Anti-Psychiatry

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Drrrrrr. Celty

Osteo Dullahan
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
16,447
Reaction score
8,625
So how many of you have heard of the anti-psychiatry movement? The movement, which believes psychiatry is not a real medical science, but rather a dangerous pseudospecialty, which inflicts more damage than it does good? What is your opinion of psychiatry and your opinion of the righteousness or misguideness of the anti-psychiatry movement?

I'm also curious about a scoping a few of your reactions to articles written by a few of the anti-psychiatry people like this one:
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm
or the many others on their main site
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/index.htm

It kinda turns me off from even considering the field of psychiatry, just knowing that there is this extremely huge amount of malice and distrust towards them.

Discuss.

Members don't see this ad.
 
As someone who was a psychology major, works with the mentalyl ill for a living and is considering psychiatry, I would not be aboard the anti-psychiatry movement. Mental illnesses are serious illnesses and shouldn't be left up to general practitioners and/or psychologist to prescribe medicine to the mentally ill.
 
Last edited:
Psychiatry, as a field, is currently experiencing a time of conflict. Many psychiatrists are moving away from psychotherapy and towards fifteen medication checks; others are saying that this is wrong and that psychiatry needs to continue providing both (I agree with the latter camp). It is also an unsure science in that nobody really knows why people become mentally ill and, though there are clearly-defined disorders and a growing body of research, the DSM (the book used to diagnose mental illness) is essentially created by a group of psychiatrists voting.

Does that make it harmful, useless or a psuedospecailty? No, not in the least. People really do become mentally ill and it can cause havoc on their daily lives. If done well, psychiatry has the ability to relieve that suffering and restore functioning to people many had ostracized and given up on (if done poorly, it can destroy lives). It does save lives. It's a great field, in my opinion, and no amount of antipsychiatry will change my opinion on that.

Of course, I'm biased.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
People love coming together in tribalistic outrage and the medical field is by no means exempted. For instance, a similar anti-vaccine movement has been around for quite a while and is very rabid and irrational. The best defense is to educate the public and sway those who are still open to science.
 
Psychiatry is a real medical field today, but unfortunately, the tainting of Freud and other psychoanalysts have left the field with huge stigma. Added to this is the fact that psychiatry gets mixed up a lot with psychologists, who have many more quacks and weak research methods.
 
There is also a increase in neuropsychiatrists which I don't think many people are questioning the validity of.
 
Psychiatry is a real medical field today, but unfortunately, the tainting of Freud and other psychoanalysts have left the field with huge stigma. Added to this is the fact that psychiatry gets mixed up a lot with psychologists, who have many more quacks and weak research methods.

I disagree, I think it's more pharmacological control and the history of ECT than Freud.
 
There is also a increase in neuropsychiatrists which I don't think many people are questioning the validity of.

If the thing has the prefix neuro or rocket, you feel reassured that it means they are smart.
 
I disagree, I think it's more pharmacological control and the history of ECT than Freud.

I agree with this.

Most people I talk to have a negative view of psychiatrists because they perceive them to be pill-pushers and out to take away patients' rights.
 
I agree with this.

Most people I talk to have a negative view of psychiatrists because they perceive them to be pill-pushers and out to take away patients' rights.

Yup, no one complains about when their Family doctor gives them 20 pills for their myriad of disorders, but they do when their psychiatrist does. I mean sure there are alternatives to pharmacological treatment, nutrients and lifestyle changes, but no one actually does them as they require effort.
 
Not sure I get their point. Is it that they believe the conditions are not real (as in the schizophrenia article), or that the field is fundamentally flawed? Seeing empirical data relating multiple mental disorders with inheritance, any person of sound logic should accept that the disorders are real. With schizophrenia for instance, identical twins present a risk of 40-65% for developing the disorder if their twin has it. There are a multitude of other examples as well...

Edit: I also scoffed when I saw the writer is a lawyer, not a medical doctor.
 
Not sure I get their point. Is it that they believe the conditions are not real (as in the schizophrenia article), or that the field is fundamentally flawed? Seeing empirical data relating multiple mental disorders with inheritance, any person of sound logic should accept that the disorders are real. With schizophrenia for instance, identical twins present a risk of 40-65% for developing the disorder if their twin has it. There are a multitude of other examples as well...

Edit: I also scoffed when I saw the writer is a lawyer, not a medical doctor.

