Benevolence Betrayed: How Good People Cause Harm

Psychiatric drugs, sociopathy, and the ethical frontiers of transhumanism

My initial encounter with the mental health system has had a lasting impact on my life. At the age of 22, my first post-undergraduate job took me to a children's psychiatric hospital, where I worked with children between the ages of 5 and 10.

These children, many of whom were victims of abuse and neglect, were placed on a cocktail of mind & mood-altering drugs to manage their behavior. Despite clear signs of acute stress, they were assigned pseudoscientific labels such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder, ADHD, and Bipolar Disorder, and subsequently treated with the latest psychiatric medications.

It became clear to me that the main goal was to numb and sedate the children, with the intention of reducing behavioral issues and making them more manageable. Lethargy, excessive sleep, and emotional numbness were considered secondary; the absence of aggression was viewed as a successful treatment outcome.

Unfortunately, the path to sedation often led to worsening mood, increased aggression, ticks, akathisia, and other disturbing side effects. Shockingly, many of these adverse drug reactions were misinterpreted as symptoms of their supposed "mental illness."

The prevailing belief was that they needed their "medicine" to balance their brain chemicals. Disregarding their behavior as a result of their living conditions or natural post-trauma responses was overshadowed by the declaration of a mental illness.

Recalling that period in my life, nights were restless for me, haunted by distressing images of young children suffering with horrific side effects from their prescribed "medicine."It weighed heavily on my conscience, knowing that I was part of a system that would inevitably return these same children to environments marked by abuse, often worse off than when they arrived.

What would happen to these kids? What is the implication of labeling them as mentally ill when it was clearly their environment that was the problem?

The duration of their stay in the psychiatric hospital was relatively brief, typically spanning 7-10 days for “stabilization” before being sent back home. For many of these kids, it became a disheartening pattern – a revolving door in and out of the hospital until they were eventually discharged to a residential facility.

What troubled me even more was the emotional detachment exhibited by the staff. I often found myself wondering if others shared my concerns.

Were there others struggling with sleepless nights as I did?

How could a psychiatrist rationalize such treatment as humane?

I questioned the bystanders—the nurses, social workers, and counselors on staff—did anyone else share my reservations and question the ethics of this approach?

What about the human condition can allow seemingly good people to accept this as safe and ethical care?

What I uncovered was a diffusion of responsibility among the staff—an acceptance that they had no authority and the doctor must possess greater knowledge. There was an uncanny ability to deny reality. Many staff members seemed to assume that there must be a valid medical reason necessitating these drugs for the children.

Some held onto the belief that a complex medical treatment was at play, where the doctor, armed with advanced knowledge of biochemistry, was meticulously fine-tuning the dosage of a medication to enhance a child's life. I recall saying “like a mad chemist?”

The concept of mental illness as a brain disorder was widely accepted.

I began to question the evidence supporting these practices. It struck me that many staff members knew little beyond what they were told, yet they were entirely comfortable accepting it as unquestionable truth.

There appeared to be little motivation to challenge the authority or a seeming lack of concern about the veracity of the information. This lack of critical inquiry and complacency deeply troubled me and became an enduring source of concern.

After moving on from the hospital and continuing my education with the ultimate aim of becoming a clinical psychologist, I realized that the psychiatric treatment I had observed with children in the hospital was unfortunately the norm in most community settings.

Children, teens, and adults alike were often assigned pseudoscientific labels and placed on multiple drugs, with little evidence of substantial help. This was mental health care. The predominant approach seemed to revolve around offering various methods of numbing or sedation.

The typical “treatment” involved assigning a diagnose, adjustments to dosages, the addition of new drugs, or discontinuation of existing ones, all within the framework of managing, rather than believing in, any form of recovery. The prevailing attitude was that, being deemed mentally ill, genuine recovery was not a realistic expectation—only ongoing management. Working in some of these settings proved to be a soul-crushing experience.

Many readers may be all too familiar with mental health treatment in the United States, but the focus here isn't on the system itself. Instead, the question at the heart of this article is about human nature:

How can seemingly rational and compassionate professionals reconcile endorsing such a treatment as ethically sound?

What does this reveal about human nature?

This has been a persistent question for me over decades. How can fellow human beings become so disconnected from the suffering of others? How can intelligent doctors endorse the notion of a "chemical imbalance," witness the decline of their patients, and continue justifying the treatment?

