Follow A.J.


Join my email list and you will be able to join me in free conference calls and ask me your questions about BPD and recovery or for loved ones ways to cope as a loved one or questions about staying or leaving and much more. I will also be having some free conference calls for subscribers to my newsletter on the general topic of mental illness and how you can really empower yourself if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness in ways that can create positive healthy change in your life.

A psychiatrist criticises the psychiatric publishing industry

Posts Tagged ‘Life Coach A.J. Mahari’

psychiatry – a perverted instrument to control YOU?

Is Psychiatry a perverted instrument to control you?

Robert Whitaker Event – Rethinking Psychiatry

Robert Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America was the keynote speaker on February 10, 2011, in Portland Oregon. It was a “Rethinking Psychiatry Event”. Psychiatry must be given more than a second or third thought these days as it is driving itself off a cliff and becoming less and less a viable realistic ethical or trustworthy vehicle to actually treat and help patients. The focus on the “medical model” of psychiatry, known as Biopsychiatry is doing more harm than good prescribing medications that are harmful in many cases without full disclosure of the potential harm of many psychiatric medications and doing so it would seem more to earn Big Pharma money than to actually help people with recovery and getting well.

More than 450 people filled the Unitarian Church in Portland Oregon February 10th for the Rethinking Psychiatry event. Robert Whitaker keynoted the evening, followed by a panel with Beckie Child, Director of the Mental Health America of Oregon; Cindi Fisher, Movement of Mothers Standing – Up – Together: Taking Back Our Children; Chris Gordon, Assistant professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Medical Director of Mental Health Advocacy; Gina Nikkel, Director of the Oregon Association of Community Mental Health Programs; and Will Hall, Director of Portland Hearing Voices.

Listen to the entire evening’s talks here: http://www.madnessradio.net/audio-extra/RethinkingPsychiatryPDX2-10-11Complete.mp3

Listen to Robert Whitaker’s talk here: http://www.madnessradio.net/audio-extra/RethinkingPsychiatryPDX2-10-11RobertWhitaker.mp3

Listen to Will Hall’s talk here: http://www.madnessradio.net/audio-extra/RethinkingPsychiatryPDX2-10-11WillHall.mp3>

Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America

Humane Psychiatry – Dr. Dan L. Edmunds

Life Coach, and author, A.J. Mahari, interviewed Dr. Dan L. Edmunds on the Psyche Whisperer Radio Show Monday August 30 at 7pm EST. Biopsychiatry violates the first oath and ethic of medicine for all doctors, including psychiatrists, “first do no harm”. Dr. Dan L. Edmunds views biopsychiatry as “supposed treatment” and doesn’t believe in the common pratice of using toxic psychiatric drugs and especially when it come to children who are then made life-time psychiatric patients. He maintains it is cheaper to “treat” with drugs rather than actually address the reasons for patient’s distress. He believes that science and ethics must become consistent and that the entire mental health system needs to be deconstructed. The medical model needs to replaced with a model of compassion. Maybe then, we can have a humane system wherein abused of the past and current abuses could become things of the past.

This episode is now available below

Listen to internet radio with Psyche Whisperer AJ on Blog Talk Radio

 

Dr. Dan L. Edmunds

Professor Dr. Dan L. Edmunds is a radical psychotherapist, a friend and advocate of psychiatric survivors, and a critic of the mental health establishment.

Dr. Edmunds is a voice for the marginalized and for the many who lack a voice within the psychiatric system. A person of deep compassion and principle, Dr. Edmunds is a noted psychotherapist, child development/behavioral specialist, Comparative Religion scholar, sociologist and counselor working with both children and adults.

Dr. Edmunds speaks truthfully and directly and has posed critical questions to the psychiatric establishment and to society as a whole. He has developed approaches towards helping distressed individuals that are compassionate and empowering and encourage self-determination and autonomy. He has been an advocate for social justice, informed consent, and for human rights in the mental health system.

Dr. Edmunds has become deeply concerned with the medicalization of human experience and how mental health services have often become ‘mechanical’, not seeking to truly be caring and empathic, limiting consumer choice, and often not providing informed consent. He has sought for care that is recognizes people’s experience and treats them as people, care that is holistic,which recognizes the mind-body-spirit connection, and which takes into account issues of social injustice and how they impact our emotional well being and often shape our possibilities and who we become. Dr. Edmunds has challenged the mental health system establishment to respect persons experience and once again a common healing ground betwen the therapist and client. His writings have often focused on the need for building of community, holistic approaches, and the role of the family as well as social and political processes that lead towards emotional distress. He has challenged stigmatizing labels and exposed the violence that is often inflicted upon individuals by those who claim to be in the role of ‘helper’. He encouraged a mental health system which does not force people into treatments that they do not want, which respects their dignity, and which allows their experience to be heard and validated.

Dr. Dan L. Edmunds has a blog at: danledmunds.blogspot.com

Dr. Dan L. Edmunds is the author of the following books available at: His Site Storefront and more books at his Lulu.com Storefront

DRUG FREE APPROACH TO ADHD – COMPREHENSIVE STUDY DRUG FREE APPROACH TO ADHD- COMPREHENSIVE STUDY – Study of the efficacy of a drug free approach to ADHD

 

 

 

 

 

 

POST PSYCHIATRY JOURNAL – Center for Meaning and Relationship POST PSYCHIATRY JOURNAL – Center for Meaning and Relationship. A compilation of articles from mental health professionals and psychiatric survivors challenging the bio-psychiatric paradigm.

 

 

 

 

 

CHILDREN OUR TREASURE: Meeting Our Children’s True Needs Outside of the Bio-Psychiatric Paradigm CHILDREN OUR TREASURE: Meeting Our Children’s True Needs Outside of the Bio-Psychiatric Paradigm (book) – History of psychiatry, exploring psychiatric human rights abuses and the impact of psychiatry on children. Offers way to create a more humane mental health system.

 

 

 

EXPERIENCE: THE SOUL OF THERAPY EXPERIENCE: THE SOUL OF THERAPY – Exploring the the importance of experience in the therapeutic process.

Dr. Edmunds has been interviewed on local and nationally syndicated radio programs in regards to these important issues.