There is also a crap ton of imaging and sereological tests, which have been used to document evidence for the existence of schizophrenia. I mean sure... all of those schizophrenics have enlarged ventricles just because they wanted them...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Most people (aside from the author of the vague sociological screed on schizophrenia... I mean you could say "doctors claim that 'pus' is a sign of 'infection' and 'pain' represents 'tissue damage' but... uh... spooky scare quotes!") respect the treatment of psychotic patients.

What people object to is the pharmaceutical treatment of people who are depressed or anxiety for reasons that are primarily social. And obviously stress can manifest itself in numerous biological ways, but let's be real, $100,000 would cure the average American's depression more readily than a fistful of Zoloft.

Yes, basically I'm saying that in a perfect world everyone would be happy, which ain't exactly news. And it's better to take SSRIs than to smoke cigarettes. But it still seems like a crutch, a band-aid, and not everyone will see it as being on the same level as, say, treating infectious disease.
 
Most people (aside from the author of the vague sociological screed on schizophrenia... I mean you could say "doctors claim that 'pus' is a sign of 'infection' and 'pain' represents 'tissue damage' but... uh... spooky scare quotes!") respect the treatment of psychotic patients.

What people object to is the pharmaceutical treatment of people who are depressed or anxiety for reasons that are primarily social. And obviously stress can manifest itself in numerous biological ways, but let's be real, $100,000 would cure the average American's depression more readily than a fistful of Zoloft.

Yes, basically I'm saying that in a perfect world everyone would be happy, which ain't exactly news. And it's better to take SSRIs than to smoke cigarettes. But it still seems like a crutch, a band-aid, and not everyone will see it as being on the same level as, say, treating infectious disease.

I'm sure retail therapy has it's limits :laugh:. But I agree, however like I mentioned above, this is a model used by every Family doctor for the myriad of non-psychiatric disorders people have. It's simply because drugs are an easy answer to people with no time, no effort, and no desire to actively do something to prevent or help deserve their treatable disorders.
 
Psychiatry would actually be what I would hope to match into...I've been aware of the social stigma against it since I first began looking into it, but it's never deterred my interest.
 
I'm sure retail therapy has it's limits :laugh:. But I agree, however like I mentioned above, this is a model used by every Family doctor for the myriad of non-psychiatric disorders people have. It's simply because drugs are an easy answer to people with no time, no effort, and no desire to actively do something to prevent or help deserve their treatable disorders.

Ha, true. Lipitor is like Lexapro for the body, innit. When you put it that way... yeah the anti-psych movement is a little silly.
 
Psychiatry would actually be what I would hope to match into...I've been aware of the social stigma against it since I first began looking into it, but it's never deterred my interest.
Exactly 👍. What you're going to see in this thread is mostly acceptances of psychiatry as a legitimate field in medicine, however, there is the occasional goose in a field of ducks. 🙄
 
I disagree, I think it's more pharmacological control and the history of ECT than Freud.
I have to say I have heard both. There are those who oppose most medicating of patients in favor of psychotherapy, and those who oppose psychotherapy in favor of medication. I am sure both have their place, but like many areas of medicine, psychological disorders are poorly understood, and even more poorly treated, by medical science. That is a huge reason the field as a whole is looked down upon. What a lot of people don't realize is that much of medicine is not far ahead of psych in this regard. If you really think about it, cutting out entire organs and cutting off limbs or other significant parts of your body to treat cancer could be seriously compared to performing a lobotomy (I don't believe they are equal in utility, just throwing out the statement to demonstrate how far medicine still has to go in refining treatments.)

The bottom line is psych is a real, valuable field of medicine, with a huge body of knowledge still waiting to be discovered, and treatments will only improve as understanding of the causes of psychiatric disorders continues to improve. Psych will probably always have a stigma, both for historical reasons like Freud and for modern problems like over-reliance in drugs. However, its limited ability to correct problems, or even fully understand why they occur, makes it not so different from any other medical specialty.
 
A lot of the anti-psychiatry sentiment stems from the social stigma against mental illnesses. People suffering from psychological disorders are often labeled "weak" or "neurotic." It's common in the medical field, too. If you don't believe me, try mentioning you ADD or OCD in you personal statements.
 
A lot of the anti-psychiatry sentiment stems from the social stigma against mental illnesses. People suffering from psychological disorders are often labeled "weak" or "neurotic." It's common in the medical field, too. If you don't believe me, try mentioning you ADD or OCD in you personal statements.

