. that he was now ‘Bernice!’ Only as Bernice could he achieve optimal mental health.

His wife, in her 50s, said she is “confused and angry. If I’d known years ago that he planned to become a woman, I would not have invested so much time in being his wife. Now I am faced with spending the rest of my life with another woman or divorcing him.” She also complained that her therapist said, “if I truly loved the person inside, it would not matter, but it does matter.”

This wife employed her own psychologist. (This was a family steeped in mental healthism). Yet all three gurus focused on Bernard — a person who lived “inside” the shell of his body. Forget about sex, peace of mind, or social standing for his wife. Why should she care what her kids or the grandchildren might think — if she “truly loved the person inside, it wouldn’t matter.” Didn’t she want him to be mentally healthy?

Bernard was exempt from any accountability to others — his body mattered a great deal to him, so it should be ‘fixed’ according to the needs of his new identity. His wife, on the other hand, was supposed to accept it all in stride. As long as she loved the “person inside,” it should not make any difference whether or not Bernard had a penis, looked like a man, or sprouted breasts. “He” was “still there” to be loved and accepted (and if Bernard could stand it, she could participate in sex with his body, or what remained of it).

Clearly, this was an example of what A.G. Chesterton so aptly described: “the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.” The mental health establishment was willing to sacrifice her (the normal one) to him (the one who was mad). All, of course, for a good cause — to make him mentally healthy.

This is wisdom worth paying for, wouldn’t you say?

Landers’ answer was a mixture of preaching and advice: “Many cross-dressers are perfectly straight. Unfortunately for you, Bernard wants to be a woman.” Get a divorce, “then wish Bernard well with his new life.”

Even though Ann Landers’ advice is ‘free,’ she still poses as a kind of authority in matters of sex and relationships. But how does she know that many cross-dressers are “perfectly straight?” And how can she so confidently discard both Jewish and Christian traditional social policy?

Brave New World
Welcome to the ‘therapeutic society,’ where the disturbed and disruptive are in the catbird seat, while the normal are sacrificed to the abnormal. Though homosexuals, transsexuals and cross-dressers contribute less to society — in fact, are a net drag on society — in the upside-down world of mental healthism, they are cherished and given more.

If Bernard lives in California, its newly-passed law will assure that his employer will have to put up with him or face a $150,000 fine. If ‘she’ moves to Minnesota, New Mexico, or Rhode Island, he will also be protected by equal rights laws. If ‘Bernice’ decides she is a lesbian, or even decides to “go straight” by having sex with a man, ‘she’ will have even more rights than the wife. And it is always possible that Bernice will decide to get a domestic partner — in which case ‘she’ will have all the benefits of marriage without his unsympathetic, narrow-minded wife!

In order to optimize his ‘mental health,’ everybody has to please Bernard. No sacrifice is too great for this ‘victim’ of his ever-growing desires. Bernard doesn’t know exactly what he wants — probably never will. But in the mental health world, what he — the client — wants trumps the interests of his wife, kids, neighbors and relatives. The rest of society simply ‘has to adjust’ — and pay his bills.

So said the three highly trained therapists. So says Ann Landers.

This is what mental healthism has led to — the client is the most important person in the world. The mad and the dregs of society are elevated to the heights and the productive and their children have to be ‘re-educated to accept this reality.’ And if they won’t accept their re-education, they may have to be fined or imprisoned for their ‘hate crime.’

The Scoop on Transsexuals
As transsexuals go, Bernard is fairly typical. Whereas in the recent past, most seeking a ‘sex-change’ were generally young and clearly homosexual, today the mean age is rising, and the obvious homosexual connection is decreasing. In the most recent study2 on the topic, the mean age at time of surgery for 232 ‘former’ men was 44 years. Furthermore, 67% had been married, and 47% were fathers!

What is particularly disturbing about this trend is that there is no objective reason for giving someone a ‘sex-change.’ Unlike removing a breast due to cancer, there is no medical indication for turning a he into a ‘she,’ or vice-versa. Typically, the only criterion is the desire of the patient. Some of the therapists are quite open about this:3 “In our opinion an evaluation of SRS [sexual reassignment surgery] can be made only on the basis of subjective data, because SRS is intended to solve a problem that cannot be determined objectively.”

