Why do so many people have distorted views of Psychiatry as a profession?

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

Iquitos

As the title states, I am wondering why so many people have such a distorted view of what it's like to be a psychiatrist? For instance, I had a frustrating conversation with an individual who thinks that "being a psychiatrist would be depressing" and that "it would be too difficult to detach and leave work at work etc." I only know a couple of psychiatrists and they seem to be positive, happy people that enjoy their jobs. I told the individual I was talking to that most specialties work with cases that are frustrating or "depressing", but this person seemed to think that psych has more depressing cases than any other specialty and that many psychiatrists become depressed themselves from working with the types of patient they encounter. These are obviously bogus opinions, but why do I get similar reactions from so many people when I tell them I am considering psychiatry? I can't wait to get a feel of what psych is really like when I do my 3rd rotations a year from now. Can anyone give me peace of mind until then?

Members don't see this ad.
 
As the title states, I am wondering why so many people have such a distorted view of what it's like to be a psychiatrist? For instance, I had a frustrating conversation with an individual who thinks that "being a psychiatrist would be depressing" and that "it would be too difficult to detach and leave work at work etc." I only know a couple of psychiatrists and they seem to be positive, happy people that enjoy their jobs. I told the individual I was talking to that most specialties work with cases that are frustrating or "depressing", but this person seemed to think that psych has more depressing cases than any other specialty and that many psychiatrists become depressed themselves from working with the types of patient they encounter. These are obviously bogus opinions, but why do I get similar reactions from so many people when I tell them I am considering psychiatry? I can't wait to get a feel of what psych is really like when I do my 3rd rotations a year from now. Can anyone give me peace of mind until then?

You come to psychiatry thinking you are going to be the good guy, listen to people's real problems who want to die. Then you realize that many of the patients are druggies, alcoholics, none compliant with their meds.... and you get over it. Occasionally you get the patient that you feel sorry for and would really like to help beyond the regular effort, but that is as rare as any other specialty now a days.

A final note, many are under the impression that these chronics condition all end up in sad stories... that's not true and the amount of good stories push you forward just as much as any other specialty. Now if you come from a different country, you are likely under the impression that psych is a dead end specialty that does not have treatments... in which case i point you out to the poor neurologists who fit that description more than us. Psychiatric drugs turn people around to the point that you dont recognize them several days later.

And of course there is the wonderful reputation made by scientology.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to worry about burn out in any specialty. Personally I was far more prone to burn out that year of internal medicine just because I really didn't like what I was doing. People say a lot of specialties are depressing. Like me, I could never do pediatric heme-onc because it would break my heart to work with dying kids. And I really hate doing things to kids that hurt them even when I know it's for their ultimate benefit. I mean I had trouble doing ear exams in ambulatory peds for that reason. I can't imagine being the one who is putting a child through chemo. People who do pediatric heme-onc find it rewarding to save the ones they can and still find satisfaction in easing the passage of those they can't. I think if you truly love and find meaning in what you're doing and remember to take care of yourself while you're doing it, you will find your professional life to be rewarding. So follow your heart and remember to take care of yourself too.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks for the replies. These posts help confirm what I had suspected.

You come to psychiatry thinking you are going to be the good guy, listen to people's real problems who want to die. Then you realize that many of the patients are druggies, alcoholics, none compliant with their meds.... and you get over it. Occasionally you get the patient that you feel sorry for and would really like to help beyond the regular effort, but that as rare as any other specialty now a days.

A final note, many are under the impression that these chronics condition all end up in sad stories... that's not true and the amount of good stories push you forward just as much as any other specialties. Now if you come from a different country, you are likely under the impression that psych is a dead end specialty that does not have treatments... in which case i point you out to the poor neurologists who fit that description more than us. Psychiatric drugs turn people around to the point that you dont recognize them several days later.

And of course there is the wonderful reputation made by scientology.

The person I mentioned before asked me "so it wouldn't bother you to give people meds instead of using something more natural and sustainable like mind/thought process re-framing, I thought you were more interested in natural things?" I chuckled and replied that most patients don't want to work that much towards a solution and would rather have a quick and easy fix like meds which can make a significant difference in their quality of life. I also added that some people really do have deficient neurotransmitters etc that can be modified with meds.

