Image via Wikipedia
Here is a YouTube video by “Kerwizzler”. I think it is partly a spoof, but he also makes good points about people who say they have multiple personalities – that driving is Not a good idea or a prudent reality for the rest of us on the roads.
He and I agree that no one claiming to have multiple personalities has any business behind the wheel of a 2,000 ton vehicle. As Kerwizzler says, maybe each personality should have a separate drivers license.
He makes very good points.
Retrieved 9/9/11. New Law
Questioning Dissociative Identity Disorder, Multiple Personalities, and Plurals 
1jessicakes
/ 01/12/2012I agree/disagree on a few points; I have to say I do enjoy the points you make about your blogs, but I also have to agree with Zoe.
I find that there are many holes within this debate; It would be virtually impossible for alters to have seperate drivers licenses, because if, for example, Alter-A was caught driving erratically and got pulled over by a police officer, the Alter could simply switch to another state or simply pretend to be another with a driver’s license – who’s going to know the difference? Certainly not the police officer with a photographic license in hand!
Also I find that those who do exaggurate DID-symptoms, or indeed, exaggurate DID as a whole, could waste police time, and efforts, and overdramatise situations in some circumstances. This would just be an easy feed for the alters and/or people who want the attention.
LikeLike
K
/ 12/24/2011Actually, I kind of agree with this. I guess if the system is moving towards integration and has high levels of coconsciousness, then driving is alright. But if there’s still a chance that a child alter could switch out, driving would just be inviting crashes.
Many of the people I know with DID refuse to, or cannot, drive for this reason.
LikeLike
Jeanette Bartha
/ 12/25/2011It’s alright for coconscious people to drive? A travesty!
LikeLike
K
/ 12/25/2011If this would allow them to no longer switch in the middle of driving, I assume it would be more socially acceptable and safe, yes.
LikeLike
Zoe # 1
/ 10/08/2011According to the US statistics, 25-34 year old drivers have the highest rates of involvement in car crash fatalities; maybe we should ban all in that age bracket from driving. Males are more likely to be the driver in a fatal car accident, so maybe we should ban males from driving.
See – http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
LikeLike
Jeanette Bartha
/ 10/08/2011Zoe, how does that address multiples and driving? Statistics on the general population is not what is being discussed. What are the statistics on multiples and car accidents? Are their insurance premiums higher because they are more likely to be in an accident than a person with no personalities?
LikeLike
Zoe # 1
/ 10/08/2011Jeanette, isn’t it up to you to provide the statistical data before making inflammatory statements about who should be allowed to drive? You talk about needing scientific proof of MPD/DID elsewhere on this blog, and observations within a forum is not scientific proof; neither is observing someone possibly manipulating another to get a cigarette.
I provided statistical proof that portions of the population are more likely to be the driver in a fatal accident, yet these populations are not banned from driving. The reason they are not banned is because you can’t make blanket assumptions about any population.
LikeLike
Jeanette Bartha
/ 10/09/2011No it is not up to me to provide statistical proof of anything. You brought up statistics as “proof” in your argument. I was simply making an opinion. No matter how much someone may disagree, opinions are not by nature, inflammatory.
You may have a point and society should ban the population of young male-drivers as you mentioned. This discussion, however, is about individuals claiming to have a mental illness that causes them to behave like children. The population you used (young males) to make your argument are not also identified as having severe mental and/or medical issues that may interfere with their ability to operate heavy machinery.
Insurance companies, I believe, are unaware that they are insuring individuals who claim to have a mental illness that causes them to become childlike without necessarily having warning or control over it. It is repeatedly said that there is no drug to control it. When insurance companies have this knowledge, there will likely be changes – like when health insurance companies got wind of multiple personality therapy and stopped funding “treatment”.
Your argument becomes weaker when bringing up other posts that I have written about science and multiple personalities. What place does that have in a discussion about the rights and responsibilities of mutliples to drive? What place does an anecdote I offered about observations I made regarding a child personality smoking have to do with multiples driving? Nothing. It is only an attempt to divert the conversation and to discredit me. Readers are smarter than that.
