Posted by

Troublesome friendship or a relational disorder? 

By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY Sept. 8, 2002

There is just a chance that if in the future you and your spatting
spouse go to a marital therapist, your relationship may be diagnosed as
a "relational disorder," a proposed new form of mental illness.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Baughman: Read "disease", their first "hook". You got a disease;
you need a "treatment"; they got a friend (the friend owns them), Big
Pharma, who's got "treatments", "chemical balacers"--pills, for your
particular "chemical imbalance".]

Or if you get along well with one of your kids but cross swords
constantly with another, a psychotherapist just might slap the entire
family with the same label indicating a psychiatric disorder.

The American Psychiatric Association is considering adding "relational
disorders" to the list of mental illnesses they publish in their
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It spells out the symptoms and
behaviors that constitute various types of mental and emotional
disturbances. The book is used by most mental health professionals to
diagnose patients.

If the change takes place, this would be the first time the DSM defines
a mental disorder involving two or more people in a relationship, rather
than a problem involving just one individual.

The concept relies on the belief that relationship problems cause
genuine illnesses of both of body and mind. Both should be diagnosed and

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Baughman: again, where they say "illness" they mean disease,
brain disease. This is what they will diagnose, and when they say
treatment/treated, they, invariably, automatically mean drugs. This is
their lie, it never changes. What's different now is that they have
charted a course to conscript "patients", not just one at a time but 2,
3 and several at a time, all with "chemical imbalances of the brain" all
needing one, two or more "chemical balancers." This is the greatest
snake oil since Barnum and Bailey]

And it is the relationship itself causing the problem, not the people
involved in it.

"When couples go to counseling, trying to communicate, neither member is
the 'sick' one," says Michael First, associate professor of clinical
psychiatry at Columbia University. "It is the relationship that needs to
be worked on." Recognizing a relational disorder could prevent a divorce
down the line, or the possibility of child or spouse abuse, he says.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Baughman: all by giving a "chemical balancer" for their
"chemical imbalance" for the "chemical imbalance" of the whole group of
them. Think of the industrial psychiatrist, prescribing for the entire
board of directors, or everyone in the plant with the prescription being
sent directly to the manufacturer, getting a group rate. Think of the
epidemic of psychiatric diseases should we swallow this one]

Changing what is defined as a mental disorder is a long process. The
fifth edition of the DSM won't be out until 2010, but some leading
psychiatrists are circulating a white paper now urging research on the
change. First is the lead author.

Study co-author David Reiss of George Washington University says the
research supporting relational therapy has advanced enough that it
warrants inclusion in the medically based DSM. "We have a better sense
about how to characterize and measure these relationships."

Although most folks have some rocky relationships, Reiss says only the
most dysfunctional would be diagnosed. But the question remains for many
professionals: Why should a relationship problem be called a mental

"Suppose you treat a child with poor school attendance, who is
performing below expectations and exhibiting symptoms (such as acting
out). It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the real trouble
is probably with the parents," says Ronald Fox, past president of the
American Psychological Association. "You treat the parents and the kid
gets better. But where is the mental illness?"

He says the DSM already defines too many problems as mental illnesses.
"We pathologize everything under the sun. But the DSM is the coin of the
realm. It is the water we swim in as clinicians."

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Baughman: and "pathologize" is what they do; physical
abnormality = disease = pathology. This is what they have us believe
they dioagnose with their pencil-paper checklists, never an objective
finding on examination or laboratory test, and yet once "diagnosed"/
labeled, they not only justify a prescription for you they may have to
court-order it should you prove reluctant, with all of this going on
your record, into the computers, everywhere. Wake up America. These
folks are worse than al Qaeda. The infestation is already complete.
Further, once anything gets "official" (if not scientific) status in the
DSM, they will convey to the Congress these are all diseases just as in
medicine and surgery and will press Congress to order that all of us
"fund" them through health insurance just as they do cancer and
diabetes, and leukemia, and multiple sclerosis. But, of course this is
an immense scam and obscenity, we just haven't awoken to the fact

The DSM is not must reading for the public, but it is for mental health
experts. It is put out by psychiatrists, who are seen by many as the top
of the food chain of mental health practitioners. They are physicians
and can prescribe drugs such as antidepressants, while some other
specialists cannot.

The book is used by many types of psychotherapists to make a diagnosis
that an insurance company will accept, if the company covers mental
health at all. Experts note even generous companies may not cotton to
the idea of coverage for a relationship instead of an individual.