I really don't see psych having any more chronic sad stories than any other field, and it's nice to see this confirmed by seasoned professionals out in the field.

I think you need to worry about burn out in any specialty. Personally I was far more prone to burn out that year of internal medicine just because I really didn't like what I was doing. People say a lot of specialties are depressing. Like me, I could never do pediatric heme-onc because it would break my heart to work with dying kids. And I really hate doing things to kids that hurt them even when I know it's for their ultimate benefit. I mean I had trouble doing ear exams in ambulatory peds for that reason. I can't imagine being the one who is putting a child through chemo. People who do pediatric heme-onc find it rewarding to save the ones they can and still find satisfaction in easing the passage of those they can't. I think if you truly love and find meaning in what you're doing and remember to take care of yourself while you're doing it, you will find your professional life to be rewarding. So follow your heart and remember to take care of yourself too.

I agree, I gave this same example to said person.

Thanks again for the replies. It's nice to hear all of the different prospectives people have. Feel free to chime in.
 
I think you could make the case that all professions feel that the "public" has a distorted view of their work. Stockbrokers need to point out that they're not all like Gordon Gekko, hospitalists need to remind their patients that internal medicine doesn't work like on "House", lawyers that it's not like Perry Mason/LA Law/Law & Order, etc.... Audiences identify with these idealistic caricatures of professions, and think "Oh it must be cool to..." or "I could never manage to ..." If you said you were going to be in emergency medicine or an air traffic controller or a hairdresser, I'd venture to guess that you'd get similarly uninformed opinions from the same people.
 
I think you could make the case that all professions feel that the "public" has a distorted view of their work. Stockbrokers need to point out that they're not all like Gordon Gekko, hospitalists need to remind their patients that internal medicine doesn't work like on "House", lawyers that it's not like Perry Mason/LA Law/Law & Order, etc.... Audiences identify with these idealistic caricatures of professions, and think "Oh it must be cool to..." or "I could never manage to ..." If you said you were going to be in emergency medicine or an air traffic controller or a hairdresser, I'd venture to guess that you'd get similarly uninformed opinions from the same people.

This is true. I guess I should quit trying to justify things and let people think whatever they want.

<climbing onto dead horse soapbox>

Psychiatrists do therapy too.


Why do I get the sense that might be written on my gravestone?

yes, but unfortunately, I have read that it is becoming a lost art especially if you go to programs like U of Iowa. Likely another victim of lower reimbursements?
 
The person I mentioned before asked me "so it wouldn't bother you to give people meds instead of using something more natural and sustainable like mind/thought process re-framing, I thought you were more interested in natural things?" I chuckled and replied that most patients don't want to work that much towards a solution and would rather have a quick and easy fix like meds which can make a significant difference in their quality of life. I also added that some people really do have deficient neurotransmitters etc that can be modified with meds.

It bothers me to see people actively promulgating this over-generalization. It especially pains me to hear this level of cynicism coming from someone with limited clinical exposure. Granted, it may be the truth for some patients. But it's not true for everyone, or even for most. When I read the word "chuckled," I feel some derision behind it, and that bothers me. (Forgive me if this is a misinterpretation.)

A huge number of patients who we treat in psychiatry have such severe psychopathology (mania, psychosis) that the mainstay of acute treatment and maintenance is medication. All the mindfulness and re-framing in the world isn't going to snap you out of your catatonia. However, that's not to say that some patients with these types of disorders, once stabilized on meds, can't benefit in the long-term from non-pharmacologic management in addition to meds--ie, coping skills, social skills training, etc.

Furthermore, even at my early point in residency, I am coming to understand in a deeper way that some of my patients who appear med-seeking, eg some with anxiety disorders who pop benzos like candy, have very poor coping skills. From an outsider perspective they might get "chuckled" at and labeled as "lazy" folks who "don't want to work that hard." But for many (not all), when you delve a little deeper it's apparent that they may not have much self-awareness or interoceptive ability, or were just not naturally gifted with great coping skills to help them manage their illness. Many of these patients would love to feel more in control of their illness and their lives, and teaching them cognitive and behavioral tools (which may seem obvious or intuitive for the more intrapersonally-gifted) can be very empowering for them, and they welcome it.