Why do bystanders choose not to act?

Indeed, let's confront the reality: the entire psychiatric drug movement can be characterized as a form of mass experimentation on the human brain. The profound implications and consequences of this approach warrant serious reflection and examination.

Not on the experiment itself… but the what it demonstrates about humanity.

What is Sociopathy?

A sociopath, clinically referred to as someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), is an individual characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others, coupled with a lack of empathy and remorse.

Sociopathy is marked by deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, and a consistent failure to conform to societal norms. These people can exhibit a charming and manipulative demeanor, enabling them to navigate social situations adeptly while lacking genuine emotional connections. They may engage in deceitful or criminal behavior without experiencing guilt or remorse, displaying a persistent pattern of exploiting others for personal gain.

The term sociopath is used interchangeably with psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder.

What distinguishes a sociopath from the general population is the striking inability to experience fundamental human emotions, most notably empathy, guilt, and remorse. There exists a profound detachment from the typical spectrum of human feelings, and, notably, some sociopaths may derive pleasure from the suffering or exertion of control over others.

This absence of moral and emotional anchors can lead to a disturbing capacity for manipulation and exploitation, as sociopaths navigate social interactions with a calculated and often self-serving perspective, void of the emotional connections that guide typical human behavior.

An early Radically Genuine Podcast episode explored this topic: Episode 25 titled “The Sociopath Next Door”: Listen here

The central theme of the episode was to educate the listener on the prevalence of sociopathy in society and its implications, revealing how 4% of the general population meets the criteria for this condition. This translates to approximately 1 out of every 25 people, a far more common occurrence than many realize.

Importantly, not every sociopath fits the stereotype of a mass murderer or repeat offender. Instead, sociopaths can be found in various roles of power and authority within our society. Some may choose careers in politics, medicine, or leadership positions in Fortune 500 companies, while others could be working at your local grocery store. The recognition of this broader spectrum highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of sociopathy and its potential impact across diverse facets of daily life.

I am not suggesting that every every medical professional involved in psychiatric practices is a sociopath, but rather recognizing that a percentage of individuals in all fields exhibit sociopathic traits, while others may display characteristics such as deference to authority, adherence to established rules, and a fear of acting outside the norms defined by their profession.

When individuals in positions of power, wielding both financial and political influence, have the ability to shape the narrative, it becomes clear how detrimental medical practices could persist and thrive.

This realization has shaped my understanding of the perpetuation of harmful practices. I've dispelled the illusion that all human beings invariably act in each other's best interests. History has consistently demonstrated that people often prioritize their own self interest when confronted with moral dilemmas. Embracing this recognition has been instrumental in fostering a more realistic perspective on human behavior and motivations, especially within the context of challenging ethical considerations.

In fact, we are compelled to confront the reality that a contemporary movement exists, expressing a strong aversion for human beings and propagating the belief that the majority of us are mere parasites to them, consuming resources without providing any inherent value.

Transhumanism

Transhumanism is the position that human beings should be permitted to use technology to modify and enhance human cognition and bodily function, expanding abilities and capacities beyond current biological constraints.Ultimately, by merging man and machine, science will produce humans who have vastly increased intelligence, strength, and lifespans; a near embodiment of gods.

Transhumanist perspectives include the notion that human life is expendable in the pursuit of scientific advancements and innovation. This philosophical stance raises ethical considerations about the balance between technological progress and the preservation of human dignity, prompting a broader societal conversation about the potential consequences and moral implications of prioritizing scientific pursuits over the inherent value of human life.

The conflict between spiritual or religious beliefs and transhumanist ideologies encapsulates a profound clash of worldviews. On one side, individuals rooted in spirituality or religious traditions prioritize the sanctity of life, viewing it as divinely ordained and deserving of respect and preservation.

In contrast, transhumanists advocate for the enhancement and transcendence of human limitations through technological means, sometimes challenging traditional notions of mortality and the human experience. This dichotomy raises complex questions about the ethical boundaries of scientific intervention, the nature of existence, and the role of spirituality in shaping our understanding of humanity.

When Virtue Becomes a Blindspot

I genuinely believe that most individuals who support psychiatric medications perceive it as an inherently virtuous and compassionate act. The primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, and countless frontline psychiatrists prescribing medications daily are not inherently malevolent. Similarly, the parents who trust medical advice and diligently administer prescribed pills to alleviate their children's suffering do so with the best intentions.