Listing relational disorders in the DSM would officially recognize what
specialists, such as marriage and family therapists, have already been
doing for years. Instead of dealing with just one individual, they look
at the dynamics among various members of the entire family.

"The fact they want to put this in the code book gives family systems
therapists some recognition," says Terry Hargrave, a family therapist
with West Texas A&M University in Canyon, Texas.

Hargrave has mixed feelings about the proposed addition to the DSM.
"Family therapists don't like the idea of diagnosing people," of giving
them a label that they can carry for a lifetime, he says. He also says
there is a risk of "making everything a medical problem."

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Baughman: but, as I have said above this is exactly what they
are doing, what they would redouble. Resist the diagnosis, resist the
treatment, be it for yourself or for your child in a government school
and they will see that the decision to "treat" that for which
"treatment" is essential (they are the "deemers" of such things) is
taken out of your hands...there are courts to handle such things.]

The psychiatric profession is based on a "medical model" and
increasingly sees connections between mental disorders and brain chemistry.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
the DSM, American Psychiatric Association "medical model" in
psychiatry is a total lie (what's more, today it is practiced not just
by the APA but by the American Academies of Pediatrics, Neurology,
Family Practice and by physician's throughout these specialties, making
"patients" or normals). Not a single psychiatric diagnosis in any
edition of the DSM is known to be a bona fide disease having a
confirming physical abnormality. They include, within the DSM, several
true brain disease, such as Alzheimer's disease, Rett's syndrome, etc.
to give the impression that things neurological and psychiatric are the
same. Psychiatrists are not responsible and do not assume medico-legal
responsibility for the diagnosis of any actual nervous system disease,
this is part of a plan of deception: the "chemical imbalance" ,
"chemical balancer" deception. Tell the school your child has no such
thing and you are a negligent parent and off to court you go. In fact
this lie not just from practicing psychiatrists to patients, but from
their "researchers" and leaders direct by media to the public, assures
that there is absolutely, never such a thing in psychiatry/mental health
as true informed consent--something we tried to assure ourselves through
the Nuremberg Trials at the end of WWII]

Psychiatrists often favor using drugs to help correct problems, as well
as some talk therapy.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
99.9999 % of cases, whether 9 months or 99 years of age]

First says he does not see drugs as part of a treatment program for a
relational disorder. Entire families are not at risk for being put on
antidepressants, for example.

Couples or family therapy might be the treatment of choice. But finding
a good therapist could be a problem. Many psychiatrists and other mental
health professionals are not well trained to deal with family dynamics,
says Michael Bowers of the American Association for Marriage and Family

Some critics suggest the label could be spun out of control to include
other categories of relationships, such as those between employers and
employees. First doesn't see that happening and says the profession is
not considering it.

He is not trying to say everybody is sick, First says. "The challenge is
to reliably distinguish between the bumps, the ups and downs that normal
relationships go through, and relational disorders where treatment could
help. If we cannot, we will not go there."

Recognize bad bonds:

*Persistent and painful patterns of feelings, behavior and perceptions
involving two or more partners in an important personal relationship.

*Always involve two or more individuals. The bond is disordered, not the

*Serious behavioral disturbances that can lead to major impairments in
physical and psychological health.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
I can see them with their "relational disorders" checklists
now...and their prescription pads.]

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
When will we come to our senses and see these people for what
they are: drug pushers who masquerade as doctors/physicians. John
Walters, the new White House drug czar was in Tijuana recently, noted
for it's forthright, self-confessed, drug runners. Here, he gave us some
words to live by: "The drug problem is about lies and intimidation and
terror, both on the supply and the demand side. Its enemy is truth. And
if those who speak the truth are silenced, drugs will be dominant and
won't be controlled and cannot be controlled." "On the demand side, the
great lie is "It's fun, it's harmless, you can handle it." (or, "it will
help you pay attention, your grades will improve, people will like you
better, you won't be such a continual challenge to Mom and Dad and your
teachers".). Most people start using drugs as young individuals and they
get the drugs from a peer. Not from an adult that seduces them, but from
another person, their own friends in many cases who say it's fun, you
can handle it. It's not really dangerous like they say." In Walter's
article (San Diego Union-Tribune 9/15/02, G-1, he says "23 percent of
the estimated 4.5 million Americans in the United States who have a
dependency problem and can benefit from treatment are teen-agers." This
equates to just over one million. What about the 6 million, today, K-12,
in the nations government schools, on Ritalin and other amphetamines,
undoubted drugs of addiction, gotten on them by adult--by their
teachers. This has nothing to do with being a teacher, any more than it
has anything to do with being a physician...a real physician. ]


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)