[Sarah116]

A beautiful mind is a movie about a man who is a mathematician and has Schizophrenia. I am going to post some clips of the movie here. It really is a wonderful movie!

[Sarah116]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW889XANBMM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW889XANBMM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[okiedokie]

I love that movie! Thanks for sharing, Sarah!
Okie

[spiritual_emergency]

Thanks for sharing that clip Sarah116. Here's a few more perspectives regarding John Nash's recovery...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

The movie A Beautiful Mind, nominated for eight Academy Awards, has brought welcome attention to the fact that people can and do recover from schizophrenia, a severely disabling disorder that affects about one in 100 Americans. Unfortunately, the film fabricates a critical detail of John Nash's recovery and in so doing, obscures a question that should concern us all: Do the medications we use to treat schizophrenia promote long-term recovery -- or hinder it?

In the movie, Nash -- just before he receives a Nobel Prize -- speaks of taking "newer medications." The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has praised the film's director, Ron Howard, for showing the "vital role of medication" in Nash's recovery. But as Sylvia Nasar notes in her biography of Nash, on which the movie is loosely based, this brilliant mathematician stopped taking antipsychotic drugs in 1970 and slowly recovered over two decades. Nasar concluded that Nash's refusal to take drugs "may have been fortunate" because their deleterious effects "would have made his gentle re-entry into the world of mathematics a near impossibility."

Source: John Nash: Recovery Without Drugs

See also: NPR: Author - Sylvia Nasar


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

The film "A Beautiful Mind," about the Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John F. Nash Jr., portrays his recovery from schizophrenia as hard-won, awe-inspiring and unusual. What most Americans and even many psychiatrists do not realize is that many people with schizophrenia - perhaps more than half - do significantly improve or recover. That is, they can function socially, work, relate well to others and live in the larger community. Many can be symptom-free without medication.

They improve without fanfare and frequently without much help from the mental health system. Many recover because of sheer persistence at fighting to get better, combined with family or community support. Though some shake off the illness in two to five years, others improve much more slowly. Yet people have recovered even after 30 or 40 years
with schizophrenia. The question is, why haven't we set up systems of care that encourage many more people with schizophrenia to reclaim their lives? ...

Unfortunately, psychiatrists and others who care for the mentally ill are often trained from textbooks written at the turn of the last century- the most notable by two European doctors: Emil Kraepelin in Germany and Eugen Bleuler in Switzerland. These books state flatly that improvement and recovery are not to be expected. ...

The American Psychiatric Association's newest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - D.S.M.-IV, published in 1994 - repeats this old pessimism. Reinforcing this gloomy view are the crowded day rooms and shelters and large public mental-health caseloads.

Also working against effective treatment are destructive social forces like prejudice, discrimination and poverty, as well as overzealous cost containment in public and private insurance coverage. Public dialogue is mostly about ensuring that people take their medication, with little said about providing ways to return to productive lives. We promote a self-fulfilling prophecy of a downward course and then throw up our hands and blame the ill person, or the illness itself, as not remediable.

In addition to the Vermont study, nine other contemporary research studies from across the world have all found that over decades, the number of those improving and even recovering from schizophrenia gets larger and larger. These long-term, in-depth studies followed people for decades, whether or not they remained in treatment, and found that 46 percent to 68 percent showed significant improvement or had recovered. Earlier research had been short-term and had looked only at patients in treatment.

Although there are many pathways to recovery, several factors stand out. They include a home, a job, friends and integration in the community. They also include hope, relearned optimism and self-sufficiency. ...

Can all patients make the improvement of a John Nash? No. Schizophrenia is not one disease with one cause and one treatment. But we, as a society, should recognize a moral imperative to listen to what science has told us since 1955 and what patients told us long before. Many mentally ill people have the capacity to lead productive lives in full citizenship. We should have the courage to provide that opportunity for them.

Source: Beautiful Minds Can Be Recovered


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

[Sarah116]

I am glad to have you here at PC spiritual_emergency! You are a big help and part!