Which is odd, given the fact that we know what the etiologies of those dieasese are and we know they have nothing to do with weakness of inheritely intrinsic qualities. But I guess it's true, stigma is a problem for the field and for the recovery of the patients.
 
I think the "anti-psychiatry" movement is entirely based on the idea that many psychiatrists over-prescribe medication and that many people, including children, rely heavily on prescription drugs to maintain a "normal" lifestyle. Its similar to how many people feel that ADHD is now over-diagnosed in kids. A lot of mainstream news coverage has been devoted to this issue, including a recent 20/20 story that profiled children in foster care who were given a cocktail of prescription drugs to keep them "calm."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctors-put-foster-children-risk-mind-altering-drugs/story?id=15064560
 
Psychiatry, as a field, is currently experiencing a time of conflict. Many psychiatrists are moving away from psychotherapy and towards fifteen medication checks; others are saying that this is wrong and that psychiatry needs to continue providing both (I agree with the latter camp). It is also an unsure science in that nobody really knows why people become mentally ill and, though there are clearly-defined disorders and a growing body of research, the DSM (the book used to diagnose mental illness) is essentially created by a group of psychiatrists voting.

Does that make it harmful, useless or a psuedospecailty? No, not in the least. People really do become mentally ill and it can cause havoc on their daily lives. If done well, psychiatry has the ability to relieve that suffering and restore functioning to people many had ostracized and given up on (if done poorly, it can destroy lives). It does save lives. It's a great field, in my opinion, and no amount of antipsychiatry will change my opinion on that.

Of course, I'm biased.

Agreed - there ARE problems with psych, partly (actually largely) due to lack of understanding of mental illness and the brain; and frankly overmedication IS a huge problem, often not addressing the root causes. But that doesn't make psych as a whole a pseudospecialty
 
Agreed - there ARE problems with psych, partly (actually largely) due to lack of understanding of mental illness and the brain; and frankly overmedication IS a huge problem, often not addressing the root causes. But that doesn't make psych as a whole a pseudospecialty

Unfortunately that root cause usually is something that is unchangeable or impossibly difficult to alter, such as with the above example of foster home kids. A good family structure, proper stimulation, and attention would result likely in eventual stabilization. But again, overall the same problem exists with many other fields as well.
 
The root cause, as already mentioned, is largely social. In other words, life is difficult and the world we live in sucks, for the most part.
 
So how many of you have heard of the anti-psychiatry movement? The movement, which believes psychiatry is not a real medical science, but rather a dangerous pseudospecialty, which inflicts more damage than it does good? What is your opinion of psychiatry and your opinion of the righteousness or misguideness of the anti-psychiatry movement?

I'm also curious about a scoping a few of your reactions to articles written by a few of the anti-psychiatry people like this one:
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm
or the many others on their main site
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/index.htm

It kinda turns me off from even considering the field of psychiatry, just knowing that there is this extremely huge amount of malice and distrust towards them.

Discuss.

Diagnosis for mental illness by psychiatrists still involves a great deal of subjectivity, and this is exacerbated by poor HPIs from patients or parents; however, new research at UCSF and other institutions are collecting oodles and oodles of MRIs of children diagnosed with certain mental illnesses to create a database and recognize patterns in brain activity (hyper or hypoactive regions, etc.). This way, psychiatry can be more objective in how it diagnoses mental disease. Psychiatry will only grow as a field as is a legitimate medical field.
 
For the doubters - spend just 1 week working/volunteering in an inpatient psychiatric facility.

No, please do not do that. There are enough apathetic, uneducated/untrained, incompetent staff and volunteers in these facilities.
 
I am completing my premed requirements for the hope of becoming a psychiatrist. Those who hold anti-psych beliefs will likely avoid the field, patient or physician... so why get too worked up over it?
 
I am completing my premed requirements for the hope of becoming a psychiatrist. Those who hold anti-psych beliefs will likely avoid the field, patient or physician... so why get too worked up over it?

I agree about not getting worked up about it; however, I would not say they avoid those involved with psychiatry. Some are incredibly vocal in their beliefs and feel the need to spread it patients (and, I am assuming, psychiatrists).
 
Last edited:
I think the anti-psychiatry movement arises out of the misuse for political purposes, and coerced treatment found only in Psychiatry. Nobody is attacking Psychiatrists for helping a person who comes in for help on their own for depression, etc...

