It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mental health provisions in AHSA are defiant attempts at social engineering. If you have not studied these recently, I will delineate AHSA[sections] mental health entitlements and limitations of in-patient, out-patient, and other patient care. Then I shall list a dozen major imperfections and dangers of this mental health law, especially its medical utilitarianism emphasizing outcomes and quality of life.
Readers familiar with Hegel and medical utilitarianism in prewar Germany will find the mental health sections of AHSA terrifyingly suggestive of psychiatric Darwinism wherein survival of the fittest requires extinction of the unfit.(11) Those of us studying law and old enough to remember utilitarian controlling ideas and their perversions, know well that judging who shall live and who shall die via AHSA'S criteria of cost, outcome, quality of life, and managed competition will pose great inconveniences upon the liberty of the young and healthy. But medical cost, outcome, quality of life, and managed competition threaten the essential liberties and the lives of older persons, persons who are chronically ill, fatally ill, and most particularly those who are mentally impaired. Their costs of care are astronomical, their outcomes are gloomy, and their life quality to those who observe them, not necessarily in the patients' judgment, is life not worth living.
I believe with Justice Louis Brandeis, that our enemies often are our friends innocently trying to help us.(12) But worse are those who posing as our friends pridefully insist they know our minds and our bodies better than we do, and insist upon controlling what is done and not done to our minds and our bodies. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment of people of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Note well the consistent, inextricable linking of Mental Health to Substance Abuse treatment. Every American is considered a public health client. Jostling for space in the same psychiatric life boat are the alcoholic snoring in a downtown doorway, my wealthy neighbor's child with lithium-managed bipolar disorder, your fiscally competent nephew with minor retardation and severe cerebral palsy, the new mother with postpartum depression, all the city's drug addicts, plus you, and I.
The Unfit, by Elof Carlson, explores the sources of a movement — negative eugenics — that was used to justify the Holocaust, which claimed millions of innocent lives in World War II. The title reflects the nearly three centuries of belief that some people are socially unfit by virtue of a defective biology, and echoes an earlier theory of degeneracy, dating to biblical antiquity, in which some people were deemed unfit because of some transgression against religious law. The key intellectual theories and their proponents form the framework of this exploration, which includes the concepts of evolution and heredity and how they were applied to social problems. These ideas are followed into the twentieth century with the development of theories of positive and negative eugenics, the establishment of compulsory sterilization laws, racism and anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust. Carlson ends with an exploration of the future of genetics that is based on new technologies and application of the Human Genome Project findings.
Reproductive issues from sex and contraception to abortion and cloning have been controversial for centuries, and scientists who attempted to turn the study of reproduction into a discipline faced an uphill struggle. Adele Clark's engrossing story of the search for reproductive knowledge across the twentieth century is colorful and fraught with conflict.
Modern scientific study of reproduction, human and animal, began in the United States in an overlapping triad of fields: biology, medicine, and agriculture.
Clark traces the complicated paths through which physiological approaches to reproduction led to endocrinological approaches, creating along the way new technoscientific products from contraceptives to hormone therapies to new modes of assisited conception- for both humans and animals. She focuses on the changing relations and often uneasy collaborations among scientists and the key social worlds most interested in their work- major philanthropists and a wide array of feminists and medical birth control and eugenics advocates- and recounts vividly how the reproductive sciences slowly acquired standing.
By the 1960s; reproduction was disciplined, and the young and contested scientific enterprise proved remarkably successful at attracting private funding and support. But the controversies continue as women- the targeted consumers- create their own reproductive agendas around the world. Elucidating the deep cultural tensions that have permeated reproductive topics historicaly and in the present. Disciplining Reproduction is at heart about the twentieth century's drive to rationalize reproduction, human and nonhuman, in order to control life itself.
At root, Darwinian Psychiatry represents a encyclopedic, ambitious, and well-argued attempt to convince its readers that the field of psychiatry would benefit from the explicit incorporation of evolutionary theory, and offers nothing short of a complete reconceptualization of mental disorders. Michael McGuire and Alfonso Troisi, are writers of considerable distinction in the psychiatry literature, although this work represents their first joint attempt at a full monograph. Fortunately for a ‘new science,’ their scholarship is unmistakable and their shared knowledge startlingly comprehensive, encompassing writings from the cutting edge of evolutionary biology and genetics, to animal behavior and cognitive science, to the minutiae of psychiatric diagnosis.
In the strong version of evolutionary Darwinism they offer, humans, whom they somewhat petulantly insist on referring to as homo sapiens, have not been selected to be either happy or mentally healthy, but rather to successfully reproduce. This deceptively simple beginning forms the basis for a sweeping new system for organizing mental disorders around ‘biologically basic’ behavioral systems. McGuire and Troisi argue that "most mental conditions [disorders] are conditions of failed mechanisms" (p. 44), and are "best described as clusters of suboptimal and dysfunctional traits" (p. 83). In many cases it seems, mental disorders may represent attempts to adapt. Further chapters are devoted to fleshing out the details of the basic theoretical framework, and attention is given to the specific consideration of psychological mechanisms, functional analysis, emotions, and the place of information-signaling and recognition. Although complex, the framework they present is also a source of great potential, enabling explanation for mental disorders at multiple and complementary explanatory levels.
Eugenics, as a modern concept, was originally developed by Francis Galton. Galton had read his cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name, Eugenics. Throughout its recent history, eugenics remains a controversial concept. As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. At this point in time, eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including: genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies and genocide. Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive and/or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labeled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance.
The methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some of the early 20th century methods were identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the case of Nazi Germany, their mass murder. The practice of euthanasia was carried out on hospital patients in the Aktion T4 at such centres as Hartheim Castle.
Liberal eugenics is an ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of parents acting as consumers, rather than the public health policies of the state.
Eugenicist Frederick Osborn laid the intellectual groundwork for liberal eugenics as early as the 1930s when he was the director of the Carnegie Institution for Science. Osborn argued that the public would never accept eugenics under militarized directives; rather, time must be allowed for "eugenic consciousness" to develop in the population. Accordingly, eugenic consciousness did not have to be aggressively and intentionally micro-manufactured; instead, it would develop as an emergent property as capitalist economy increased in complexity.
Osborn argued that all that was needed was to simply wait until a specific set of social structures (a consumer economy and the nuclear family) developed to a point of dominance within capitalist culture. Once these structures matured, people would act eugenically without a second thought. Eugenic activity, instead of being an immediately identifiable, repugnant activity, would become one of the invisible taken-for-granted activities of everyday life (much like getting a vaccination)
Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
Just for second think about all the people that you know that currently have a "mental" disability.
Originally posted by Knives4eyes
Oh...interesting......but let's try not to be misleading in my opinon.
You left out the rhesus factor in human beings, which is proof by the way.
You left out the reason for even having a human prison/zoo, which might be 1 of 2 things depending on your perspective on the matter, both are similar.
You left out how to implant these superier humans , (again depends on your perspective on the word superior) throughout history, which is an even greater conspiracy than what we're currently talking about.
Now if we're going to delve into eugenics than we might as well mix in some classic NWO-speak, if we bring up global depopulation on the extreme number of 95%. That would imply that rh+ humans will be extinct.
You're getting closer though, you're not going to like what you find next if you keep looking hard enough.