The children, the extended family — everybody else is irrelevant. The real question, they say, is ‘what does Bernard need for his mental health?’ And if Bernard is pleased, all the sacrifice was worth it.

Long-Standing Prohibitions
Of course, what has been sacrificed are long-standing Jewish and Christian prohibitions against cross-dressing and mutilation. The ancient Jews and the early Christians regarded cross-dressing and mutilation as horribly wrong — mocking God’s design and thwarting the basic requirements for orderly society.

Moses said: “a woman shouldn’t wear a man’s things, and a man shouldn’t wear a woman’s clothes, because the Lord your God is disgusted with anyone who does these things.” And: “Don’t make cuts in your bodies for the dead.”

Orthodox Jews construed these statements as a universal ban on mutilation. Christians also generally followed the Jewish stance. These religious prohibitions were the underpinning of laws against cross-dressing and are undoubtedly part of the reason that most people would say that a person who wanted to cross-dress or be mutilated in some way was, at the very least, ‘disturbed.’

Early in the 20th century, people who wanted to have their penis cut off and to substitute an approximation of a vagina were considered mad by most people. But some of those in the ‘mental health’ establishment — sympathetic toward their clients — said these individuals had a ‘mental condition.’ And amazingly, this condition could only be cured by doing what the client wanted — that is, by mutilating them. No studies were done to determine the long-term effects on the patient or his social environment. They still haven’t been done. It was just done out of “compassion” for the client (forgetting, obviously, about “compassion” for those who would have to interact with ‘him’).

By the 1950s, some in the mental health establishment argued that people who wanted to be the opposite sex were suffering from something that ought to be ‘corrected’ by surgery. Christine Jorgensen was a big story in the mid-50s, and the transformation of a GI into a quasi-woman was generally accepted as ‘odd, but OK,’ since ‘experts’ had determined that the operation ought to occur.

A Domino Effect
Then, beginning with Switzerland and Luxembourg in 1956, Sweden in 1972, Germany in 1980, Italy in 1982, the Netherlands in 1985, Turkey in 1988, and France in 1992, having ‘the operation’ to effect a ‘sex-change’ has been considered a ‘medical right.’ Recently, the European Court of Human Rights decided that “respect for private life takes precedence over any other consideration, and is deemed to include the right to change sex” (and to make society pay for both the operation and the outcome). And all this on the say-so and desire of the client.

In the U.S., by the 1970s, “gender identity disorder” was an official diagnosis, and many mental health experts became advocates of those seeking surgical ‘relief.’ Mental health professionals asserted that society had to ‘heal the patients’ by following their wishes and thus mutilating them. This meant surgeons doing the snipping and clipping, and psychiatrists and psychologists doing the diagnosis and post-surgical counseling. Soon this was being done at state expense since it was a “medical condition” (as it is in most of Europe today).

Further, having done that much snipping and clipping, it was only right that society accept them as ‘real women’ (or ‘real men’). Hence the drive for ‘non-discrimination’ laws against the transgendered (or people thinking of becoming transgendered).

While records of all such operations are not available, it seems likely that around 20,000 people have had the whole surgical treatment, and tens of thousands more are getting hormones while they cross-dress, perhaps shooting themselves with silicone to create female-like fat deposits, strutting around like women (or men), and invading rest rooms reserved for the opposite-sex.

Hazards of Transgenderism
This foolishness is on display all across the nation.

In Washington, D.C., at least five transgendered ‘women’ have been killed since July 2002. A woman has been charged with killing the last one — either over drugs or her ‘space’ in the prostitute district, maybe both.4

In Houston, in just the past few months, three transgendered ‘women’ have died from “illegal silicone injections” to either supplement their ‘treatments’ or as an alternative to surgery. Injecting silicone is often done at “pumping parties,” where other transgendered folk inject the silicone in a compassionate, support-group atmosphere. Apparently the same kinds of parties and deaths have recently occurred in Florida. Many, if not most, of these ‘women’ work as prostitutes and want larger breasts, or bigger fannies to compete with the real whores.4

Many transsexuals work as prostitutes. This presents hazards. More than a few men become upset when they have paid for sex with a woman, but detect that a mutilated man has serviced them. Sometimes the mutilated get married, and then try to collect survivor’s benefits with varying success. Quite a few are becoming disabled (and eligible for disability payments) because the silicone with which they have shot themselves hardens and lumps in both medically harmful and cosmetically repulsive ways, or the surgery or hormones have debilitated them.