Dr. Edmunds was born in Tampa, Florida and spent much of adolescent years in Fort Collins, Colorado where he graduated from Fort Collins High School. From his youth, he became active in community and civic affairs and social and political change. Dr. Edmunds seeks for a society that places people before profits and treats all with compassion and equanimity. He served as a director of the Students for Peace and Justice and was involved in various political campaigns as a teen. In 1991, he served as the youngest legislative aide in the Colorado State Senate, serving in the office of State Senator (later U.S. Representative) Robert W. Schaffer. He later became the youngest registered professional lobbyist, being registered in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Arizona. He was a volunteer for the Larimer County, Colorado Office of Veterans Affairs. In 1992, he obtained the permission of then Mayor Nicholas Fortunato to develop the Ormond Beach, Florida Youth Commission. He served as a county campaign coordinator for U.S. Representative Corrine Brown’s campaign in 1992. This accorded him the opportunity to transport Martin Luther King III, the son of the slain civil rights leader, to an event at Bethune Cookman College and exposed him to diversity, civil rights, and social justice concerns. As a public intellectual and left libertarian, Dr. Edmunds continues to remain active in political and civic affairs and encouraging a society that is based on equality, peace, and justice. In 2008, Dr. Edmunds organized the Humanist Center for Freethought and Social Activism in order to encourage an end to oppression, ecological responsibility, freedom, equality, and respect for diversity.

Dr. Edmunds is on the Board of Advisors for the Society for Laingian Studies. The Society for Laingian Studies is directed by Dr. Brent Potter and includes advisors who had direct collaboration with Dr. R.D. Laing such as Andrew Feldmar and Theodore Itten. The Society for Laingian Studies seeks to further the humane approaches towards understanding and helping distressed persons that was begun by Dr. R.D. Laing. Society for Laingian Studies

Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.,B.C.S.A.
Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, USA
DoctorEdmunds@DrDanEdmunds.com

PSYCHOTHERAPY FOR CHILDREN, TEENS, AND ADULTS ***DRUG FREE RELATIONAL APPROACHES TO ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)***CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE FOR EXTREME STATES OF MIND (SCHIZOPHRENIA, SCHIZOAFFECTIVE, BIPOLAR)***ASSISTANCE WITH POST TRAUMATIC STRESS***AUTISM/DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES SERVICES***LECTURES/SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS FOR SCHOOLS AND PARENT ORGANIZATIONS***PSYCHO-SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS***FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS***FORENSIC ASSESSMENTS***FAMILY THERAPY/MARITAL COUNSELING

[email_link]

Notes on a critique of biological psychiatry by Dr. Niall McLaren

Introduction: Throughout the world today, the dominant approach to mental disorder is what is known as the biological model. This says simply that all forms of mental disorder are, at base, physical disorders of the brain. It does not identify mental disorder – that is determined by the individual society – but it claims to be able to explain all cases of mental disorder as a matter of disturbed brain function. As such, it is an example of what is called physical reductionism, the philosophical system that says that all complex matters can be explained in terms of the subsystems that make them up. In biology, reductionism says that the complex behavior of a large organism can only be understood in terms of understanding the cells that make up the organism. In turn, the functions of a cell can be reduced to matters of biochemistry. Therefore, the correct approach to mental behavior is to analyze it in terms of the cells of the brain, known as neurons. Since, it is claimed, disturbed behavior is always and only due to disturbances of neuronal function, treatment of mental disorder will consist of interventions at the chemical level, meaning using drugs and occasionally physical treatment such as ECT, magnetic stimulation or even brain surgery. Modern psychiatry does not consider there may be other explanations of mental disorder.

 There are, however, many people in the world who are not happy with this idea. It is possible to object to the biological model in psychiatry on a number of grounds:

1. The first and most obvious objection is to deny that mental disorder exists. This is most commonly identified with the Hungarian-born American psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz. Over some sixty years, he has taken a rigid and uncompromising line that there is no such thing as mental disorder, that it is an artificial construct which is of no value to the individuals, even if it helps society (by getting rid of nuisances) and enriches the various mental health professions. However, denial is very much a product of the twentieth century.

2. The oldest objection would be the ancient view that mental disorder has religious significance. People who act strangely are not sick in any accepted sense of the word but are undergoing some sort of supernatural experience which should either be allowed to take its course or should be treated within a strictly religious framework. Disturbed people may be seen as victims of possession by evil spirits, so that treatment would therefore consist of exorcism by qualified practitioners. They may be seen as victims of evil magic of some sort, which can only be countered by correctional incantations and so on. Finally, the experience itself may be seen as a beneficial experience or spiritual journey for the individual, who is encouraged and assisted in the passage for the knowledge the experience may yield. If the altered state continues, the person may even be granted a special status in the society as a person (shaman) who can communicate with or intervene on behalf of supernatural powers in ways that are not open to ordinary members of the community.

In modern Western society, there are only one or two minor groups taking an extreme religious view. Others include the less-defined but still large group of people who see dissatisfaction or unhappiness as a matter of imbalance between the individual and some sort of cosmic ideal, or what are often called New-Age practitioners, even if there is nothing new about it. On the other hand, orthodox Abrahamic religions do not normally encourage religious objections to biological psychiatric treatment, but tend to support it. This is possibly because they see the soul as the direct product of the divinity, meaning that if anything goes wrong in mental life, it cannot be a fault within the soul itself as that would mean the divinity had created a faulty soul. They have no problem with the idea that, if anything disturbs mental life, it must be in the body, because bodies are very faulty. By this means, they can allow people who claim to be the son of god to be treated humanely because otherwise, they would have to be punished.

3. It is possible to object to biological psychiatry on what are called esthetic or moral grounds, the notion that it isn’t fair or decent to lock people in secure buildings and force them to take unpleasant drugs against their will. Essentially, this is a human-centered approach which does not appeal to a divine authority or any force stronger than the question: “How would you feel if this were done to you or your wife/son/mother?” It says that humans are not just cattle but have feelings which have to be taken into account and not crushed underfoot for bureaucratic convenience. The moment words like decent, reasonable, considerate or humane are used, then they are appealing to our esthetic sense of what ought to be done to humans just because they are creatures with feelings. It is, of course, very difficult for these people to argue against the idea that cattle can be treated like cattle just because they aren’t humans, and most of them would not try. Fairness and decency, they would say, are universals which cannot be applied arbitrarily. 

4. People can object to biological psychiatry on the rational basis that any claim about mental disorder being a chemical imbalance of the brain is not a scientific statement because it ignores the notion that humans are creatures with a private but crucial mental life. The psychological model says that mental disorder is a feeling state induced by intrapsychic disturbances in the mind, not chemical disturbances in the brain, and chemistry is therefore only of marginal significance in psychiatric disorders. These days, the analogy that is used is that most problems with computers are not in the hardware but are in the software. Therefore, they would say, the correct form of treatment is not to suppress mental symptoms with drugs because they are important pointers to the actual intrapsychic problems to be rectified, and treatment can only be done via psychological means, essentially talking and learning. Talking and learning are not effective if the distressed person is heavily sedated.

