Read on Twitter
& #39;Experts& #39; discussing early intervention in #psychosis always seem to come back to two options:
1) Anti-psychotics
2) Psychological & #39;interventions& #39;
I find the whole & #39;expert& #39; framing of the issue increasingly narrow and lacking in lived experience perspectives. Thread.
1) Anti-psychotics
2) Psychological & #39;interventions& #39;
I find the whole & #39;expert& #39; framing of the issue increasingly narrow and lacking in lived experience perspectives. Thread.
First the thing about early intervention: I gather the aim is to & #39;get in early& #39; before young people with symptoms become young adults with & #39;psychosis& #39;.
To me that raises many questions. How do you identify these symptoms at such a young age, when they might well be normal anxieties and responses to life? Is it ethical to & #39;intervene& #39;, particularly by giving anti psychotics with terrible side effects?
Then there& #39;s the apparent binary choice between taking anti-psychotics or psychological interventions, whatever those may be (or both, if the & #39;expert& #39; is that way inclined) But what if, perhaps, people want to find their own way through? What then?
11 years ago I was deemed to have 1st episode psychosis. I was forcibly subjected to (1) for a couple of weeks before being referred to (2) for & #39;early intervention& #39;. Like that was going to happen after the trauma of (1).
But hey, guess what & #39;experts& #39;? It& #39;s actually possible to make sense of your own trauma, and the resulting & #39;psychosis& #39; and the effects it has on you, without (1) or (2).
