Often, those who use mental health services complain that “the system” insists on slamming them into boxes which they really don’t fit into, and then slamming “coffin” lids on them, preventing them from growing in the manner they need. Sometimes, this is said in more colorful language.
Achieving the Promise, the final report from the President’s New Freedom Commission, July 2003, states a life in the community for everyone- can be realized. It also states the mental health care system is a patchwork relic.... the system presents barriers that all too often add to the burden of mental illnesses for individuals, their families, and our communities. Little improvement has been made since.
Quite frankly, the mental health system is itself, quite insane. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
It is our hope that you will find on these pages a more complete view of the many options available to aid individuals on their journey to RECOVERY.
In many ways, the current mental health system can be compared to blind people who encounter an elephant for the first time. One puts his arms around a leg, and declares an elephant is like a tree; another grabs the tail and says an elephant is like a rope. Yet another places a hand against its side, and claims an elephant is like a wall. Another holds the trunk, saying it most resembles a snake.
Some in the mental health system are stubborn (frontal, to use psychiatric humor) to say the least. Convinced they are right, and that anyone with a differing view must be wrong; they work to fit everyone into a handful of boxes, and sometimes blame the client for not fitting correctly. However, to gain a better understanding of this elephant, many voices must be listened to. Each of the different perspectives is needed.
We will be presenting many of the differing views. Hopefully this will aid in the transformation of the mental health system, and make recovery from mental illness and prevention of mental illnesses a reality.
We recommend that anyone with a mental health diagnosis obtain a Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis to determine if either a mineral deficiency/ overabundance exists, a toxic substance is present, or if mineral ratios are out of balance. In addition, we recommend that the individual visit a chiropractor (preferably a soft touch or NSA practitioner) to check the alignment of the skull with the atlas, or top of the spinal cord. These conditions can cause symptoms which can result in a mental health diagnosis. Unfortunately, the medical community often turns to drugs without eliminating other possibilities.
According to the bio-medical model there are four main causes of brain dysfunction:
1. Anatomical abnormalities or damage
2. Lack of oxygen or glucose
3. Electrolyte imbalance
4. Neurotransmitter deregulation; the imbalance of brain chemistry.
Approach to Balance, an approved Nevada Medicaid Provider, (non-profit 501C(3) pending) offers peer and family education, as well as alternative / complementary services, to aid individuals in recovery from mental illness and / or substance abuse. We also advocate changes in the mental health systems (including criminal justice) to make Nevada, The U.S. ..and the world, experience greater harmony.
We who have traveled this road know how difficult it can be. While every individual is responsible for their actions, emotions, and responses to stress, we often have not acquired the tools needed to adequately accomplish this.
Stress typically plays a significant part both during the onset of mental illness, and at times of relapse.
At Approach to Balance we use proven and promising methods to help individuals with a mental illness deal better with the stresses in their lives.
While medications are typically necessary to achieve stabilization, stabilization is merely the first resting place on the road to recovery.
“You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on.” Benj. Franklin
No where is this more true than in the field of medicine, excepting perhaps in governmental bureaucracies. But when a bureaucracy is charged with providing innovation, as is the case in mental health, snails seem to stampede while those in charge hide, looking longingly back to a time when failure was the accepted norm. It has been a long time since a government agency has been seen as being on the cutting edge.
Aspirin was introduced in 1853, but ignored for the next 46 years. Antioxidants were proven effective in the 1950’s, but weren’t accepted by main stream medicine until the early 1990’s. The Heimlich maneuver was invented in 1974, but the American Heart Association didn’t accept it until 1985. British scientists proved smoking caused lung cancer in 1952, but for decades the American Medical Association disputed it.
Some say the medical establishment is just being cautious, trying to avoid any mistakes. Others claim they are nothing but greedy blackhearts who care for nothing but increased power and personal wealth, and point to all the fast tracked drugs which made drug companies billions before it was discovered tests were falsified, or information withheld. Unless a product or service has the potential to make billions for a corporation, in which case marketing people will hype it beyond all reason, it will be ignored, then fought and disputed until enough people demand it, causing a tipping point to occur. Then people will scratch their heads, wondering why it hasn’t been used all along.
A survey found that while 60% of doctors took nutritional supplements, rarely did they recommend them to their patients. They also were taking supplements to lower cholesterol, to prevent strokes and Alzheimer’s, but would fail to suggest these to their patients.
The Turning Point, by Fritjof Capra, (1982) took the medical community to task for its failure to incorporate the advances made in Physics during the turn of the last century. While many individual physicians (Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber, M.D., 2001) have explored and utilized the benefits of these advances, the medical community as a whole has been hostile and antagonistic towards them. While some claim it is only because they have not yet found a way to extract large sums of money from them, others, notably Dr’s. Brinkman and Kirschner in How to Deal with Difficult People, 1982, suggest it is just a function of a certain personality type which seems to be common not only in the medical community, but in many leadership positions.
From some of the hostile responses I received from my last column, 2nd Chances, I seem to have struck a rather defensive cord from some people in a leadership position. I have benefited from a number of advances in the field of medicine which the mainstream has not yet acknowledged. While I don’t really see myself as on the leading edge (after all, I received these treatments from others who were more familiar with them), looking back the mainstream, not only do I sometimes view them as reactionary, but stone aged. Maybe the snails were bigger back then.