5. More recently, people have been taking objection to the usual methods of biological psychiatry, meaning involuntary institutional psychiatry, on the basis that it breaches the individual’s human rights. This doesn’t say anything about how the mental disorder arises but says that, in a given legal framework, certain activities are illegal and cannot be carried out without the patient’s informed consent. This doesn’t actually prohibit biological psychiatry but places major restrictions on it and forces it to adhere to a particular standard of treatment. The same standard will also apply to psychological or religious treatment, so that disordered people cannot be forced to participate in, say, rebirthing rituals or exorcisms if they don’t like them.

6. Finally, and most recent of all, there are rational-logical objections to biological psychiatry. This is my particular field and it attacks the central notions of biological psychiatry, i.e. that mental disorder can be reduced to a special case of brain disorder. This is not popular among orthodox psychiatrists because one of their strongest arguments has always been: “Ah yes, but we have the science. We have the actual facts about mental disorder and not just silly sentimentalists.” By a lengthy process of analysis of all the claims on which biological psychiatry can logically be based, I have concluded that, in fact, they don’t have the science. I have shown that the central claims of biological psychiatry are false, that it doesn’t make any sense at all when it is examined closely and that it is pure ideology, in the bad sense of the word. My case is based in the philosophy of science, meaning that I use only the same standards of science as are used in all other fields of investigation, and biological psychiatry fails the lot. It is rational in the sense that it takes the predetermined rules of what constitutes a science and applies them uniformly with no favoritism. It is logical in the sense that it dismantles the superstructure of biological psychiatry (all the claims about this drug being better than that, or this group of patients doing better than that, and so on) and looks only at the fundamental claims of the actual model of mental disorder. Of course, it finds that there isn’t one.

Biological psychiatry, which wanted so much to be part of orthodox clinical medicine, is the only medical specialty that doesn’t have a formal, articulated model of pathology (in this case, mental disorder) to guide its daily practice, its teaching and its research. The vast output of the huge academic-pharmaceutical-bureaucratic industry dedicated to finding and treating “chemical imbalances of the brain” is a gigantic exercise in pseudo-science. It is no longer irrational to challenge the scientific basis of modern psychiatry.

Conclusion: Objections to biological psychiatry are valid. This is partly because anybody is allowed to object to any part of western science, because criticism is an essential part of the scientific tradition. If there is no institutionalized criticism, then there can be no scientific progress. It is valid partly because no one group can monopolize the thought processes of a civilization (diversity breeds progress) and also because modern western science makes no claims about mental life qua sentience. Western materialist science cannot handle mentality, so it tries to get it out of the equation.

Any person who sees a psychiatrist is entitled to ask this question: “What is the name of the model of mental disorder you use to guide your daily practice, your teaching and your research? Please give me three seminal references where it is set out as a series of axiomatic propositions which can be tested against the canons of science and which have direct predictive value.” All you will ever get is a frustrated stare, followed by a quick exit.

© Dr. Niall McLaren for biopsychiatry.ca – All rights reserved.

Dr. Niall McLaren is a psychiatrist who lives and works in Australia. He is the author the following books:

 

[email_link]

Biopsychiatry Illuminated

THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
by Bob Collier

24 November 2003
Issue 69Pseudo-Science Among Us
by Dean BlehertPart 1

INTRODUCTION:

Increasingly one sees articles about the overprescription of psychiatric drugs like Ritalin and Prozac among school children. Even the New York Times got into the act recently, despite its bias towards the large pharmaceutical companies who pay so much for ad space and would prefer to pretend the controversy doesn’t exist. When even the Times decides that this news is fit to print, the issue is getting too hot to ignore.

In the following article, I want to shift focus from debates about how much of a drug is too much to the basic scientific validity of the psychiatric labels — alleged disorders – that lead to the drugging of millions of children in the United States. I want to remove from the discussion some assumptions that make it difficult for us to see what’s before us. The main assumption is that because a great deal of science (especially chemistry) is involved in psychiatric medication, the psychiatric programs are, themselves, scientific. By analogy, if a mass murder killed millions of people by use of highly “scientific” weaponry designed in advanced laboratories (a la Lex Luthor), one would conclude that the killing of millions of people was part of a “scientific program”. That sounds absurd, but prominent Nazi psychiatrists running experiments in the death camps tried, with considerable success, to persuade themselves and their colleagues that the killing was the extension of a “valid” scientific program (euthanasia of the insane and handicapped).

And in particular, I’d like to make it clear exactly what is meant when someone argues that various alleged psychiatric conditions (for example, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, ADHD) do not exist. Obviously children can be found who manifest the symptoms attributed to ADHD. How then can it be argued that ADHD does not exist? No one denies that some people are tired, but we would probably not be willing to call “tiredness” a psychiatric disorder. Why not? And what would happen if we did? And is the psychiatric classification (ADHD, for example) liable to lead to trouble? I’ve tried to answer these questions below.

Finally, it is my intention to provide an overview, not a scholarly study full of references to studies, but a view of the logic — the science or lack thereof — behind the current scene in psychiatry. Most articles on the subject concentrate on horror stories, pro and con: Mother fears her child won’t get the Ritalin that has helped him so much (how much? No scientific assessment available), or mother claims her son has been ruined by Ritalin. Such stories impinge, but tend to paralyze thought and observation. First of all, we know that many people with ADHD and other conditions get huge gains when given placebos (pills that are known to do nothing). Often, in the tests submitted to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to prove the effectiveness of new drugs, people given placebos (e.g., sugar tablets) show nearly as much improvement as those given the new drugs. Often the drug companies must nurse the statistics considerably to be able to claim a significant difference.

And many of the drugs now in use were tested with inactive placebos. That is, the “control group” is not supposed to know it is receiving a placebo. It is supposed to think it is receiving a potent drug. When sugar tablets are used as placebos, the people taking them, noticing that there are no obvious physical side effects, know they are receiving placebos. Studies have shown that when people are given active placebos — pills that are known to have no effect on the disorder being treated, but that have noticeable side effects (e.g., itching or dry mouth) — they give a much higher rate of “improvement” than do sugar tablets, because the control group is convinced it is receiving a potent drug. The point is, the fact that some people claim gains from, say, Ritalin, is meaningless in the absence of statistics on the gains themselves and on what proportion of users receive them and over what period of time. And even then, gains must be closely defined: What a teacher calls a gain (child sitting still in class) may have little to do with the welfare of the child, but may please the parents, since the child is given a glowing grade.

