May / June 2006
Keith Goetzman Utne magazine
Rights advocacy groups have helped minorities beat back
discrimination, women gain the right to vote, and the handicapped
win access to public spaces. Now a group called MindFreedom
International is working to preserve perhaps one of the most
fundamental human rights: the right to think for oneself.
RELATED ARTICLES
We tend to think wildly. Our problem is that we identify with the thoughts and never just stop and ...
Beyond a 50-50 love life...
Yes, Martha, a feminist can aspire to dishpan hands...
A coalition of more than 100 groups in 14 countries, MindFreedom
was formed in 1988 to speak out against human rights violations in
the mental health system, such as restraints, involuntary
electroshock therapy, and forced medication. Many of its founders
and members call themselves survivors of the system, and their
experiences show that, for some, 'treatment' isn't a road to
recovery but a highway to hell. At one rally in Washington, D.C., a
supporter toted a banner that read, 'Bet your ass we're
paranoid.'
Now, as scientists refine ways to alter the human brain -- and,
concomitantly, thoughts and behavior -- MindFreedom is poised to
enter a new skirmish in the struggle to uphold personal
freedom.
Lately, the group has been campaigning against drug implants
that are surgically inserted under the skin to release
antipsychotic medicine slowly, over weeks or months. It's still
good old drug therapy, not an electronic implant, but the method
takes control away from the patient and gives it to the doctors. In
this way, MindFreedom contends, it's another step toward curtailing
the rights of some of society's most marginal members, the mentally
ill. And as far as MindFreedom director David Oaks is concerned, it
will also result in more invasive and heavy-handed methods such as
electronic implants controlled by doctors.
'We're opposed to all these techniques because they're
inherently intrusive and irreversible, and they give doctors a lot
of control,' says Oaks. 'It's like throwing gas on a fire.'
Apart from the rights implications of the new brain science,
Oaks contends that many of the most touted treatment methods are
based on what is still a crude understanding of the brain.