On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:35:34 GMT
Byte Me <bytemyb at nana.com> wrote:
> Yet on a daily basis such subjective (and often overtly biased)
> interpretations result in innocent people losing their freedom and the
> right to make decisions on their own behalf, and being administered
> unhelpful and potentially damaging 'treatments' even over their clear
>> In some jurisdictions a single doctor's signature can make this happen
> and there is never anything even resembling due process. In others the
> judiciary does become involved in varying capacities but due to the
> overwhelming social bias connected to such situations it's impossible
> to guarantee fairness.
I believe this happens, and i agree with you in criticizing those
> I still maintain that certain areas of 'research' need to be marked
> 'don't go there' for moral reasons because the likelihood of lasting
> harm far outweighs any potential benefit. Personally, I'd go as far as
> to describe this kind of pseudo-medical meddling as being literally
> the rape of the human soul.
So tell us the alternative treatment...
> As thinking beings, we were created with total individual control over
> who accesses our innermost mental processes for a very good reason. In
> its arrogance psychiatry is seeking to override this inviolable
> natural barrier, and then subjectively interpreting what it
> 'discovers' beyond there. And once more, the old adage that 'it's not
> nice to fool Mother Nature' holds true.
I believe more in that other young adage  that said "Nature is a
whore"... Again imho there souldnt be any "inviolable" barriers or
dogmas, the concept of "nature" imho is the astraction of human's
hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of the ones who wants to have what they
consider "the right thing to be" rised at the level of god. What a
 kurt kobain, for whom didnt catch the link :-)
Sono stato al museo dove tengono tutte le teste e braccia delle statue
che si trovano in tutti gli altri musei.
-- Steven Wright