This belief is grounded in the recognition that, when someone is facing considerable distress, seeking solutions to ease their pain is inherently humane. Take persistent anxiety as an example, a condition that can be profoundly debilitating. Attempting to decrease anxiety to improve quality of life, on the surface, is reasonable.

Yet, beneath the surface lies a trust that these drugs, influencing the brain in ways that nobody could fully comprehend, will yield only positive outcomes. It's a belief that suggests essential aspects of human nature and our inherent design are flawed. It suggests that a medical doctor can modify this experience by utilizing synthetic chemical compounds produced in a factory, with the expectation that this pharmaceutical will enhance the human experience.

These convictions are deeply ingrained in our culture, to the extent that people often reject contrary evidence when confronted with it. The reality, however, is that these chemical compounds seldom, if ever, result in a positive transformation of the human experience.

In some cases, these compounds lead to worsening conditions, while others find themselves in a state of numbness and sedation. Despite facing debilitating side effects, individuals endure them, driven by the idea that they are fundamentally flawed—a supposed design error necessitating the intervention of these chemical compounds.

In the face of persistent suffering and worsening conditions brought on by the use of psychiatric drugs, I've observed mental health professionals attributing the decline to a "mental illness" rather than recognizing the consequences of the ongoing experiment on the patient's brain.

This constitutes a form of brainwashing, a mass conditioning that persists for various complex reasons. Sociopaths, driven by a lack of empathy and fueled by a desire for profit and control, vehemently strive to maintain their position of authority and exploit the vulnerable for financial gain. Concurrently, the underlying transhumanism movement persistently conducts perverse experiments on human beings in an attempt to advance the human condition. Throughout history, there are also the bystanders who, for various reasons, allow these unethical practices to persist.

Lessons in Conformity

It runs deep. Our education system, spanning from grade school to medical school, often places a heavy emphasis on rote learning at the expense of fostering critical analysis and ethical considerations. The prevailing culture of standardized testing and rigid curricula tends to prioritize memorization of facts and figures rather than nurturing a deeper understanding of concepts and encouraging thoughtful inquiry.

Unfortunately, the result is a learning environment produces students who excel at regurgitating information but may lack the skills for independent thinking or ethical decision-making. Particularly in fields like medicine, where ethical considerations are paramount, the absence of dedicated education on ethics can have profound consequences.

In the realm of healthcare within a free society, an unquestioning deference to authority can prove particularly perilous. When individuals blindly trust medical professionals or institutional directives without engaging in critical scrutiny, it opens the door to harmful medical practices and compromises patient well-being.

The ethos of a free society demands an active and informed citizenry, especially in matters as personal and crucial as healthcare. Excessive deference in the medical realm can result in a lack of accountability and transparency, permitting harmful practices to persist. To safeguard the principles of individual health and autonomy, it is imperative for individuals to question medical authority, advocate for informed decision-making, and actively participate in shaping the ethical standards of healthcare delivery.

Indeed, it is a slippery slope. Without fostering critical analysis and ethical decision-making, we run the risk of relinquishing our medical freedom and blindly surrendering to medical authority.

Forced medical interventions without consent represent a blatant violation of free will and personal freedom, striking at the very core of individual autonomy. In a society that values personal agency and the right to make decisions about one's own body, coercive medical practices undermine the fundamental principles of freedom. Such interventions strip individuals of their right to give informed consent, turning medical care into a tool of control rather than a service that respects individual choices.

The imposition of medical procedures without consent not only disregards the principle of bodily autonomy but also erodes the trust between individuals and the healthcare system. In a free society, respecting the sovereignty of personal decisions in matters of healthcare is paramount, and any breach of this principle threatens the foundation of individual freedom and self-determination.

If we relinquish the right to make informed medical decisions, we risk placing authority in the hands of individuals who may not prioritize our well-being. Sociopaths, lacking empathy and driven by personal gain, could exploit such a vacuum of autonomy for their own agendas.

Furthermore, a transhumanistic agenda, seeking to merge human biology with technology, might capitalize on the absence of individual decision-making, potentially leading to the imposition of radical medical interventions without regard for personal values or consent. Safeguarding the right to make our own medical choices becomes a crucial defense against potential abuses of power, ensuring that decisions about our health remain aligned with our individual beliefs and values rather than dictated by those who may not have our best interests at heart.

No More Bystanders!