Similarly, stories of horrors (suicides, children taken from parents who won’t let the children be drugged, etc.) are moving, but hard to evaluate without knowing how many others are helped by the drug. And in most cases the pharmaceutical companies have pat, almost indisputable answers to any claimed bad side effects, one or more of the following:

1. You can’t prove it was caused by our drug.

2. Of course he killed himself; he was depressed to begin with. That’s why he was taking our drug. He simply came to us too late.

3. He shouldn’t have stopped taking the drug.

4. Yes, there are bad side effects, but they occur in only a tiny percentage of cases.

The last answer is particularly clever, because, though doctors are supposed to report bad side effects they observe, surveys of doctors in recent years have shown that few of them know they are supposed to do this or know how to do it. What the drug companies really mean is “…in only a tiny percentage of cases, so far as we know, based on the few reports we get and based on our eliminating from the statistics any bad effects that we feel can’t be PROVEN to be connected with our drug.” Where people have sued pharmaceutical companies because someone has, for example, taken Prozac, then gone berserk and killed people, the companies nearly always try to settle out of court on the condition that the settlement be kept confidential, then claim that it has not been proven that their product was at fault.

Similarly, where children have shot up their schools, psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical company agents are always on the scene to ensure that the medical records of the shooters are sealed under medical privacy laws, so that it is difficult to ascertain whether the shooters were under psychiatric treatment or on psychiatric drugs. In most cases, we’ve eventually learned that they were, but the information came from relatives or friends. In the case of Eric Harris (the Colorado shooting), we learned about his psychiatric medication (Luvox) from the Army, where he’d tried to enlist.

It is hard, perhaps impossible, to get all the data needed to weigh the anecdotes. It is easier to find statistics on the abuses than on the gains, which is suggestive, since one would think that pharmaceutical companies, earning billions and claiming their drugs are safe and effective, would be able to produce proofs of their long-range effectiveness – long-range since children are expected to take these drugs for years — but no such proofs exist.

The battle of anecdotes is no doubt worth fighting, but here my intention is to get behind the anecdotes to the scientific basics: What is it that psychiatry calls a disorder? How does it determine this? What science is behind this? How are the medications developed? When we debate the effectiveness of Ritalin in treating ADHD, is this analogous to debating whether a particular anti-biotic can subdue a known microbe? Or is it more like debating whether to cure an invasion of evil spirits by throwing pepper over one’s right shoulder or one’s left shoulder. (And my apologies to the witch doctors for this analogy, since studies exist that show they have as high a cure rate as Western psychiatrists and psychologists.)

I simply want to put the debate in the correct perspective: Are we debating about science, and should we defer to people who call themselves scientific authorities and who know much more than most of us know about brain chemistry and symptoms of disorders? If not, let’s find out what it is we’re debating.

A final note: Little in what follows is new or original. Much of it can be found in longer, more detailed works by Thomas Szasz and others. I am trying to simplify and highlight a few key points and make them as clear as I can for as many people as possible.

DSM IV:

DSM IV: that is, edition 4 of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — sounds scientific. What is it? It’s a list of conditions, including various supposed types of anxiety, depression, phobia (fear of flying, coffee, colors, women, etc. — over 500 fears), bad handwriting, difficulty with mathematics, too much religious belief, too active, too inactive, angry, upset after pregnancy, upset before or after menstruation, difficulty reading, etc. — thousands of fears, angers, beliefs, emotions, attitudes. It is the Bible of organized psychiatry and the envy of organized psychology.

Each condition is described by a list of symptoms (each such list being a “syndrome”) that one is supposed to use to diagnose the condition. Each condition is said to be a disorder, a lapse of mental health. Statistics accompany these lists that purport to say what percentage of the population of the United States suffers from each disorder. (Someone put the statistics together and concluded that in the United States, many times the number of people there are in the United States suffer from one or more mental disorders.) The statistics are alarming, but shouldn’t be, since they have no scientific basis. They are simply pulled out of a hat. The current figure — if it hasn’t increased as I write — tossed about by the media as being an estimate from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is that 50,000,000 Americans need psychiatric help. Years ago (in the 50’s), the announced statistics were “one in 25”. A decade later they were “one in 10” and later “one in 3”. The sources of these statistics have never provided evidence for them, nor have the sound-byte-hungry media ever demanded evidence. After all, they are statistics, and they come from the authorities on mental health.

The definitions of the various conditions often overlap. No objective tests for the presence or absence of these conditions is given. Definitions are loose enough and conditions numerous enough that it is possible to find a description that will fit ANYONE. Thus, by use of DSM IV, any person can be found to suffer from a mental health disorder requiring treatment. Any person can be said to be either too active or too inactive, too anxious or too serene, too religious or too cynical — whatever you happen to be is (or may easily be made to seem) a disorder (or dysfunction, a sexier term). There are even disorders that apply to a person who disagrees with the validity of such diagnoses. In other words, if you think the DSM is bunk, you are, per the DSM, mentally ill.

Who compiled this manual? A committee of psychiatrists on behalf of the APA. How did they compile it? By proposing new disorders (the manual expanding greatly with each edition) and voting them into the manual. One member of the committee later vented her disagreement with the process publicly, stating that she was astonished at the lack of scientific discussion and scientific evidence. She said it seemed as though they were voting on whether to order Chinese or Italian for lunch, not creating a standard list of mental illnesses.

The development of this manual from edition to edition has mostly consisted of the creation of new conditions, but where politically expedient, conditions have been removed. For example, early editions included homosexuality, but when this became politically incorrect (and with no scientific justification either for the inclusion or the exclusion), homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Remember those words, “politically expedient”. They answer a lot of questions. If women’s organizations (e.g., NOW) raised enough stink about conditions like Post Menstrual Syndrome being listed as a mental disorder, it would vanish from the next edition — with no new studies to justify the change.

Scientific Basis:

What, then, is the scientific basis for defining these conditions as disorders, diseases, syndromes? To begin with, what constitutes “scientific basis?” Most people confuse “science” with anything scientific sounding. Thus, when medical wisdom called for the bleeding of sick patients to rid them of excess “humors” (a theory in vogue with the very best authorities for centuries), this seemed quite scientific to the general populace, because it was propounded in big words (like “propounded”) by recognized medical authorities, and because it was associated with all sorts of scientific trimmings. For example, to bleed someone, a surgeon had to know where to apply leeches, how the circulatory system worked, etc. Similarly, lobotomies (which cut out or sliced up frontal lobes and made vegetables out of people to cure them of depression) were extremely scientific: It takes surgical knowledge to slice up a brain without instantly killing a body or badly disfiguring it. It takes enough knowledge of the brain to know which slices will leave the motor controls intact (so that one gets a vegetable that can still walk), and so forth. Doesn’t the word “lobotomy” sound more scientific than “torture” or “slicing up brains”? And it’s done by people in white lab coats on operating tables.