Many — possibly most — male to female transsexuals are homosexuals. Also, the proportion of married men (often with children) may be growing — particularly among those who have the operation in their 40s or 50s. On the other side, almost all female to male transsexuals are homosexuals.

In both cases, the individuals are frequently illegal drug users and alcoholics. If they have legitimate jobs, their employment histories appear to be disproportionately unstable. And, with rare exception, they are veritably obsessed with looking like the opposite sex — many mutilated men spend 3-4 hours every day doing their hair, makeup, dressing, strutting, fussing, etc.

Cracks in the Facade
Despite the tremendous strides transsexuals have made legally (e.g., the $150,000 fine in California and non-discrimination laws in 4 states), ominous cracks in this new edifice of ‘equality’ are surfacing. Indeed, a few therapists who promoted transsexualism have recently recanted. With very good fortune, perhaps in the future transsexuals will no longer being considered ‘real,’ and those who want to have society mutilate them and then pretend they are ‘normal’ will once again be considered mad as hatters.

One such recanter, Colette Chiland, has written an excellent book5 that reviews the history and theory of the sexually-linked surgery. Chiland is no conservative — she suggests that teenage effeminate homosexuals “who cannot accept themselves as such… should be persuaded to have psychotherapy, which may result in abandonment of their transsexual request and acceptance of their homosexuality.” (p. 70) Apparently she believes that dying of HIV, hepatitis, etc. with one’s natural body is preferable to the same death in a mutilated one.

But Chiland used to be an enabler of transsexuals: “I used to refer to the subjects’… unshakable conviction, of belonging to the other sex.” “Now, however having listened to a large number of patients, with their hesitations, questions, advances, and retreats, I think it more appropriate to speak of their frantic will to get themselves recognized as members of the other sex. Patients… struggle to persuade themselves that their wish is not a wish but a reality.” (p. 18)

She agrees with psychiatrist Ira Pauly that the whole syndrome is “iatrogenic;” that is, generated or induced by the therapist; a form of autosuggestion based upon the therapist’s handling of or discussing of the issue. (p. 19) In other words, in our expert-driven society, if “experts” say that a person is “suffering from the need to be a woman and we must make them as woman-like as we can,” the patients then decide that a kind of sex-mutilation is the answer to their problem (notice, it is not indeed a “sex-change;” no one can have their sex changed surgically or otherwise).

These same experts point to these needy patients as the reason that society should not only endorse what they have done to their patients, but should pay the expert’s fees to counsel them and do the operation, and further should pass laws to protect from harassment the patients they have mutilated!

Chiland also suggests that the syndrome is ‘mediagenic’ — that is, by going on TV with their stories, the experts and their patients encourage and entice people who decide to dedicate their lives to the exciting career of being a transsexual. That is, where some might decide to dedicate their lives to being rich, or religious, or helpful to others, etc. – some people decide that a career putting them in the center of a confusing, daring, rebellious, yet sympathetic social spotlight, where they hold just about all the marbles, is ‘just the ticket.’

They are the object of tremendous attention by their therapists and surgeons, and with the passage of appropriate laws, they can sue those who will not fully acquiesce to their whims. Then again, if they find that the operation did not change their lives the way they wanted, they can sue the surgeon and the facility that housed the operation (this was probably a factor in the discontinuance of sex-reassignment surgery at Stanford and Johns Hopkins universities).

Mad Becomes Mainstream
The mainstreaming of transgenderism is illustrated by a staff member of Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Susan Kimberly used to be Robert Sylvester, a St. Paul city councilman. Now 60, Kimberly had her sex-mutilation surgery in 1983. Kimberly lobbied for “the inclusion of ‘transgender’ among the protected classes under the Minnesota Human Rights Act of 1993, threatening that the bill “had to be inclusive or I would do something foolish and handcuff myself to a urinal in the state Capitol.”