And finally, to go back and address the original point of the OP. I agree with previous posters that sad stories are not unique to psychiatry, but rather are part and parcel of most fields of medicine. There have been threads on this very topic in the past. In psychiatry we also have the opportunity to make a very big difference for people and that can be very rewarding.

I would add that I feel I am actually being better prepared than residents in other specialties to deal with the stress and sad stories inherent to my job--at least at my particular residency program. I can't speak for other programs specifically. But as a part of our psychiatry residency, we all participate in a process group, we have 2 hours per week of individual supervision, I am surrounded by psychologically-insightful colleagues, and our residents are offered 1 year of individual psychotherapy as part of our educational experience. Many of these features are not unique to my program, but are common elements of psychiatry training. This has the potential to promote personal and professional growth that can help one become a better clinician and be more prepared to constructively deal with the difficult or negative aspects of medical practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think you could make the case that all professions feel that the "public" has a distorted view of their work. Stockbrokers need to point out that they're not all like Gordon Gekko, hospitalists need to remind their patients that internal medicine doesn't work like on "House", lawyers that it's not like Perry Mason/LA Law/Law & Order, etc.... Audiences identify with these idealistic caricatures of professions, and think "Oh it must be cool to..." or "I could never manage to ..." If you said you were going to be in emergency medicine or an air traffic controller or a hairdresser, I'd venture to guess that you'd get similarly uninformed opinions from the same people.

don't tell me you're saying the practice of psychiatry is nothing like the lives of Dr. Frasier and his brother Nils!!
 
don't tell me you're saying the practice of psychiatry is nothing like the lives of Dr. Frasier and his brother Nils!!

Come over tonight after the opera and we'll discuss this question over some vintage port. :D

(Or try to imagine Dr Crane dealing with the patient I described in the other thread last night.
Funny how he never gets teenaged borderline meth addicts calling into his show screaming about their mothers and attempting suicide with 8 tylenol.)
 
yes, but unfortunately, I have read that it is becoming a lost art especially if you go to programs like U of Iowa. Likely another victim of lower reimbursements?

Then IMHO, that'd be a great reason not to go to a program like U of Iowa - choosing incomplete training seems like a bad idea to me.
 
Come over tonight after the opera and we'll discuss this question over some vintage port. :D

(Or try to imagine Dr Crane dealing with the patient I described in the other thread last night.
Funny how he never gets teenaged borderline meth addicts calling into his show screaming about their mothers and attempting suicide with 8 tylenol.)

Touche'
duel.gif
 
It bothers me to see people actively promulgating this over-generalization. It especially pains me to hear this level of cynicism coming from someone with limited clinical exposure. Granted, it may be the truth for some patients. But it's not true for everyone, or even for most. When I read the word "chuckled," I feel some derision behind it, and that bothers me. (Forgive me if this is a misinterpretation.)

A huge number of patients who we treat in psychiatry have such severe psychopathology (mania, psychosis) that the mainstay of acute treatment and maintenance is medication. All the mindfulness and re-framing in the world isn't going to snap you out of your catatonia. However, that's not to say that some patients with these types of disorders, once stabilized on meds, can't benefit in the long-term from non-pharmacologic management in addition to meds--ie, coping skills, social skills training, etc.

Furthermore, even at my early point in residency, I am coming to understand in a deeper way that some of my patients who appear med-seeking, eg some with anxiety disorders who pop benzos like candy, have very poor coping skills. From an outsider perspective they might get "chuckled" at and labeled as "lazy" folks who "don't want to work that hard." But for many (not all), when you delve a little deeper it's apparent that they may not have much self-awareness or interoceptive ability, or were just not naturally gifted with great coping skills to help them manage their illness. Many of these patients would love to feel more in control of their illness and their lives, and teaching them cognitive and behavioral tools (which may seem obvious or intuitive for the more intrapersonally-gifted) can be very empowering for them, and they welcome it.