In this sense of the word “scientific”, everything to do with psychiatry and DSM IV is thoroughly scientific. The scientific trimmings are gorgeous: Every psychiatrist is an MD, and most can talk persuasively about double-blind studies and chemical imbalances. (Note: “Double-blind study” is one where neither the people dispensing the drugs nor the people receiving the drugs know which are receiving the “real” drug and which are receiving the “fake” drug or placebo. That way the psychiatrist isn’t biased by his knowledge so that he “sees” improvement only in the subjects receiving the “real” drug.)

But the sense of “scientific” we usually mean when we speak of a scientific basis for something is a great deal more than jargon and trimmings. For example, in traditional (that is, non-psychiatric) medicine, a disorder or disease is typically defined as follows: First a set of symptoms is observed repeatedly. Then research is conducted to locate the cause of the symptoms — for example, a germ, a nutritional deficiency, a toxin. Then a remedy is found. Such a set of symptoms is not labeled a “disease” until the various similar sets of symptoms have been linked to a common cause.

Why not? First, because it is dangerous to equate similar symptoms to a single illness, for example, to assume that because two people suffer from headaches, they must both have the same illness. What if one person’s headache derives from a vitamin deficiency, while another’s derives from a brain tumor? The second person may die of his tumor while being treated with vitamins to remedy a non-existent deficiency. The first person may die under the knife (for surgery to remove his non-existent tumor) because his immune system is weakened by the unremedied vitamin deficiency. They have similar symptoms, but until these symptoms are found to be from the same cause, it is dangerous, possibly fatal, to assume that they are the same disease.

The cause is that which, when remedied, eliminates the illness. Medicine defines a condition tentatively, then searches for the cause, then the remedy. Medicine proves out a proposed diagnosis by verifying that every time the symptoms that are supposed to define the condition are present, the identical causes are also present. Thus, if a man has a headache and cramps, since several different causes may lead to these symptoms, the doctor must look for other symptoms to better diagnose the condition. There are, then, objective tests (observable, repeatable, with predictable results) for a medical condition, once it is understood. A person either has the condition or does not. Any treatment of a condition not thus understood is experimental at best. (By that standard, all psychiatric treatments and medications are experimental at best.)

Second, inventing names for “syndromes” in the absence of such understanding creates the illusion that something is known about the cause of the supposed condition when nothing is known, only a list of symptoms. This creates a medical elite exalted by medical jargon, their status having no basis in useful expertise. It substitutes a superstition (Scientism?) for science.

The Scientific approach, then, would be (and I know I’m repeating this ad nauseam, but it’s a key point, if we’re to have scientists, not high priests) to identify a possible illness (set of symptoms), find (by verifiable experiments) a cause, then develop a cure that handles the known cause. A non-scientific approach might be to chant spells over patients, and if one of the patients gets better, use the spell that apparently worked on every patient. Since many conditions are entirely or partly psycho-somatic, this will often work, just as a placebo will often work as well as the “real” medicine. One highly effective treatment is to have Mummy kiss it and make it well. And there are many other non-scientific approaches.

Some are perhaps more scientific than we think. That is, studies not yet done may one day show us the scientific basis of having Mummy kiss it and make it well. (Or the studies may have existed for years but not found publication in professional journals. After all, how would 12-year-educated experts make money if any mother had as much expertise as they?)

Copyright © Dean Blehert

Source: adhd-report.com

Visit ‘Words & Pictures’, the website of Pam and Dean Blehert, artist and poet, at:
http://www.blehert.com/

 

 

[email_link]

The Rise of the Hegemony known as biologic psychiatry

As a practicing psychiatrist, I have watched with growing dismay and outrage the rise and triumph of the hegemony known as biologic psychiatry. Within the general field of modern psychiatry, biologism now completely dominates the discourse on the causes and treatment of mental illness, and in my view this has been a catastrophe with far-reaching effects on individual patients and the cultural psyche at large. It has occurred to me with forcible irony that psychiatry has quite literally lost its mind, and along with it the minds of the patients they are presumably supposed to care for. Even a cursory glance at any major psychiatric journal is enough to convince me that the field has gone far down the road into a kind of delusion, whose main tenets consist of a particularly pernicious biologic determinism and a pseudo-scientific understanding of human nature and mental illness.

By David Kaiser, M.D. from Psychiatric Times

As a practicing psychiatrist, I have watched with growing dismay and outrage the rise and triumph of the hegemony known as biologic psychiatry. Within the general field of modern psychiatry, biologism now completely dominates the discourse on the causes and treatment of mental illness, and in my view this has been a catastrophe with far-reaching effects on individual patients and the cultural psyche at large. It has occurred to me with forcible irony that psychiatry has quite literally lost its mind, and along with it the minds of the patients they are presumably supposed to care for. Even a cursory glance at any major psychiatric journal is enough to convince me that the field has gone far down the road into a kind of delusion, whose main tenets consist of a particularly pernicious biologic determinism and a pseudo-scientific understanding of human nature and mental illness.

The purpose of this piece is not to attempt a full critique or history of this occurrence, but to merely present some of the glaring problems of this movement, as I believe significant harm is being done to patients under the guise of modern psychiatric treatment. I am a psychiatrist trained in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and I use both psychotherapy and medications in my approach to patients. I state these facts to make it clear that this is not an antipsychiatry tract, and I am speaking from within the field of psychiatry, although I find it increasingly impossible to identify with this profession, for reasons which will become clear below.

Biologic psychiatrists as a whole are unapologetic in their view that they have found the road to the truth, namely that mental illnesses for the most part are genetic in origin and should be treated with biologic manipulations, i.e., psychoactive medications, electroconvulsive treatment (which has made an astounding comeback), and in some cases psychosurgery. Although they admit a role for environmental and social factors, these are usually relegated to a secondary status. Their unquestioning confidence in their biologic paradigms of mental illness is truly staggering.

In my opinion, this modern version of the ideology of biologic/genetic determinism is a powerful force that demands a response. And when I use the word ideology here, I mean it in it’s most pernicious form, i.e., as a discourse and practice of power whose true motivations and sources are hidden to the public and even to the practitioners themselves, and which causes real harm to the patients at the receiving end.

Biologic psychiatry as it exists today is a dogma that urgently needs to be unmasked. One of the surest signs that dogmatists are at work here is that they rarely question or attempt to problemitize their basic assumptions. In fact, they seem blissfully unaware that there is a problem here. They act in seeming unawareness that they are caught up in larger historical and cultural forces that underwrite their entire “scientific” edifice.