In 1997 ‘she’ wrote:⁶
“I lived for some 40 years as a man and, if for no other reason, I will never really know what it is like to be a woman. So although it causes considerable consternation among some of my transsexual brothers and sisters, I no longer consider myself a woman. Don’t take me wrong, however. I’m not a man either, nor am I apologizing for my life, the choices I’ve made or their outcome. I’m as proud a transsexual as you’ll ever meet.”

First he considered himself a man; then a woman; now a transsexual??

Actually, Susan let the cat out of the bag in a number of ways. At most ‘she’ approximated the look of a woman, but she was artificial and knew it. As Chiland points out, ‘she,’ like most transsexuals, never really studied women. ‘She’ never read women’s magazines, joined feminist clubs, etc. Susan did not want to ‘be’ a woman, she wanted her body to approximate a woman’s body. But the dress and makeup does not a woman make.

Most transsexual men have highly idealized ideas of what it means to be a woman — thus they say that a woman is someone who ‘makes cupcakes,’ ‘stays at home and sews,’ and ‘wears frilly clothes.’ Most of Chiland’s male clients did not imagine themselves wishing to be like their mothers, who often were rather plain. Rather they wished to be the stereotypical ‘sexy’ woman, with especial emphasis upon ‘frilly clothes, big breasts and long hair.’ And most of them wanted to have sex with men — with the men thinking ‘she’ was a woman.

In the past, people have figured out ways to live as members of the opposite sex. Women have disguised themselves as men and fought in wars. In fact, the Civil war had a number of noteworthy soldiers on both sides who were only found to be women when they were killed or injured. Whether all these women wanted to “be” men is unclear. However, the penalties for pursuing this charade could be quite severe. At times, those who cross-dressed or attempted to appear to be the opposite sex were subject to capital punishment.

While attempts to ‘switch one’s sex’ have occurred through history, it does not necessarily follow that transsexuals are actually ‘men trapped inside the body of a woman,’ or vice-versa. Rather than a condition one is born with, Chiland points out that many stories about transsexuals’ childhoods do not jibe with interviews taken with their parents, siblings, or neighbors. Indeed, the most common communality is the loss of memory among those operated on about their childhood. Many simply invent the kind of childhood that therapists think they ‘ought to have’ to develop ‘this condition.’

Attention At Any Cost
At bottom, some people want to be the center of attention no matter how they get there. Others just ‘get a notion’ that seems to come from nowhere. But whether thought through or not, the transformation is guaranteed to get the attention of everyone they know.

The mental health establishment has made the career of “being a homosexual” an attractive possibility, not only by creating this “being” (e.g., this is who I am, I am driven by my condition to engage in homosexual sex), but also by lobbying for laws to protect “homosexuals” from scorn or rejection by normal folk.

Even the ex-gay movement has made the career of “being an ex-homosexual” somewhat attractive. Likewise, making a career of “being imprisoned in the body of the wrong sex” is another possibility. Real achievers may disdain such empty careers, but to the weak, lazy, stupid, and/or disturbed, a career that makes you a star just because of ‘who you are’ is quite attractive.

Chiland asks:
“What did the doctors who created this type of therapy in the past have in their minds, and what do those who defend it today have in theirs? I cannot answer this question. I have seen the profit motive at work, but precautions have been taken against it at the French state-funded centers. Do these practitioners want to display their mastery of technique, and to throw down a challenge to nature? Have they a taste for organized social transgression? Do they feel compassion for suffering people who put themselves in impossible situations? The climate at congresses where a third of the audience openly proclaim themselves to be transsexuals is very peculiar.… Ultimately, the past of free choice of social sex has been chosen willy-nilly, hidden behind the fiction of a change of bodily sex.” (p. 138)

Note that Chiland is repentant — her life’s work has resulted in a minor amount of overall social chaos, but major chaos for the children, spouses, relatives, friends, and employers of those ‘chosen’ to have their stated desires fulfilled by mental health professionals. And all this so that disturbed people, who have found a life-changing iatrogenic ‘gimmick’, can ‘have it all’ — without any obligations. Their NEED cancels all duties. Their ‘victimhood’ absolves them of any obligations.