Many people with past drug and/or alcohol problems are forced into highly expensive treatment against their will to show 'sufficient' recovery, for example if they had a past DUI. Disorders such as Psychopathy, bipolar, personality disorder, and ADD are often used for political purposes. Often times when an 'evaluation' is required by a third party for a court case or for professional licensure issues the outcome of an evaluation is almost always predetermined. Of course nobody talks about this, which is an absolutely incredible phenomenon altogether.


'Teen screens' have resulted in putting normal children on dangerous medication with disastrous consequences. Though I think this practice is stopping due to recent outrages from parents and lawsuits. Amphetamine is a highly dangerous substance and the test for ADD is as arbitrary as a game of Fruit Ninja. Anyone ever download the test for ADD for their iPad? It's a complete joke, not diagnosis.

*Disclaimer: I do acknowledge that Psychiatrists really do help people. But only when the help is voluntary. The examples I describe above are simply facts describing why such an anti-psychiatry movement exists. It is the misuse that has created the movement, not the proper use.
 
Last edited:
I think the anti-psychiatry movement arises out of the misuse for political purposes, and coerced treatment found only in Psychiatry. Nobody is attacking Psychiatrists for helping a person who comes in for help on their own for depression, etc...
Examples please.

Many people with past drug and/or alcohol problems are forced into highly expensive treatment against their will to show 'sufficient' recovery, for example if they had a past DUI.
So we shouldn't force people with drug problems to seek help?

Disorders such as Psychopathy, bipolar, personality disorder, and ADD are often used for political purposes. Often times when an 'evaluation' is required by a third party for a court case or for professional licensure issues the outcome of an evaluation is almost always predetermined. Of course nobody talks about this, which is an absolutely incredible phenomenon altogether.
So we shouldn't have a forensic psychiatrist determine who is mentally fit to be a witness or what not?

'Teen screens' have resulted in putting normal children on dangerous medication with disastrous consequences. Though I think this practice is stopping due to recent outrages from parents and lawsuits. Amphetamine is a highly dangerous substance and the test for ADD is as arbitrary as a game of Fruit Ninja. Anyone ever download the test for ADD for their iPad? It's a complete joke, not diagnosis.
A test does not warrant a diagnosis, it just has a relatively strong correlation with future diagnosis, fundamentally it's all up to the DSM. Also nitroglycerin is an explosive, but we give it to cardiac patients, because it helps stabilize people.

*Disclaimer: I do acknowledge that Psychiatrists really do help people. But only when the help is voluntary. The examples I describe above are simply facts describing why such an anti-psychiatry movement exists. It is the misuse that has created the movement, not the proper use.

Ok.
 


The number of children being drugged has escalated several-fold in the last few years.
Ritalin and amphetamine have almost identical adverse effects on the brain, mind and behavior, including the production of drug-induced behavioral disorders, psychosis, mania, drug abuse, and addiction.

Ritalin and amphetamine frequently cause the very same problems they are supposed to treat--inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.

A large percentage of children become robotic, lethargic, depressed, or withdrawn on stimulants.

Ritalin can cause permanent neurological tics including Tourette's syndrome.

Ritalin can ****** growth in children by disrupting the cycles of growth hormone released by the pituitary gland.

The recent finding that Ritalin can cause cancer in some animals was not taken seriously enough by the drug company or the FDA.

Ritalin routinely causes gross malfunctions in the brain of the child. There is research evidence from a few controlled scientific studies that Ritalin can cause shrinkage (atrophy) or other permanent physical abnormalities in the brain.

Withdrawal from Ritalin can cause emotional suffering, including depression, exhaustion, and suicide. This can make children seem psychiatrically disturbed and lead mistakenly to increased doses of medication.

Ritalin is addictive and can become a gateway drug to other addictions. It is a common drug of abuse among children and adults.

ADHD and Ritalin are American and Canadian medical fads. The U.S. uses 90% of the world's Ritalin. CibaGeneva Pharmaceuticals (also known as Ciba-Geigy Corporation), a division of Novartis, is the manufacturer of Ritalin. It is trying to expand the Ritalin market to Europe and the rest of the world.

Ritalin "works" by producing malfunctions in the brain rather than by improving brain function. This is the only way it works.

Short-term, Ritalin suppresses creative, spontaneous and autonomous activity in children, making them more docile and obedient, and more willing to comply with rote, boring tasks, such as classroom school work and homework.

Short-term, Ritalin has no positive effect on a child's psychology or on academic performance and achievement. This is confirmed by innumerable studies and by many professional reviews of the literature.