LikeLike
Zoe #1
/ 10/09/2011So you weren’t trying to stir debate by stating a provocative opinion which you can provide no proof as to it’s validity?
I’m quite sure that the insurance companies can look after themselves. They are in the profit game, so quite willing to exclude coverage, and hike fees, where possible. If they thought they could make more profit from anyone with a mental illness, they would be doing so.
LikeLike
Jeanette Bartha
/ 10/10/2011Debates are opinions -why does that seem to be a pejorative word for you? Again, I didn’t offer proof of anything nor suggest it was necessary. I was simply a discussion. I’ll keep reminding you of this as often as I need to.
Agreed, insurance companies are in the profit game. Let’s not, however, confuse mental illness with multiple personalities and dissociative identity disorder. That is a slam to anyone who has a mental illness that has science behind it and established treatment guidelines to control it. All of which MPD/DID is lacking.
As I stated, insurance companies unlikely know that they are covering individuals who think they change into children at whim. What company would knowingly cover such individuals? Multiple personalities don’t exist – even the psychiatric community can’t agree one way or another. To call it a mental illness is an uninformed and ignorant stance. Insurance companies don’t cover illnesses that have no basis in logic or science. If they did, they’d offer coverage to individuals who claim to be flying in extraterrestrial vehicles in case they slammed into each other and health insurance companies would need to start covering people who claim to have endured physically invasive procedures when abducted. This is where an illogical argument leads us.
Again, I offered the example of health insurance companies ceasing coverage for multiple personalities as a real life example of how they acted once they figured out it was controversial, unscientifically based, and bogus claims are being made.
In my case, thankfully they kept asking questions of my treating physician and finally stopped funding his absurd treatment and I was kicked out of the hospital after 2 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later. Otherwise, I’d likely still be there. Getting away was a reality check.
LikeLike
V
/ 10/07/2011I haven’t watched the video but I think you are very perceptive about how people can want to have it both ways. Your last post with the person wanting to both be a child and smoke a cigarette comes to mind.
I think this is one of the traps of the therapy? Things can seem like a brave new world, but the old rules still apply, the consequences are just delayed.
LikeLike
Jeanette Bartha
/ 10/08/2011I have a better example of being a child personality who wants to smoke as told to me by a psych aide years after I left therapy:
Lets call her Amanda. Amanda claimed to be a child personality and asked this psych aide for a cigarette. The aide replied – I don’t let children smoke. Shortly thereafter, the little child personality snapped back to being Amanda, asked for a cigarette, and was granted her wish. This is classic.
What multiples with tell you is that they has assigned (for lack of another word) one particular personality to drive. If you continue reading in the Internet forum, you will find others who talk about accidents and the troubles they caused when a child personality emerged while behind the wheel.
Yes, this is the only psychiatric diagnosis that offers it’s participants the right to change responsibilies at whim.
LikeLike
V
/ 10/08/2011Epileptics aren’t allowed to drive in most places, unless they can specifically prove their disease is in remission and they are on meds. Epileptics have even been charged with manslaughter when they drive and have seizures that cause fatal accidents!
If you take DID seriously as an illness (heh), you would think that similar considerations would apply. Why are DID patients more special than epileptics?
However, I don’t think there is any real risk of switching alters behind the wheel, as the disease is made up. The bigger risk is that psychiatric meds might make people spacey behind the wheel.
LikeLike
Jeanette Bartha
/ 10/08/2011Good points, V. Thanks.
LikeLike
V
/ 10/08/2011I’m pretty sure there are a lot of illnesses that preclude driving. Blindness comes to mind, and I think deafness may also prevent legal driving in some places, I don’t know. Of course, these are real illnesses, which are dealt with using reason. For real diseases, society tries to balance the comfort of the disabled with public safety.
I think that Google is working on self-guided cars to help the blind (and presumably also epileptics, etc). If they make these work, I totally want one for myself! I am a pretty good driver, I think, but it would be great to just let the car drive while reading a novel or some such. I am looking forward to that.
LikeLike