[Sarah116]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mU-VkrU1Dvw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mU-VkrU1Dvw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[spiritual_emergency]

And I'm glad to be here Sarah. My own experience of schizophrenia/psychosis has been different from that of many others and because of this difference, I "speak" with a different voice.

Sometimes, this frightens people and to be perfectly honest, I've been tossed out the door of many a "mental health forum" for daring to speak of recovery in the manner I do. My time spent with "Doc John" in chat the other day suggests to me that might not happen here... but I don't know. If he, or someone else gets uncomfortable with what I have to say, I'll likely move on in some fashion or another. This is part of the reason I pack so much information into a post -- its because I know that chances are very good that my posts will outlast my actual presence.

Still, I do what I do because I've spoken with a lot of "schizophrenics" over the years and because I intimately understand this experience. I know that this "condition" is a difficult one to live with, and it's especially discouraging if you think whatever you're currently going through is going to be a permanent condition. People need to know and hear that recovery is possible, but people also need to have the space to define and move through their own recovery on their own terms.

Some people draw tremendous reassurance from what could be termed "the medical model". Others find substance from other models or a combination thereof. In my own case, the trauma/stress model has a certain degree of relevancy for me -- my own break was preceded by a series of multiple losses as accompanied by trauma. I've also found the Jungian model of the psyche to be helpful for me as a framework for interpreting my experience. [Ref: How to Produce an Acute Schizophrenic Break] Naturally, individual mileage will vary.

What's most important -- in my opinion -- is that we be able to talk about these various models, treatments and approaches because different people respond best to different models and treatments. The goal is not to get well the way I did, or the way someone else did -- the goal is to get well the way you need to get well. It can be helpful to have a large pool of data to draw from so that you can begin to recognize and identify that which will be most helpful to you.

Discernment and knowledge of your self are very good tools to bring with you. I've yet to meet someone in pain who didn't want to find a way out of that pain. No one knows you better than you do -- doctors, treatments, opinions, models, medications -- these are all tools that can be used to help a person move beyond that space.

.

[okiedokie]

Spiritual, that was a very nice, helpful, thoughtful post. Why not figure out a way that you can actually stay on these boards without getting booted out? Perhaps, if you can relax and share how you presently feel, others may get a real sense for how you've been able to recover from your break?
Stay well,
Okie

[spiritual_emergency]

okiedokie: Spiritual, that was a very nice, helpful, thoughtful post.

Thank you.

Why not figure out a way that you can actually stay on these boards without getting booted out?

Well, I have read the rules. As far as I know, I'm complying with them. It seems to me that the best that could be expected would be that I would continue to operate within the stated community norms, that I would do my best to write helpful, thoughtful posts, and that I would engage in informative discussion with others. Can you think of anything to add to that list?

okiedokie: others may get a real sense for how you've been able to recover from your break?

Everything that I have posted thus far is related to recovery. However, if folks want the condensed version, they can try here: My Personal Definitions of Recovery

hey. i'm glad you are here too. i'd imagine that one thing that it might pay to be careful about would be making sweeping claims about how medication doesn't help (for the reason that it might well help some individuals).

but i do find it refreshing to hear this side of things...

with the sales of xanax (marketed for panic) and then prozac (marketed for depression) the drug companies realised that the number one health problem they could make considerable money off was mental illness.

i suspect that political pressure (lobbying and the like) as well as ecomonic support to political organisations is one force that is behind the current over-optimistic attitude towards medications and the current under-estimations of other 'interventions' like increased social support.

another consideration is the lamentable biological reductionism (which is based on old - read 'bad' or 'outdated' philosophy of science).

i hope that in the future we will intervene more on the social level but i really don't hold out much hope given the political clout of the drug industry.

but that being said... if a few INDIVIDUALS grasp this it can certainly make their world / life better :-)

[spiritual_emergency]

alexandra k: hey. i'm glad you are here too. i'd imagine that one thing that it might pay to be careful about would be making sweeping claims about how medication doesn't help (for the reason that it might well help some individuals).