And finally, to go back and address the original point of the OP. I agree with previous posters that sad stories are not unique to psychiatry, but rather are part and parcel of most fields of medicine. There have been threads on this very topic in the past. In psychiatry we also have the opportunity to make a very big difference for people and that can be very rewarding.

I would add that I feel I am actually being better prepared than residents in other specialties to deal with the stress and sad stories inherent to my job--at least at my particular residency program. I can't speak for other programs specifically. But as a part of our psychiatry residency, we all participate in a process group, we have 2 hours per week of individual supervision, I am surrounded by psychologically-insightful colleagues, and our residents are offered 1 year of individual psychotherapy as part of our educational experience. Many of these features are not unique to my program, but are common elements of psychiatry training. This has the potential to promote personal and professional growth that can help one become a better clinician and be more prepared to constructively deal with the difficult or negative aspects of medical practice.


Well stated, thanks for your insightful post. I agree with your post. I suppose I didn't express myself very well when I said that I chuckled etc. and you are totally correct about my limited clinical experience. I hope I haven't offended anyone because that was not my intention. The point I was trying to make with the person I was having this discussion with was that mental illnesses are real and often times require medications and you can't expect someone that is in severe distress to just automatically snap out of their illness by teaching them how to re-frame their thoughts etc. When I said I chuckled, I was in no way meaning to scoff or make light of people that need medications. I was implying that I chuckled that she thinks that people don't need medications and that most medications are essentially a scam conceived by the government and pharm companies. (granted this person is has no formal medical education and gathers most of her medical knowledge through friends at the local health food store)

When I said that "most patients don't want to work that much towards a solution and would rather have a quick and easy fix like meds" I was trying to get the point across that you can't sit a person down that is in the middle of a manic episode and convince them that they shouldn't be acting the way they are and that they need to immediately change the way they are thinking/acting. For example, I have a buddy from high school that has Bipolar Disorder and he had a huge manic/anxiety breakdown a back in 2001. Meds were a pretty quick fix for his condition because it allowed him to calm down enough to work on his mental stability through psychotherapy. I hope this makes what I was trying to express more clear.


Thanks again for all the thoughtful posts, I appreciate everyones honest input.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think the public's perception of psychiatrists if off because there's no TV shows that shows our profession that the public watches.

Yeah, I know there's that HBO show but few people have HBO. Only HBO show that caught a huge viewership was the Sopranos & Sex & the City.

Then there's the false perception that we psychiatrists seem to know everything about everyone which is obviously not true. I've had consults asking me to be a lie detector, as if I could do that.

Last TV show that had mass appeal that involved a psychiatrist was Frasier and he does not represent even a smidgen of what psychiatry is like. Frasier was pretty much a psychodynamic psychotherapist. Very few psychiatrists these days are actively doing psychotherapy (even less use psychodynamic psychotherapy) & are more focused on medication. I don't even know if what Frasier was doing was "kosher" becuase he was airing people's private stuff on radio which is a professional no-no.
 
Very few psychiatrists these days are actively doing psychotherapy (even less use psychodynamic psychotherapy) & are more focused on medication.

Wanted - dead horse. Must be suitable for flogging. Required by experienced horse-flogger who has unfortunately pulverized prior carcass in unsuccessful attempts to delineate important scope of professional practice.
 
Sorry Doc.

I of course do not agree with the shift away from psychotherapy, but nonetheless it has happened. For the new residents here--this issue gets brought up from time to time--the emphasis away from psychotherapy in our profession.

For your own sake, learn as much about psychotherapy as much as you can in residency. Learning oppurtunities will decrease after you graduate, and for yourself & your patients its better to know how to do it.
 
Wanted - dead horse. Must be suitable for flogging. Required by experienced horse-flogger who has unfortunately pulverized prior carcass in unsuccessful attempts to delineate important scope of professional practice.

Will this one meet your requirements?
:beat:
 
Will this one meet your requirements?
:beat:

That'd work... if only we could give the little yellow guy flowing green hair we'd be all set.