Longer-term, beyond several weeks, Ritalin has no positive effects on any aspect of a child's life.

Labeling children with ADHD and treating them with Ritalin can keep them out of the armed services, limit their future career choices, and stigmatize them for life. It can ruin their own self image, subtly demoralize them, and discourage them from reaching their full potential.

There is no solid evidence that ADHD is a genuine disorder or disease of any kind.

There is a great deal of research to confirm that environmental problems cause ADHD-like symptoms.

A very small number of children may suffer ADHD-like symptoms because of physical disorders, such as lead poisoning, drug intoxication, exhaustion, and head injury. Physical causes may be more common among poor communities in the United States.

There is no proof of any physical abnormalities in the brains or bodies of children who are routinely labeled ADHD. They do not have known biochemical imbalances or "crossed wires."

ADHD is a controversial diagnosis with little or no scientific or medical basis. A parent, teacher, or doctor can feel in good company when utterly dismissing the diagnosis and refusing to apply it to children.

Ciba spends millions of dollars to sell parent groups and doctors on the idea of using Ritalin.

Ciba helps to support the parent group, CH.A.D.D., and organized psychiatry.

The U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) push Ritalin as vigorously as the manufacturer of the drug, often in even more glowing terms than the drug company could get away with legally.
 
"So we shouldn't have a forensic psychiatrist determine who is mentally fit to be a witness or what not?"

You see nothing wrong with stigmatizing a person for life to help someone win a legal dispute?
 
The number of children being drugged has escalated several-fold in the last few years.
Ritalin and amphetamine have almost identical adverse effects on the brain, mind and behavior, including the production of drug-induced behavioral disorders, psychosis, mania, drug abuse, and addiction.

Yes, in part to larger scale diagnosis. Yes, ironically in studies smoking a pack of cigs is correlated with highest amount of stabilization. Either way, aren't you curious that if you're not depressed and you take an SSRI or SNRI you'll have no effects and yet if a depressed person takes it they will? Different wiring = different effect off of drugs.

Ritalin and amphetamine frequently cause the very same problems they are supposed to treat--inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.

See the above, that is not true in true ADD or ADHD patients. Ask any neuropharmacologist or neuroscientist.

A large percentage of children become robotic, lethargic, depressed, or withdrawn on stimulants.
-----
Ritalin can cause permanent neurological tics including Tourette's syndrome.
----
Source.


Ritalin can ****** growth in children by disrupting the cycles of growth hormone released by the pituitary gland.

Source.

The recent finding that Ritalin can cause cancer in some animals was not taken seriously enough by the drug company or the FDA.

Source.

Ritalin routinely causes gross malfunctions in the brain of the child. There is research evidence from a few controlled scientific studies that Ritalin can cause shrinkage (atrophy) or other permanent physical abnormalities in the brain.

Source. Also objectivity.

Withdrawal from Ritalin can cause emotional suffering, including depression, exhaustion, and suicide. This can make children seem psychiatrically disturbed and lead mistakenly to increased doses of medication.

Ok.

Ritalin is addictive and can become a gateway drug to other addictions. It is a common drug of abuse among children and adults.

Ok, this has been disputed but alright.

ADHD and Ritalin are American and Canadian medical fads. The U.S. uses 90% of the world's Ritalin. CibaGeneva Pharmaceuticals (also known as Ciba-Geigy Corporation), a division of Novartis, is the manufacturer of Ritalin. It is trying to expand the Ritalin market to Europe and the rest of the world.

Because ADHD is a cultural disorder. American kids develop the disorder as a direct result of our lifestyles ( TV). You're free to change the culture and prevent this.

Ritalin "works" by producing malfunctions in the brain rather than by improving brain function. This is the only way it works.

This is not true.

Short-term, Ritalin suppresses creative, spontaneous and autonomous activity in children, making them more docile and obedient, and more willing to comply with rote, boring tasks, such as classroom school work and homework.

This is true.

Short-term, Ritalin has no positive effect on a child's psychology or on academic performance and achievement. This is confirmed by innumerable studies and by many professional reviews of the literature.

This is not true.

Longer-term, beyond several weeks, Ritalin has no positive effects on any aspect of a child's life.

Source?

Labeling children with ADHD and treating them with Ritalin can keep them out of the armed services, limit their future career choices, and stigmatize them for life. It can ruin their own self image, subtly demoralize them, and discourage them from reaching their full potential.