I don't believe I have made any such claims although feel free to point it out if I do. I have however noted that I didn't have any form of medication and like you, I agree that it's important that others know that can happen.

I have spoken with many others who identify medication as being personally helpful, but I've spoken with others who have not. Because my own experience didn't include medication, and because I researched according to my personal experience, I'm not likely to quote any clinicians who might say, "In the event of psychosis, the very first thing you should do is get yourself a physician who can prescribe you some neuroleptic medication."

Quite honestly, I think it's a shame the way the medication issue divides those who are coping with this experience.

I consider medication to be one of many tools. It's possible, that had I known that what I was experiencing was considered to be an acute schizophrenic break in this culture and had actually gone to the hospital, I might be one of those who had taken or currently take medication too. As it was, I didn't have that name for that experience until a full year later. As I've noted elsewhere, no one takes an aspirin for a headache they had a year ago and I couldn't see the purpose in taking anti-psychotic medication for a state of psychosis that had long since come to its natural conclusion.

The bottom line is, some people identify medication as being extraordinarily helpful to them. I can't see any reason why they should stop taking medication simply because someone else didn't find it helpful. Likewise, some people do not find medication to be helpful -- I see no reason why they should have to take it simply because someone else finds it to be helpful. The most effective treatment is the one that works for that specific individual. If they feel they're making progress with medication... what's to change? If they feel they're not... then some changes may be in order.

That said, these two different paths to recovery require slightly different approaches. Someone who is taking medication should inform themselves fully as to the benefits and risks of that medication. If an individual has not done so, they cannot possibly make an informed consent.

As I understand it, psychiatric drugs should never be stopped abruptly. If you want to wean yourself off them, find someone who can support you through that process. If the doctor you currently have doesn't want to be that person and you're still committed to weaning yourself from medication, find another doctor -- there are plenty of them out there with differing viewpoints.

Meanwhile, an individual who is not taking medication will likely find it to their benefit to explore alternatives to medication. This could include spiritual practices such as meditation or contemplation, nutritional therapies (bodies have to heal too), exploring the meaning behind their experience and educating themselves on altered states of consciousness (so they're less likely to respond from a position of fear should it occur again), researching cultures and settings in which medication is not used, entering into a therapeutic relationship (i.e., "talk therapy") with a therapist, physical exercise (to boost natural endorphins), etc. Naturally, any individual who is taking medication might also benefit from all of the above.

Bear in mind, there are many ways to define recovery but the best definition is probably the one that individual comes up with for themselves. The goal, after all, is not to live your life on someone else's terms -- it's to live your life according to yours. If you can do that without medication, good for you. If you can do that with medication, good for you.

awesome post :-)

i met someone... who used to go to princeton around the time Nash hung around on the steps. drawing on the windows and such.

i'm not sure that he ever made a *full* recovery... but then hard to quantify *full*. after the equation (on which his fame rests) i don't think that he did much / any other work... but after you do the kind of work he did you don't much need to do any other work. mathematicians tend to peak young at any rate (as do scientists - though you get the converse in philosohy which is why people tend to turn to that later in life).

there are a lot of oddballs in academia (don't quote me on that). i think that one thing they have in their favour (typically) is increased social supports. in the sense that society gives them some esteem and their colleagues are about as odd as they are!

in the graduate program i'm in (which is quite a good grad program - not to blow a trumpet but to make the following message better): i am pretty sure it is fair to say that half of the grad students have a history of mental illness. not all of them took medication.

my supervisor forwarded me a paper the other day that i have yet to read... it is on the relationship between schizophrenia and creativity. one line of thought (currently quite a big one) is that schizophrenia is linked to creativity (which society values) and that the odd psychotic episode might just be an inevitable consequence (at a population level) of creativity :-)