The Last Word
This is the overall thrust of mental healthism. Chiland is, however, wrong on at least one score — the changes that have allowed people to ‘choose their sex’ at our collective expense were not “chosen willy-nilly.” Rather, FRI considers them deliberately destructive. The mental health professionals — because they put the crazies in charge of the normal — and the homosexuals — the lovers of death — have joined in destroying another piece of our social sanity.

It isn’t “willy-nilly” that the homosexual movement has joined hands with the transgendered movement. Many of the therapists involved in the transgendered business are homosexuals, and many of the others are in sympathy with its legitimization. The key legislator in the recent California law outlawing discrimination against the transgendered and cross-dressers, Assemblyman Mark Leno, is a homosexual. Overall, it is a minor part of the over-arching plot to destroy society with a thousand pinpricks.

References:
1. Omaha World Herald 9/8/02.
2. Lawrence AA (2003) Factors associated with satisfaction or regret following male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Arch Sexual Behavior, 32:299-315.
3. Kuiper B, Cohen-Kettenis PT (1988) Sex reassignment surgery: a study of 141 Dutch transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17:439-457.
4. Washington Blade 9/12/03. 5. Chiland, C (2003) Transsexualism: illusion and reality, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan U. Press. 6. Washington Times 5/11/03.

Much is said and written about the well being of children. Indeed, “for the children” is probably the most potent slogan for getting a bill passed or a regulation killed. As our most precious natural resource and the hope of our future, it makes sense to place tremendous value on our kids and to protect and nourish them as best we can. What is really no secret anymore is that the very best place to nurture children is in a married, two-parent home. More empirical evidence of this fact is contained in a new report issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) entitled Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 1999.1

As one of a regular series of reports, the findings this time are quite similar to what they have been in the past, reinforcing the value of children being raised by their mother and father. Although the CDC follows a politically correct line in its household classifications by failing to specify whether a couple is married or not — households are listed as either “mother and father, mother no father, father no mother, and neither mother or father” — the vast majority of the mother and father households are indeed married. Nevertheless, the fact that the CDC is including some ‘cohabitants’ with the ‘married’ somewhat dilutes the differences, since cohabitants by and large do not do as good a job raising children as do the married.

Of course, being married is not the only factor that impacts how well one raises children. And since individuals are not forced to marry in our culture, it is impossible to say how much of the better performance of kids with married parents is due to marriage per se, and how much to the kinds of people who get married. The same qualification applies to nearly every statement about marriage. Is it healthier people that tend to get married, or marriage that makes them healthier?

At the very least, the evidence of the superiority of both the married and the kids raised in married households is consistent. While it is undoubtedly true that ‘better, more attractive people are more apt to be marriage material,’ there is also evidence that lends credence to the notion that ‘marriage makes people better.’

In the latest CDC study, about 71% of kids less than 18 years old live with their mother and father, 69% live with married parents (more of those under the age of 5, but many fewer teenagers), 23% with just their mother (and whomever she might be living with), 4% with just their father (and whomever he might be living with), and 3% with someone who is not a parent (often grandparents or another relative; about 1% in orphanages or their equivalent).

The results are quite instructive. While there is little difference in measures over which parents would have little control, such as hay fever or allergies, mother/father households evidence the best success on any measures that involve behavior or training, as the results below demonstrate.

Of course, these are but a few of the many factors that go into making a ‘good environment’ for a child. Nonetheless, with rare exception, married parents do better — and their kids do better as well.

Another recently reported study from Sweden reinforces this conclusion. There researchers2 investigated 65,085 children living with the same single parent in 1985 and 1990, and compared their findings with 921,257 children living with two parents in both years. Children of single parents had increased risks of psychiatric disease, suicide or suicide attempt, injury, and addiction.