We as a profession should not be complicit in the carving out of psychotherapy from our scope of practice. We get all upset when others start encroaching on our prescribing, why can't we show the same level of ownership for psychotherapy?
 
We can argue all we want but things are moving in a certain direction in psychiatry and they'll continue to do so. As more evaluation and management options emerge, I see a PMR-like model developing in psychiatry. Specialization is the norm these days and I don't see psychiatrists being "jack-of-all-trades" any more.

Psychiatrists still have to be knowledgeable about various psychotherapy modalities because after all they have to refer and coordinate with therapists. Everything boils down to optimal use of resources, and I think psychiatrists are better off doing a medical-model based evaluations and treatments. This also addresses the shortage problem to a certain extent.

I would rather have psychiatrists take ownership of psychiatry itself. There is a lot we might end up losing if we don't pay enough attention. Let's leave the ownership of psychotherapy to the real owners, namely psychologists and other therapist.
 
I honestly could not disagree more with you on this. Let's just change the name of our specialty to psychopharmacolgy while we're at it.

I don't think it matters if we agree or disagree. We know how things have changed in psychiatry in the last 10-15 years. While psychopharmacology is the most important component of our work, I would be delighted if the name of our specialty is changed from psychiatry to Psychiatric Medicine. I think this name will define us better. Like I said before, I am not suggesting divorcing our field fully from psychotherapy but rather realigning ourselves for the better use of resources.
 
I believe one of the reasons for the distorted views is that we have not defined ourselves well. We have left our field to be hijacked and defined by too many theories, ideologies and agendas. Part of this is that we are still evolving as a profession. The bottom-line is that we are a subspecialty of Medicine, and more we stick to being what we really are; the better it is for the field.
 
Some programs do appear to be basically abandoning "psychiatry" in favor of "neuropsychiatry". Saw a letter to prospective applicants for PGY-1 on one midwestern university site state something to the effect of "in the next 10 years all we thought about mental illness will probably be proven wrong" by science. I think that's a bit extreme.
 
Some programs do appear to be basically abandoning "psychiatry" in favor of "neuropsychiatry". Saw a letter to prospective applicants for PGY-1 on one midwestern university site state something to the effect of "in the next 10 years all we thought about mental illness will probably be proven wrong" by science. I think that's a bit extreme.

I agree that this statement may be a bit extreme but we will definitely know much more about mental illness than other illness in the next 10 years or so. I am curious as to which university are you referring to. I would love to take a look at it.
 
I don't think it matters if we agree or disagree. We know how things have changed in psychiatry in the last 10-15 years. While psychopharmacology is the most important component of our work, I would be delighted if the name of our specialty is changed from psychiatry to Psychiatric Medicine. I think this name will define us better. Like I said before, I am not suggesting divorcing our field fully from psychotherapy but rather realigning ourselves for the better use of resources.

I agree that we are a subspecialty of medicine (I'm a consultation psychiatrist for crying out loud) but I don't think psychotherapy is any less of a "medical" treatment than an appendectomy. It acts directly on biological substrate causing change. By your definition, prior to Lithium, Thorazine, and TCAs there couldn't have been any psychiatrists.

BTW - I'm curious what part of the country you're in.
 
I agree that we are a subspecialty of medicine (I'm a consultation psychiatrist for crying out loud) but I don't think psychotherapy is any less of a "medical" treatment than an appendectomy. It acts directly on biological substrate causing change. By your definition, prior to Lithium, Thorazine, and TCAs there couldn't have been any psychiatrists.

BTW - I'm curious what part of the country you're in.

Well, this is a complex discussion and I think it'll probably end up going in the wrong direction. Again, I am not devaluing psychotherapy, as you are implying in your posts. I believe it is a very important part of treatment for our patients. I am simply commenting on where things are headed as far psychiatrists doing it are concerned.

BTW- I am curious about your curiosity:idea:.
 
Well, this is a complex discussion and I think it'll probably end up going in the wrong direction. Again, I am not devaluing psychotherapy, as you are implying in your posts. I believe it is a very important part of treatment for our patients. I am simply commenting on where things are headed as far psychiatrists doing it are concerned.