These forces include the medicalization of all public discourse on how to live our lives, a growing cultural denial of psychic pain as inherent in living as human beings, the well-known American mixture of ahistoricism and belief in limitless scientific progress, and the growing power of the pharmaceutical and managed care industries. These self-proclaimed visionaries, oblivious to all of this, boast of real scientific progress over what they consider to be the dogma of psychoanalysis, which had up until recently reigned as psychiatry’s premier paradigm.

Now, it is not my intention to defend psychoanalysis, which had its own unfortunate excesses, although I do use psychoanalytic principles in the kind of psychotherapy I do. However, it is quite clear to me that the grandiose claims of biologic psychiatry are wildly overstated, unproved and essentially self-serving. Biologic psychiatry has had its successes, particularly with recent antidepressants like Prozac and newer antipsychotic medications such as Clozaril. Medications can effectively improve depression, relieve severe anxiety, stabilize serious mood swings and lessen psychotic symptoms. These successes are real in that they improve the quality of life of patients who are genuinely suffering. But in reality, i.e., the reality of treating patients, medications have profound limitations. I know that if the only tool I had in treatment was a prescription pad, I would be a poor psychiatrist. The center of treatment will always need to be listening to and speaking with the patients coming to me. This means listening seriously to what they say about their lives and history as a whole, not merely listening for which symptoms might respond to medications. Although it seems astounding that I would have to state this, biologic psychiatrists as a whole really only listen to that portion of the patient’s discourse that corresponds to their biologic paradigms of mental illness. It is the nature of dogma that its practitioners hear only what they want to hear.

So what are the limitations of biologic psychiatry? First of all, medications lessen symptoms, they do not treat mental illness per se. This distinction is crucial. Symptoms by definition are the surface presentation of a deeper process. This is self-evident. However, there has been a vast and largely unacknowledged effort on the part of modern (i.e., biologic) psychiatry to equate symptoms with mental illness.

For example the “illness” major depression is defined by its set of specific symptoms. The underlying “cause” is presumed to be a biologic/genetic disturbance, even though this has never been proven in the case of depression. The errors in logic here are clear. A set of symptoms is given a name such as “major depression,” which defines it as an “illness,” which is then “treated” with a medication, despite the fact that the underlying cause of the symptoms remains completely unknown and essentially untreated. I have seen repeatedly that, for example, in the case of depression, once medications lessen the symptoms, I am still sitting across from a suffering patient who wants to talk about his unhappiness. This process of equating symptoms with illnesses has been repeated with every diagnostic category, culminating in perhaps one of the greatest sophistries psychiatry has pulled off in its illustrious history of sophistries, namely the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (currently in its fourth incarnation under the name DSM-IV), the bible of modern psychiatry.

In it are listed all known “mental disorders,” defined individually by their respective symptom lists. Thus mental illnesses are equated with symptoms. The surface is all there is. The perverse beauty of this scheme is that if you take away a patient’s symptoms, the disorder is gone. For those who do serious work with patients, this manual is useless, because for me it is simply irrelevant what name you give to a particular set of symptoms. It is an absolute myth created by modern psychiatry that these “disorders” actually exist as discrete entities that have a cause and treatment. This is essentially a pseudo-scientific enterprise that grew out of modern psychiatry’s desire to emulate modern medical science, despite the very real possibility that psychic pain, because of its existential nature, may always elude the capture of modern medical discourse and practice.

Despite its obvious limitations, the DSM-IV has become the basis for psychiatric training and research. Its proponents claim it is a purely phenomenological document stripped of judgments and prejudices about the causes of mental illness. What in fact it has done is the defining and shaping of a vast industry of research designed to validate the existing diagnostic categories and to find ways to lessen symptoms, which basically has meant biologic research. Virtually all of the major psychiatric journals are now about this, and as such I find them useless to help me deal with real patients. Patients are suffering from far more than symptoms. Symptoms are the signs and clues to direct us to the real issues. If you take away the symptoms too quickly with medications or suggestion, you lose the opportunity to help a patient in a more profound way. As an aside, modern psychiatrists, because they have forgotten or dismissed the real power of transference, vastly underestimate the extent to which symptom reduction is caused by mere suggestion. Not that patients should be left to suffer needlessly from what are often crippling symptoms. Relief from symptoms is a part of treatment. Modern psychiatry would have us believe that this is all treatment should be. Meaning, desire, loss and death are no longer the province of the psychiatrist. In this process patients are reduced to something less than fully human, as they become an abstract collection of symptoms without meaning to be “managed” by technicians called psychiatrists.

This is in the service of medical progress and enlightened scientific thought. The biologic psychiatrist will not make the mistake of imposing their value systems on patients like in the bad old psychoanalytic days. This is, of course, a sham. Modern psychiatry now foists on patients the view that their deepest and most private ills are now medical problems to be managed by physician-psychiatrists who will take away their symptoms and return them to “normal functioning.” This is more than a bit malignant.

One of the dominant discourses that runs through the DSM-IV and modern psychiatry in general is the equating of mental health with “normal” functioning and adaptation. There is a barely concealed strain of a specific form of Utopianism here which blithely announces that our psychic ills are primarily biologic and can be removed from our lives without difficulty, leaving us better adapted and more productive.

What is left completely out, of course, are any notions that our psychic ills are a reflection of cultural pathology. In fact, this new biologic psychiatry can only exist to the extent it can deny not only the truths of psychoanalysis, but also the truths of any serious cultural criticism. It is then no surprise that this psychiatry thrives in this country presently, where such denials are rampant and deeply embedded.

I am constantly amazed by how many patients who come to see me believe or want to believe that their difficulties are biologic and can be relieved by a pill. This is despite the fact that modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness. However, this does not stop psychiatry from making essentially unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety disorders, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin, and that it is only a matter of time until all this is proven. This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naive and perhaps delusional.

As in any dogma, there is no perspective within biologic psychiatry that can effectively question its own motives, basic beliefs and potential blind spots. And thus, as in any dogma, there is no way for the field to curb its own excesses, or to see how it might be acting out certain specific cultural fantasies and wishes. The rise and fall of biologic determinism in a culture likely has complicated and interesting causes, which are beyond the scope of this paper. A few comments will have to suffice.

This is a culture increasingly obsessed with medical science and medical health as a sign of virtue. It is not surprising that our psychic ills would be pulled into this dominant medical discourse, essentially medicalizing our specific forms of psychic pain. It seems to me that modern psychiatry, in step with a culture which created it, assumes any suffering to be unequivocally bad, an impediment to the “good life” of progress, productivity and progress. It is now almost heresy in psychiatry to say that perhaps suffering can teach us something, deepen our experience, or point us to different possibilities.