I know plenty of ADHD kids in the military.

There is no solid evidence that ADHD is a genuine disorder or disease of any kind.

Except it does exist, it's a neurological disorder.

There is a great deal of research to confirm that environmental problems cause ADHD-like symptoms.

I thought the disorder didn't exist. Continue to contradict yourself.

A very small number of children may suffer ADHD-like symptoms because of physical disorders, such as lead poisoning, drug intoxication, exhaustion, and head injury. Physical causes may be more common among poor communities in the United States.

Yes, which is why you need psychiatrists to preform a solid examination, not get addereal from a PCP where the over prescription may stem from.

There is no proof of any physical abnormalities in the brains or bodies of children who are routinely labeled ADHD. They do not have known biochemical imbalances or "crossed wires."

There are.

ADHD is a controversial diagnosis with little or no scientific or medical basis. A parent, teacher, or doctor can feel in good company when utterly dismissing the diagnosis and refusing to apply it to children.

Yes there is.

Ciba spends millions of dollars to sell parent groups and doctors on the idea of using Ritalin.

ok

Ciba helps to support the parent group, CH.A.D.D., and organized psychiatry.

ok
The U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) push Ritalin as vigorously as the manufacturer of the drug, often in even more glowing terms than the drug company could get away with legally.

This tired me out.

Learn to modern neuroscience, nothing is simple. It's not A-> B -> C.
 
"So we shouldn't have a forensic psychiatrist determine who is mentally fit to be a witness or what not?"

You see nothing wrong with stigmatizing a person for life to help someone win a legal dispute?

The stigma exists because people like you continue to pretend it is a bigger problem then the disorders themselves. But hey, let's have unfit witnesses and charge mentally ill people.
 
The stigma exists because people like you continue to pretend it is a bigger problem then the disorders themselves. But hey, let's have unfit witnesses and charge mentally ill people.

Oh, no you have me all wrong, I don't think a person who is labeled mentally ill should be deprived of opportunities at all, I think they are all capable human beings. So quite the opposite actually.

It's people like you who continue to pretend that a diagnosis of a terminal life long disease coming from an authoritative 'MD' figure has no harmful societal implications (stigma) for your 'patients'. Even though there is no way you could ever scientifically prove your 'patient' has the so called 'disease' you diagnose you think it's o.k. because we 'think' based on low confidence scientific correlations it might be caused by biological factors. It always amazes me how Psychiatrists always come to the defense of their science when addressed with the harm they are causing.

I know completely normal people who are otherwise capable of becoming anything they want, I always wonder, just what exactly is it that Psychiatrists see in that person that I don't see?

If you gave me the DSM and gave me an office in a hospital, I could put on a bow tie and diagnose any person in the world with almost any mental disorder listed in that manual.

Do you know why Ritalin and Adderall has surpassed marijuana use on college campuses? Because it's a step below cocaine. Amphetamine is a highly addictive stimulant, it cannot be given to children. It is nearly identical to crystal meth (methamphetamine).
 
http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/482571

213kg amphetamine seized in a drug bust. You think big dealers are smuggling in Lipitor in mass quantities for abuse?

This is a dangerous drug. You know, one could argue a Psychiatrist is 'delusional' not to 'see' that Ritalin isn't a dangerous street drug. Do you see the political implications of the DSM? Anybody can be stigmatized as long as it suits someones legal position. But of course this kind of misuse never happens.
 
The stigma exists because people like you continue to pretend it is a bigger problem then the disorders themselves. But hey, let's have unfit witnesses and charge mentally ill people.

Look, I'm not attacking your motivations. and I am sure you truly want to help people. The bottom line is this, outside of a person coming in to get help there is serious misuse in the field. You really think, an attorney is going to send a client in for a Psychiatric evaluation without knowing the outcome of the evaluation? Do you really think, people can't be tricked into getting an evaluation where the diagnosis is pre determined to suit the needs of a prosecutor, plaintiff, etc...? Forget the science, focus on the misuse. You are blind.
 
If you gave me the DSM and gave me an office in a hospital, I could put on a bow tie and diagnose any person in the world with almost any mental disorder listed in that manual.
Yep. Because you're totally qualified to use the instruments necessary to diagnose all the disorders listed in the DSM.
 
All I can say is that if you can look at a homeless person shouting at traffic and declare that the DSM is unfairly maligning them, you've got blinders on.
 