BTW- I am curious about your curiosity:idea:.

And my point is that we as psychiatrists shouldn't passively allow psychotherapy to be effectively "priced down" out of our scope of practice by managed care. I think we should be taking a more active role in terms of "where things are headed" and defining the full scope of psychiatric care at a rate of reasonable compensation as within our perview.

My curiosity is based on your acceptance of split treatment being an idea that's most prevalent in the mid-west and south, with the northeast and west coast placing significantly more emphasis on psychiatrists doing combined treatment.
 
I dunno. One psychiatrist told me that there are two reasons for going into psychiatry and two reasons only: 1. You had a good experience with a psychiatrist. and 2. You need to see a psychiatrist.

Maybe some of the stereotypes of psychiatry as a profession come from #2-- I think that the field has more than its fair share of idiosyncratic individuals. Plus, its patient population tends to make people pretty uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
I honestly could not disagree more with you on this. Let's just change the name of our specialty to psychopharmacolgy while we're at it.

I agree 100%. If psychotherapy is an effective treatment, then psychiatrists should practice it as they would any other effective medical therapy.
 
Let's leave the ownership of psychotherapy to the real owners, namely psychologists and other therapist.

Even if you do not practice psychotherapy & turf it off to the psychologists, counselors & social workers, you nonetheless still have to know it to coordinate it properly with them.

Take your pick, know it very well or at least know it to coordinate with the others, you still have to know it.

And if you work in inpatient the psychiatrist is often the team leader. As that leader, you can't be ignorant of how it works.

I also think a patient would feel more comfortable if their psychiatrist knew psychotherapy in addition to psychopharm & had a decent knowledge of medicine.
 
I agree 100%. If psychotherapy is an effective treatment, then psychiatrists should practice it as they would any other effective medical therapy.

This logic also implies that pm&r docs should do physical therapy rather than letting physical therapists do it.

It would make more sense for us to all agree that different situations call for different needs in different practice environments, and patients are best served in different ways.

If you're building a house, and you're the only plumber with a bunch of carpenters, you're going to be doing a lot of plumbing even if you're a great carpenter. If there are a bunch of plumbers around, you might get to plumb, you might get to do some carpentry. Either way, the house gets built.

It's not much more complicated than that.

Well, yeah it is. But ya know.
 
I agree that we are a subspecialty of medicine (I'm a consultation psychiatrist for crying out loud) but I don't think psychotherapy is any less of a "medical" treatment than an appendectomy. It acts directly on biological substrate causing change. By your definition, prior to Lithium, Thorazine, and TCAs .

Don't forget ECT. It's a biological treatment that came out a few years before Li, Thorazine and TCAs:laugh:

Seriously, ECT, like pscychotherapy, is an important part of psychiatry that not enough psychiatrists are skilled in.

Ironically, my wife, who is also a psychiatrist, is watching a Frasier rerun while I am typing this.
 
Last edited:
This logic also implies that pm&r docs should do physical therapy rather than letting physical therapists do it.

It would make more sense for us to all agree that different situations call for different needs in different practice environments, and patients are best served in different ways.

If you're building a house, and you're the only plumber with a bunch of carpenters, you're going to be doing a lot of plumbing even if you're a great carpenter. If there are a bunch of plumbers around, you might get to plumb, you might get to do some carpentry. Either way, the house gets built.

It's not much more complicated than that.

Well, yeah it is. But ya know.

You explained what I have been implying in a much more eloquent and understandable manner. Thanks!
 
Even if you do not practice psychotherapy & turf it off to the psychologists, counselors & social workers, you nonetheless still have to know it to coordinate it properly with them.

Take your pick, know it very well or at least know it to coordinate with the others, you still have to know it.

And if you work in inpatient the psychiatrist is often the team leader. As that leader, you can't be ignorant of how it works.

I also think a patient would feel more comfortable if their psychiatrist knew psychotherapy in addition to psychopharm & had a decent knowledge of medicine.

I totally agree. I never said that psychotherapy should not be part our training.
 