Now, if you are depressed or anxious, it has no real meaning, because as a biologic illness similar to say diabetes, it is separate from the world of meaning and merely is. Now any thoughtful person knows that something as fundamental as depression has meanings such as loss, facing mortality, unlived desires, lack of power or control, etc., and that these meanings will continue to exist even if Prozac makes us feel better. There is much more to life than feeling better or living without pain, and only a superficial and pathologic culture would need to deny this. Yet conclusions such as “depression is a chemical imbalance” are created out of nothing more than semantics and the wishful thinking of scientist/psychiatrists and a public who will believe anything now that has the stamp of approval of medical science.

It seems to me that modern psychiatry is acting out a cultural fantasy having to do with the wish for an omniscient authority who, armed with modern science, will magically take away the suffering and pain inherent in existing as human beings, and that rather than refusing this projection (which psychoanalysts were better able to do), modern psychiatry has embraced the role wholeheartedly, reveling in its new-found power and cultural legitimacy.

I would be remiss if I left out the obvious economic factors in psychiatry’s movement toward the biologic. Pharmaceutical corporations now contribute heavily to psychiatric research and are increasingly present and a part of psychiatric academic conferences. There has been little resistance in the field to this, with the exception of occasional token protest, despite its obvious corrosive and corrupting effects.

It is as if psychiatry, long marginalized by science and the rest of medicine because of its “soft” quality, is now rejoicing in its new found legitimacy, and thus does not have the will to resist its own degradation. The fact that drug companies embrace and fund this new psychiatry is cause enough for alarm. Equally telling is a similar embrace by the managed care industry, which obviously likes its quick-fix approach and simplistic approach to complicated clinical problems.

When I talk to a managed care representative about the care of one of my patients, they invariably want to know what medications I am using and little else, and there is often an implication that I am not medicating aggressively enough. There is now a growing cottage industry within psychiatry in advocating ways to work with managed care, despite the obvious fact that managed care has little interest in quality care and realistic treatment approaches to real patients. This financial pressure by managed care contributes added pressure for psychiatry to go down a biologic road and to avoid more realistic treatment approaches.

What this means in real terms is that psychotherapy is left out. There has thus been a triple partnership created between this new psychiatry, drug companies and managed care, each part supporting and reinforcing the other in the pursuit of profits and legitimacy. What this means to the patients caught in this squeeze is that they are increasingly overmedicated, denied access to psychotherapy and diagnosed with fictitious disorders, leaving them probably worse off in the long run.

It is quite depressing to listen to the discourse of modern psychiatry. In fact, it has become embarrassing to me. One gets the strong impression that patients have become abstractions, black boxes of biologic symptoms, disconnected from the narratives of their current and past lives. This pseudo-scientific discourse is shot through with insecurity and pretension, creating the illusion of objectivity, an inevitable march of progress beyond the hopeless subjectivity of psychoanalysis. Psychotherapy is dismissed and relegated to nonmedical therapists.

I actually have no objections to real science in the field, if, for example, it can help me make better medication decisions or develop newer and better medications. But in general biologic psychiatry has not delivered on its grandiose and utopian claims, as today’s collection of medications are woefully inadequate to address the complicated clinical issues that come before me every day. This is all not terribly surprising given what I have outlined in this piece. There will be no substitute for the difficult work of engaging with patients at the level of their lived experience, of helping patients piece together meaning and understanding in the place of their pain, fragmentation and confusion.

Patients these days are not suffering from “biologic illnesses.” What I generally see is patients suffering from current or past violence, traumatic loss, loss of power or control over their lives and the effects of cultural fragmentation, isolation and impoverishment that are specific to this culture at this time. How this manifests in any individual is absolutely specific; therefore, one should resist any attempt to generalize or classify, as science forces us to do. Once you go down the route of generalization, you have ceased listening to the patient and the richness of their lived experience.

Unfortunately what I also see these days are the casualties of this new biologic psychiatry, as patients often come to me with many years of past treatment. Patients having been diagnosed with “chemical imbalances” despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and that there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like. Patients with years of medication trials which have done nothing except reify in them an identity as a chronic patient with a bad brain. This identification as a biologically-impaired patient is one of the most destructive effects of biologic psychiatry.

Modern psychiatrists seem unaware of what psychoanalysts know well, namely how powerful are the words that a patient hears from an authority figure like a psychiatrist. The opportunity here for suggestion, coercion and manipulation are quite real. Patients are often looking to psychiatrists for answers and definitions as they struggle with questions such as who am I or what is happening to me. Of course we all struggle with these questions, and the human condition is such that there are no definitive answers, and anyone who comes along claiming they have answers is essentially a fraud.

Biologic psychiatry promises easy answers to a public hungry for them. To give a patient nothing but a diagnosis and a pill demonstrates arrogance, laziness and bad faith on the part of the psychiatrist. Any psychiatrist needs to be continually aware of the very real possibility that they are or can easily become agents of social control and coercion.

The way to resist this is to refuse to take on the role assigned through cultural fantasy, namely the role of omniscient dispenser of magical potions. As a whole modern biologic psychiatry has enacted this role with particular vigor and enthusiasm. At the level of individual patients this means a growing number of overdiagnosed, overmedicated and disarticulated people less able to define and control their own identities and lives. At the level of our culture this has meant an impoverishment of the discourse around such questions as what is wrong with us, as “scientific” answers replace more potentially fruitful and truthful psychological and cultural questioning. If psychiatry is to regain any semblance of legitimacy and integrity, it must strip itself of false and hubristic scientific claims and humbly submit itself to the urgent task of listening to individual patients with patience and intelligence. Only then can we have any real sense of what to say back to them.

The sole philosophic basis for this new psychiatry is the championing of empiricism above all other measures of truth. Something is valid only if it can be demonstrated through experimental method, otherwise it is disregarded or relegated to “subjective” experience, which is presumed to be inferior. Now, of course, this dominance of empiricism is not limited to psychiatry, and one can easily trace the invasion of the experimental method of the “hard” sciences into the “soft” or social sciences.

On a larger cultural level this can be detected in the public’s infatuation with “studies,” statistics and so on. This hegemony of empiricism over other ways of thinking and knowing represents an unprecedented modern achievement which has thoroughly infiltrated the cultural psyche, to the point now where the average person believes easily the claims of the biologic psychiatrist.