All I can say is that if you can look at a homeless person shouting at traffic and declare that the DSM is unfairly maligning them, you've got blinders on.

That's not the kind of people that I am talking about. But that is a good rebuttal, pointing out a situation where there is clearly no misuse, to lessen my assertions.
 
That's not the kind of people that I am talking about. But that is a good rebuttal, pointing out a situation where there is clearly no misuse, to lessen my assertions.

Well it sounds like you're echoing that 'schizophrenia is totally made up' essay. Don't get me wrong, I think ADD is BS, but there are legitimate mental disorders and it does you no good to say that it's all Victorian medical theater, e.g. the bow tie.
 
sigh...

Is their abuse within the field related to meds or diagnosis issues? Yes, unfortunately that is the truth. In the past did some things exist within the mental health field that were a bit...😱...yes, and those have unfortunately left a stain of doubt within the field.

it is a field that can be manipulated by people at times, but more and more biology is coming into play. More means of testing are coming into play so on and so forth. It is not this field of "sit down and tell me your problems" with onthing else attached like so many assume. All of the people within this forum that are putting it down should go speak with a Psychiatrist. Honestly tell them how you feel about it and have a conversation with them. Then sit down and have conversations with mentally ill people that have found help from Psychiatrists. Once you accomplish this...then your opinion will have more weight and insight instead of an overly critical bias that is largely influenced by ancient methods of treatment and the media.

One documentary was put out that slammed the field of mental health. Most people didn't realize it was created by a group of scientology followers that believe it is "Evil" thus the entire documentary was an overly bias filming that had opinions and feelings, but lacked facts related to modern times.

My interest with psychiatry tends to be within the realm of neuropsychiatry/biopsychiatry. I personally do not put much weight into old ideas such as Freudian tidbits.

(forgive me if I have written anything out of place or massive typos, I do not have my glasses on right now hehe)
 
Oh, no you have me all wrong, I don't think a person who is labeled mentally ill should be deprived of opportunities at all, I think they are all capable human beings. So quite the opposite actually.
If you think people who are mentally ill have their life ruined because of the label, and not the illness itself, you need to get out more and actually have some exposure to these individuals. If you think everyone who doesn't think they need help (anyone who doesn't come in voluntarily, as you define the only legitimate use of psychiatric care) is completely capable of living an independent life without treatment, you have no clue what you are talking about. That doesn't mean every person diagnosed and treated is being treated appropriately, but there are certainly plenty who are being treated to the best of the medical profession's abilities, and are better off due to their treatment than they would be without it.

It's people like you who continue to pretend that a diagnosis of a terminal life long disease coming from an authoritative 'MD' figure has no harmful societal implications (stigma) for your 'patients'. Even though there is no way you could ever scientifically prove your 'patient' has the so called 'disease' you diagnose you think it's o.k. because we 'think' based on low confidence scientific correlations it might be caused by biological factors. It always amazes me how Psychiatrists always come to the defense of their science when addressed with the harm they are causing.
First, look up "terminal disease." I think you mean "chronic." Second, someone being untreated for a serious medical condition will certainly lead to their being stigmatized by society. I agree with you that there are bad psychiatrists out there, and far too many PCP's who hand out psychiatric medications when they shouldn't be, but your arguments go way beyond the scope of the problem. Drugs used for treating psychiatric conditions are (as a general rule, not going to argue about how drug X Y or Z came into use) used based on observed changes in behavior of individuals with various psychiatric disorders. Sure, modern medicine really has little to no clue why schizophrenics act the way they do, or why some people have major depressions, but the treatments prescribed tend (as a general rule, again) to mitigate the symptoms. There are side effects, and some drugs work in very few people, and I would even concede some of the drugs perscribed have no better effect than placebo, but how is that different from the rest of the medical field, and how does that disprove biological processes leading to the disorders?

I know completely normal people who are otherwise capable of becoming anything they want, I always wonder, just what exactly is it that Psychiatrists see in that person that I don't see?
Which is why you will, thankfully, have to go through medical school and pass licensing exams before anyone takes your opinion seriously. I could observe a neurological exam and wonder "how did that doctor know the person has a tumor in that exact spot before even getting any brain imaging done?" but that speaks to my ignorance, not any failing of the field.