As the title states, I am wondering why so many people have such a distorted view of what it's like to be a psychiatrist? For instance, I had a frustrating conversation with an individual who thinks that "being a psychiatrist would be depressing" and that "it would be too difficult to detach and leave work at work etc." I only know a couple of psychiatrists and they seem to be positive, happy people that enjoy their jobs. I told the individual I was talking to that most specialties work with cases that are frustrating or "depressing", but this person seemed to think that psych has more depressing cases than any other specialty and that many psychiatrists become depressed themselves from working with the types of patient they encounter. These are obviously bogus opinions, but why do I get similar reactions from so many people when I tell them I am considering psychiatry? I can't wait to get a feel of what psych is really like when I do my 3rd rotations a year from now. Can anyone give me peace of mind until then?


Your friend isn’t so off. There have been a bunch of studies (you can google them) on this and psychiatrists have far and away the greatest rate of depression, divorce, suicide and alcoholism than any other medical specialty. The big question always is whether being a psychiatrist makes you like this, or is it that screwed up people are more likely to choose psychiatry.
 
Your friend isn’t so off. There have been a bunch of studies (you can google them) on this and psychiatrists have far and away the greatest rate of depression, divorce, suicide and alcoholism than any other medical specialty. The big question always is whether being a psychiatrist makes you like this, or is it that screwed up people are more likely to choose psychiatry.

Well, at least we're not counting dentistry as a medical specialty. ;)
 
A quote from my psych textbook:
A recent survey revealed that 71% of the U.S population thinks that mental illness is due to emotional weakness, 65% thinks it is caused by bad parenting, 45% believes that it is the victim's fault, and that the victim can will it away, 43% believes that mental illness is incurable, and 35% thinks that it is a consequence of sinful behavior. Only 10% of the population believes that mental illness has a biological basis or involves the brain.

The book doesn't cite a reference (a 2003 textbook), nor the specific questions posed, but perhaps these attitudes lend themselves to a more "antipsychiatry" set of thinking. If you want to believe that psychiatric disorders are caused by sinful behavior, I could imagine you wouldn't have very high thoughts of people who base their work on ideas that are conflicting with your own "sinful-theory."
 
A quote from my psych textbook:


The book doesn't cite a reference (a 2003 textbook), nor the specific questions posed, but perhaps these attitudes lend themselves to a more "antipsychiatry" set of thinking. If you want to believe that psychiatric disorders are caused by sinful behavior, I could imagine you wouldn't have very high thoughts of people who base their work on ideas that are conflicting with your own "sinful-theory."

Those are some interesting numbers. Which textbook is this?
 
I would just like to state that Psychiatrists do not have the highest suicide rate amongst physicians... that belongs to Anesthesiologists... Psychiatrists are the second highest. :D
 
I would just like to state that Psychiatrists do not have the highest suicide rate amongst physicians... that belongs to Anesthesiologists... Psychiatrists are the second highest. :D

That is what I have read. I also read that anesthesiologists have the highest rate of substance abuse. That's interesting that psychiatrists have the second highest suicide rate, I wouldn't have imagined that.
 
A quote from my psych textbook:


The book doesn't cite a reference (a 2003 textbook), nor the specific questions posed, but perhaps these attitudes lend themselves to a more "antipsychiatry" set of thinking. If you want to believe that psychiatric disorders are caused by sinful behavior, I could imagine you wouldn't have very high thoughts of people who base their work on ideas that are conflicting with your own "sinful-theory."

Why would you say that mental illness isn't "caused" by sinful behavior or bad parenting? If you've committed a sin in your own mind you will likely suffer emotional pain. Likewise, if you were raised by abusive parents you will probably have some difficulty with relationships later in life. Aren't these mental "illnesses"? Do you mean to say that psychiatrists aren't supposed to help people with these problems? Are we only supposed to treat disorders that arise from genetic "causes"? I think that as a field we have a chip on our collective shoulder because we are always worried about not being medical enough. I feel that we'd all be better off trying to get over that insecurity, since we can say that everything we treat, be it rooted in genes or environmental causes, is ultimately "caused" by a biological process, and a pretty complex one at that (eat your heart out, nephrology).
 