Even after adjusting for a number of factors, including the parent’s mental health, addiction, or socioeconomic status: “girls with single parents were more than twice as likely to commit suicide and more than three times as likely to die from an addiction to drugs or alcohol than were girls with two parents. Boys of single parents were more than five times more likely to die from an addiction to drugs or alcohol, more than three times as likely to die from a fall or poisoning, and four times more likely to die from external violence.…”

Overall, as compared to two-parent families, children from single parent homes were twice as likely to either develop psychiatric disease (relative risks of 2.1 times for girls and 2.5 times for boys), attempt suicide (girls 2.0, boys 2.3), or to develop alcoholism (girls 2.4, boys 2.2). Boys raised by a single parent were four times as likely to become drug-addicted and girls more than three times as likely. Boys raised in a single-parent home also experienced a much higher likelihood of “all-cause mortality.”

The researchers concluded, after various statistical adjustments, that “...even when a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances are included in multivariate models, children of single parents still have increased risks of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury,” and, “...for all outcomes, significant increases in risk remained unaccounted for even in the fully adjusted model.”

Marriage is good for kids. Well-behaved, healthy kids are good for society. Marriage, therefore, ought to be encouraged, and conversely, divorce and cohabitation ought to be discouraged.

References:
1. Blackwell DL, Tonthat L., National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Health Statistics 10(210), 2003.
2. Ringbäck G, et al. Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: A population-based study. Lancet, 2003;361:289-295; Whitehead M, Holland P. What puts children of lone parents at a health disadvantage? Lancet, 2003;361:271.

A specter is haunting America — it is ‘mental healthism.’ As Marxism haunts economic policy, so mental healthism haunts social policy. Both of these movements claim special knowledge of ‘what’s wrong’ and the ability to remedy what ails us. As in the last century when Marxism corrupted many a society, today many advocates of mental healthism are busily about their dismantling of traditional society. At this point in history, mental healthism is actually more dangerous than Marxism. Marxism already got its chance to perform and didn’t work. Mental healthism is still growing in influence and has yet to be fully exposed as, at best, quasi-scientific.

Remember the retort: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?” Today, mental healthism says the slogan is dead wrong — names hurt as much or more than sticks and stones, since they cause ‘mental problems.’ Get real. Being called names is unpleasant, but they bounce off normal folk like raindrops. It is the unstable and distressed for whom names can be calamitous.

One of the characteristics of mental healthism is its sacrifice of the normal to the troubled. Thus the emotional reactions of the troubled determine how ‘things ought to be.’ If name-calling ‘causes’ mental distress, then it must be banned. Surely, mental healthism is largely responsible for federal crimes being made of name-calling at schools or even the questioning certain life-styles.

In a related vein, psychiatrist Dr. Nat Lehrman is concerned about his “specialty’s most effective therapeutic tool, the psychiatrist-patient relationship.” He notes that the relationship “has been replaced by limiting the psychiatrist’s role to the prescribing of drugs — actually destroying that relationship.” He reports the following for community mental health centers in King County, Washington:

• in 2001, of 7,831 “people served with outpatient tier benefits,” many of them on medication, 593 (7.6%) became less dependent, 285 (3.6%) became more dependent, and 4 (.0005%) recovered.

• in 2002: of 6,994 served, 573 (8.2%) became less dependent, 561 (8.0%) became more dependent, and 5 (.0007%) recovered.

Dr. Lehrman notes that in “1948, before the drug era, over half of the 2,941 schizophrenic patients admitted for the first time five years earlier to the New York State Hospital system had returned to the community — receiving no governmental benefits. The state then had 14 million people. Recently, with a state population of 18 million, the New York Times discovered some 15,000 mentally crippled hospital dischargees in nursing homes, many locked away in back wards, and all supported by the government. The half century increase in chronicity, from 1,470 (half of the 2,941 who remained in hospital) to the 15,000 post-hospital cripples, illustrates some of the harm the system causes.”

“Clear-cut brain changes do occur in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases but not in most of the ‘disorders’ in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The claim that such brain changes nevertheless occur in most ‘mental illness’ is relatively new — about 30 years old;… its wide acceptance is due to frequent repetition rather than scientific proof.”

FRI has no trouble with empiricism — that’s what we are about. Mental healthism, since it relies primarily upon propaganda instead of hard evidence, has much in common with Nazism, Communism, and the gay rights movement.