Now as is clear from my views already expressed, a social science dominated by empiricism is a vulgar science, and there is a vast tradition in philosophy from Plato to Nietzsche which in my view irrefutably demonstrates this. However this is well beyond the scope of this piece. Suffice it to say that modern psychiatrists, like all “scientists” these days, have no time for the basic philosophic questions that have engaged the most brilliant minds of the past. Who needs questions about virtue when there is important data to collect? These biologic psychiatrists never think to ask themselves whether their own precious methods are perhaps standing on very shaky ground, say their own disavowed prejudices about what constitutes the good life.

Empiricism is one way of knowing, but certainly not the only or best way. Biologic psychiatrists often use the standards of empiricism to answer their critics, in effect saying that their claims are scientifically “proven” and thus unassailable, clearly a tautological argument. I would further add that in my view many of the claims of biologic psychiatry do not even hold up to their own standards of empirical science, for example their claims about the biologic and genetic basis of many mental illnesses.

In my view, the methods of experimental science are inappropriate and misplaced when it comes to understanding the complexity of the human psyche, as they can only objectify the mind and remove subjectivity from the heart of human experience, thus creating an abstract entity in place of a human mind. It is no wonder that psychiatry declared the 1980s the decade of the brain instead of the decade of the mind. In their pursuit of the human brain they have quite literally lost their minds.

One way to unmask the dogma that is biologic psychiatry is to ask the question what kind of human being is being posited as desirable, “normal,” or not disordered. Judging by the DSM-IV, it would be a person not depressed or anxious, without perversions or sexual “dysfunction,” in touch with “reality,” not alienated from society, adapted to their work, not prone to excessive feeling states and generally productive in their life pursuits. This is, of course, the bourgeois ideal of modern culture. We will all fit in, produce and consume and be happy about it. Anyone who dissents by choice or nature slips into the realm of the disordered or pathologic, is then located as such by medical science and is then subject to social management and control.

Now, psychiatry has always provided this social function, as admirably shown by Foucault and others. I would submit, however, that modern psychiatry, under the guise of medical and “scientific” authority and legitimacy, has surpassed all past attempts by psychiatry to identify and control dissent and individual difference. It has done this by infiltrating the cultural psyche, a psyche already vulnerable to any kind of medical discourse, to the point where it is a generally accepted cultural notion now that, say, depression is an illness caused by a chemical imbalance.

Now when a person becomes depressed, for example, they are less able to read it or interpret it as a sign that there may be a problem in their life that needs to be looked at or addressed. They are less able to question their life choices, or question for example the institutions that surround them. They are less able to fashion their own personal or cultural critique which could potentially lead them to more fruitful directions. Instead they identify themselves as ill and submit to the correction of a psychiatrist, who promises to take away the depression so they can get back to their lives as they are. In short, the very meanings of unhappiness are being redefined as illness. In my view this is a dismaying cultural catastrophe. I do not mean to suggest that psychiatry is solely to blame for this, given how wide a cultural shift this is. However, I do think that psychiatry has not only not resisted its role here, but actually has fulfilled it with considerable hubris.

Thus in my view the whole phenomenon of biologic psychiatry is itself a symptom or acting out of a larger, underlying cultural process. Unhappiness and suffering are not seen as resulting from real cultural conditions; for example, the collapse of traditional institutions and the ever increasing hegemony of rampant consumerism in American culture.

Nor is suffering seen in the context of what it means to exist as a human being in any historical period. Historical and existential discourse about unhappiness is increasingly supplanted by medical discourse, and biologic psychiatry has served as one of the major mouthpieces for this kind of pseudo-scientific and frankly pathetic medical discourse about what ails us.

I am increasingly astonished about how unable the average patient is now to articulate reasons for their unhappiness, and how readily they will accept a “medical” diagnosis and solution if given one by a narrow-minded psychiatrist. This is a cultural pathologic dependence on medical authority. Granted, there are patients who do fight this kind of definition and continue to search for better explanations for themselves which are less infantilizing, but in my experience this is not common. There is a frightening choking off of the possibility for dissent and creative questioning here, a silencing of very basic questions such as “what is this pain?” or “what is my purpose?” Modern psychiatry has unconscionably participated in this pathology for its own gain and power. It is a moral, not scientific issue at stake here, and in my view this is why many astute Americans rightfully distrust this new psychiatry and its Utopian claims about happiness through medical progress.

So what kind of psychiatry am I advocating here? First of all, I think it is unclear whether the field can extricate itself from its current infatuation with technology and its own power to use it. When one reads psychiatric journals now, one senses a dangerous giddiness about the field’s “discoveries” and “progress,” which in my view are wildly and irresponsibly overstated. All the momentum, which is mainly economically driven, is pushing psychiatry toward further biologism.

Having said this, what I am advocating is a psychiatry which devotes itself humbly to the task of listening to patients in a way that other medical practitioners cannot. This means paying close attention to a patient’s current and past narrative without attempting to control, manipulate or define it. From this position a psychiatrist can then assist the patient in raising relevant questions about their lives and pain.

The temptation to provide answers or false solutions should be absolutely avoided here. Medications are used judiciously for lowering painful symptoms, with considerable attention paid to the psychological effects of medication treatment. Diagnosis should play a secondary and small role here, given that little is known about what these diagnoses actually mean. Above all suggestion, coercion, normalization and control need to be assiduously guarded against, as these are natural temptations that arise out of the dynamics of power that exist between psychiatrist and patient.

A more humane psychiatry, if it is even possible in today’s cultural climate, must recognize the powerful potential of the uses and abuses of power if it is not to become a tool of social control and normalization. As I have outlined in this piece, these abuses of power are by no means always obvious and self-evident, and their recognition requires rigorous thought and self-examination. The psychiatrist plays a particular role in cultural and individual fantasies, and an intelligent psychiatrist must be aware of the complexity of these fantasies if he is to act in a position outside these projections and fantasies. This requires real moral awareness on the part of a psychiatrist who wishes to act intelligently. What I am advocating for in outline form as stated previously are the minimal requirements necessary for the field of psychiatry to reverse its current degradation. What is essential at this time is for psychiatrists and other clinicians to speak out against the ideology known as biologic psychiatry.

Dr. Kaiser is in private practice in Chicago, and is affiliated with Northwestern University Hospital

 

 

[email_link]

Psychiatry – Making a Killing

Source: Truthfultv on YouTube.com


Join my email list and you will be able to join me in free conference calls and ask me your questions about BPD and recovery or for loved ones ways to cope as a loved one or questions about staying or leaving and much more. I will also be having some free conference calls for subscribers to my newsletter on the general topic of mental illness and how you can really empower yourself if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness in ways that can create positive healthy change in your life.