Why would you say that mental illness isn't "caused" by sinful behavior or bad parenting? If you've committed a sin in your own mind you will likely suffer emotional pain. Likewise, if you were raised by abusive parents you will probably have some difficulty with relationships later in life. Aren't these mental "illnesses"? Do you mean to say that psychiatrists aren't supposed to help people with these problems? Are we only supposed to treat disorders that arise from genetic "causes"? I think that as a field we have a chip on our collective shoulder because we are always worried about not being medical enough. I feel that we'd all be better off trying to get over that insecurity, since we can say that everything we treat, be it rooted in genes or environmental causes, is ultimately "caused" by a biological process, and a pretty complex one at that (eat your heart out, nephrology).

I don't think the folks espousing the "sinful" etiology of mental illness are drawing on psychodynamic theory, they view mental illness as a punishment from God because they sinned. These are probably the same people who view HIV as punishment from God for immorality.
 
Why would you say that mental illness isn't &quot;caused&quot; by sinful behavior or bad parenting? If you've committed a sin in your own mind you will likely suffer emotional pain. Likewise, if you were raised by abusive parents you will probably have some difficulty with relationships later in life. Aren't these mental &quot;illnesses&quot;? Do you mean to say that psychiatrists aren't supposed to help people with these problems? Are we only supposed to treat disorders that arise from genetic &quot;causes&quot;? I think that as a field we have a chip on our collective shoulder because we are always worried about not being medical enough. I feel that we'd all be better off trying to get over that insecurity, since we can say that everything we treat, be it rooted in genes or environmental causes, is ultimately &quot;caused&quot; by a biological process, and a pretty complex one at that (eat your heart out, nephrology).
I just got off the phone with Decepticon, who would have loved to give you a reply if he hadn't been given the boot. Anyway, I was gonna pass on that he agrees 100% also with the determinism of your argument. Doc Samson explains the original position the way it was meant, that mental illness is something you supposedly "deserve."
 
I would just like to state that Psychiatrists do not have the highest suicide rate amongst physicians... that belongs to Anesthesiologists... Psychiatrists are the second highest. :D


I remenber from years ago that Surgeons and female MDs had the highest rate of suicude. May be it has nothing to do with the speciality, since the data changes so often. If we are talking about a depressive speciality, think about ONCOLOGY!
 
I don't think the folks espousing the "sinful" etiology of mental illness are drawing on psychodynamic theory, they view mental illness as a punishment from God because they sinned. These are probably the same people who view HIV as punishment from God for immorality.

You're right that the idea of mental illness as punishment for "sins" is part of a moralistic view of psychiatry that we have suffered from for some time. My point is that we as a field have overreacted to this issue, so that we are overly compelled to look for biological explanations for things that really don't need them because we feel that we need to legitimize our field in the eyes of all the other "real" medical specialties, where they can point to concrete physical exam and lab findings to reify the objects of their ministrations. I think that there are many psychiatrists who are interested in finding some kind of objective lab test for mental illnesses - not to help their patients, but to allay insecurities about their specialty being somehow less scientific than others. These are the same psychiatrists who tell their patients that depression is a disease just like diabetes and feel a little bit better about themselves every time they say this.
 
You're right that the idea of mental illness as punishment for "sins" is part of a moralistic view of psychiatry that we have suffered from for some time. My point is that we as a field have overreacted to this issue, so that we are overly compelled to look for biological explanations for things that really don't need them because we feel that we need to legitimize our field in the eyes of all the other "real" medical specialties, where they can point to concrete physical exam and lab findings to reify the objects of their ministrations. I think that there are many psychiatrists who are interested in finding some kind of objective lab test for mental illnesses - not to help their patients, but to allay insecurities about their specialty being somehow less scientific than others. These are the same psychiatrists who tell their patients that depression is a disease just like diabetes and feel a little bit better about themselves every time they say this.

So, you don't believe that depression is a disease like any other illness? It would be great if you could enlighten us with your conceptualization of depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder etc.
 
Top