If you gave me the DSM and gave me an office in a hospital, I could put on a bow tie and diagnose any person in the world with almost any mental disorder listed in that manual.
You could, just as I could open an urgent care if you gave me a DEA number and a medical license, and prescribe antibiotics for every head cold that came in the door. Wouldn't make me right any more than you, and also wouldn't prove the medical field a farce any more than what you describe above proves psychiatry is a farce.

Do you know why Ritalin and Adderall has surpassed marijuana use on college campuses? Because it's a step below cocaine. Amphetamine is a highly addictive stimulant, it cannot be given to children. It is nearly identical to crystal meth (methamphetamine).
There is a little thing called "dosage" which is very important here. If you drink too little water, you will die. If you drink too much water, you will die. If you drink the right amount of water, you will live. Amphetamines are dangerous stimulants, but your "it cannot be given to children" comment does not follow from that fact. Morphine is a dangerous narcotic, and highly addictive, but that doesn't mean a kid with a broken arm should have to sit in pain because "we cannot give it to children." While you are looking up "terminal illness" look up "non sequitur"

The bottom line is psychiatry is a maligned field partly because of abuses of some of its practitioners, both historically and in the present day, but to a much greater extent because ill-informed individuals such as yourself hold such strong, WRONG opinions about the field. You have thoroughly demonstrated you don't know what you are talking about here, yet you have extremely strong opinions and are unbending in your opposition to anything positive psychiatry can offer to the truly ill (those least likely to seek help themselves.) Step back and look at what you have written in this thread, and what others have said, and you will see this for yourself.

Just for the record, I am not a psychiatrist, and really have no interest in specializing in that field, but I can recognize the need for it and the good it can do, even though it has tremendous room for improvement (what field of medicine doesn't?)
 
That's not the kind of people that I am talking about. But that is a good rebuttal, pointing out a situation where there is clearly no misuse, to lessen my assertions.

Debating your many inaccuracies would prove exhausting. You present very few factual statements, and you have not read any of the primary research on the subject. Before you go on a verbal rampage, research the literature yourself first. You are asking us to demonstrate years of research here for you, and honestly I doubt anyone has that kind of time.

After you have read all the literature on each subject and you still have reservations, what would be a worthwhile way to change current practice? Consider doing your own research to prove your point.
 
http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/482571

213kg amphetamine seized in a drug bust. You think big dealers are smuggling in Lipitor in mass quantities for abuse?

This is a dangerous drug. You know, one could argue a Psychiatrist is 'delusional' not to 'see' that Ritalin isn't a dangerous street drug. Do you see the political implications of the DSM? Anybody can be stigmatized as long as it suits someones legal position. But of course this kind of misuse never happens.
Florida is known as a huge source of prescribed and then diverted narcotics; prescriptions for painkillers are filled in Florida and diverted to various parts of the US, especially up the Atlantic Coast. Is this justification to no longer use any high-producing or addictive drugs for pain control? Narcotics are dangerous drugs. One could argue the physician who writes a scrip for Vicoden is "delusional" not to "see" that some percentage of prescribed narcotics end up on the street. Are you really arguing that because some of it is misused, there is no legitimate use of the drug?

Look, I'm not attacking your motivations. and I am sure you truly want to help people. The bottom line is this, outside of a person coming in to get help there is serious misuse in the field. You really think, an attorney is going to send a client in for a Psychiatric evaluation without knowing the outcome of the evaluation? Do you really think, people can't be tricked into getting an evaluation where the diagnosis is pre determined to suit the needs of a prosecutor, plaintiff, etc...? Forget the science, focus on the misuse. You are blind.
Your description is a failing of the legal system not to recognize a potential for abuse. If you think this is unique to psychiatry, you are the one who is blind. A witness in a crime who coincidentally has a brain tumor could easily be barred from testifying, or at least have his testimony called into question in front of the jurors, due to his tumor. Would you argue that because a tumor that isn't affecting the witness's testimony at all could call his statement into question, the tumor itself must not exist? That is the argument you are making above. What you describe is an abuse of both the legal system and psychiatry, but certainly not a valid argument against mental disorders being a valid, legitimate group of medical conditions.

You say "Forget the science, focus on the misuse." above. Seriously? I mean, really, honestly, that is your argument? A subset of the profession abuses their position, and a profession entirely outside medicine uses this potential for abuse to their advantage, and that is sufficient in your mind to "forget the science" and ignore the positive outcomes psychiatric care can provide? Really? Well, if you ever break a bone or undergo surgery, I hope you will choose to refuse any painkillers that have the potential for addiction or abuse based on the same principle.....
 
Top