Talk:Anti-psychiatry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Unassessed This article has been rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Medicine. Please rate the article.
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

Cswrye rated the Anti-psychiatry article as “Low-importance on the importance scale”.

Only one question: Doesn’t the fact that 200,000 people are being electro-shocked each year and that millions of healthy children are drugged with psychiatric drugs is important? —Cesar Tort 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Archives

Contents



[edit] Cleanup needs

Anti-psychiatry - big, sprawling, completely unsourced, reads like personal essay rather than encyclopedia article. --Dcfleck 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Note Dc's comments were from over a month ago, the article has undergone substantial reworking since then and the general consensus is that it no longer needs to be cleaned up. If there are no objections, i'll remove the tag in a day or two. Rockpocket 05:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the current article is looking pretty good. Ande B 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted reference

Unlike the other references, I deleted the following one since it has no connection with the text:

  • Caplan, Paula J., They say you're crazy: how the world's most powerful psychiatrists decide who's normal, Addison-Wesley, 1995. An inside look at the politics of the DSM from a former consultant.

—Cesar Tort 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should the MLK Jr. quote be deleted?

I mean no offense to whoever may have included it, but I do not see how this necessarily endorses what could be considered an "anti-psychiatry" viewpoint. If proof can be provided that this was Dr. King's intent when saying this, then by all means it should stay. Otherwise, I feel it should be removed. FVZA_Colonel 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no idea why that is in there, or whether there is any psychiatric context to the quote. Rockpocket (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure of Anti-Depressants

We could add a section on the failure of modern anti-depressants. Prozac, manufactured by Eli-Lilly, has been shown to increase the suicide rate in adolescents. More recently Paxil has been shown to increase the suicide rate in adults. This has now been acknowledged by the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline. Here is a link to the acknowledgement http://www.gsk.com/media/paroxetine/adult_hcp_letter.pdf . Here's a link to a news article on the subject http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200877.html .

I'm not sure what section this belongs in. Despite the increase in suicide rate, both manufactures maintain that the drugs help reduce depression. In my opinion, these two facts directly conflict with one another, so perhaps this belong in the Pseudo-Science section.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exit 0 (talk • contribs).

That's a ridiculous assertion. It's like saying a defibrillator doesn't help save lives because it has the potential to hurt someone. You're thinking "one specified negative effect" negates "one specified positive effect" without any effort at weighing the effects. --Davidstrauss 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This subject has been extensively discussed here [1] and belongs more to the articles about Prozac and antidepressants. One of the things I don’t like with this kind of pronouncements, very common in Citizens Commission on Human Rights, is that they are a jump. The right way to formulate these claims is something like this: “It has been proven that a significant number of people on antidepressant drugs and specifically neuroleptics suffer from akathisia as a result of such sometimes iatrogenic drugs, a state of extreme inner anxiety. Some of these people with a mental history commit suicide in order to escape the inner torment”. See also what I say about how neuroleptics were used to torture political dissidents in communist Russia in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion. But I repeat: this discussion belongs to other articles. —Cesar Tort 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Cesar Tort may be right about the proper location of this, however, I don't think the assertion is ridiculous. Don't the studies that show SSRIs to be effective rely on subjective, and possibly flawed, measurements of depression? Suicide rates, in contrast, are not subjective. I would also suggest that they are a sure and reliable indicator of the rate of depression within a given population --Exit 0 21:47 GMT, 28 May 2006 updated 22:47 GMT, 28 May 2006

[edit] András / Andrew Feldmár

I'd like to read about him, whether in this article on in his own. I only know his books in Hungarian but he's been living and working in Vancouver, Canada, for several decades and I suppose he should have a wider bibliography in English. See also his page at the website of the R. D. Laing Society: [2] (cache). Adam78 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two distinct articles

Once reworked, the Antipsychiatry article will deal with politics in the mental health movement. On the other hand, Biopsychiatry controversy will explain the scientific side. As Bookish has explained in my talk page:

"As this is a major controversy in psychiatry I think it's very important to restrict supporting references and citations to bona fide medical journals and high-profile campaigners who are medically qualified. Because of the slurs that have been directed against survivor groups I don't think it's particularly helpful to link to articles on the websites of marginalized campaigning organizations. Likewise media reports. Mainstream medical literature will provide more than enough".

For the moment the distinction is blurred. Once both articles are thoroughly reworked the reason for two articles will become clear. Momentarily Biopsychiatry controversy includes part of a paragraph which was copied and pasted from the old article:

Some also believe that the media has distorted information promoting the idea that autism is a physical disorder. Leo Kanner views autism as a psychological disorder resulting from bad parenting (despite occurences of one twin being autistic while the other is not). Psychiatrists who do not accept the medical model of mental disorders, such as Peter Breggin, maintain that the labeling of children inflicts additional humiliation and injury to the self-esteem of an already traumatized child. Since 1971 Breggin is director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Originally the center was founded to oppose the revival of lobotomy, and today it opposes the inclination to diagnose and medicate children and adolescents. Since 1999 the center publishes a journal critical of biopsychiatry theories [8].

Since it deals about psychiatric politics, this paragraph belongs to the Antipsychiatry article. However, to avoid confusion I’ll leave it there and only will move it when the Biopsychiatry controversy article is basically completed. —Cesar Tort 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing section

I have started to rework the article by removing duplicate section (“Scientific...”) that now can be read in Biopsychiatry controversy. —Cesar Tort 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes and references

This article might be easier to reference (and read) if one of us can bit the bullet and convert existing references it to the <ref> method of citation. See the Wiki articles Wiki Footnotes and Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. For instance: I would like to add a link to David Healy (who was invited to give evidence at the United Kingdom cross-party parliamentary inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in 2005 about ghost writing etc.) but at the moment it would look inelegant and messy if I just used a <ref> tags and left the rest alone (am pressed for time right now). I can get round it but it not going get the article improved over all.--Aspro 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd hold off for the moment, as Cesar splitting some of this article into biopsychiatry controversy. Hopefully, when finished, he (or someone else) will use inline referencing as per WP:FN. Rockpocket 16:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Good idea to convert the existing references, Aspro. The Healey/Prozac affair and the influence of Big Pharma may be more suitable to discuss in the Anti-psychiatry article than in Biopsychiatry controversy and I’ll leave that section here.
I’ll do my final edition on this article today and you may convert references after that. —Cesar Tort 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Rearrangement job done. Now you may convert the references, Aspro. —Cesar Tort 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quotation marks

Changed from single quotation marks to double according to WP:MoS advice [3]. —Cesar Tort 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More recent research

Just wanted to point out that schizophrenia is diagnosed more commonly in men than in women (see for example, McGrath 2006, Variations in the incidence of schizophrenia: data versus dogma [Schizophrenia Bulletin 32(1): 195-7]). Also, your citations for Electroshock are mostly from the 1970's (with one review from 2003). It would be helpful to see more recent information than this (a quick review of PubMed comes up with multiple very recent scientific articles both for and against electroshock- for example, pro: Dowman and Rajput 2005, Electroconvulsive therapy: attitudes and misconceptions [Journal of ECT 21(2): 84-7], and contra: Burstow 2006, Electroshock as a form of violence against women [Violence Against Women 12(4): 372-92]). Thanks, Christine Wilder

[edit] re Geni's revert of Austerlitz's post

Geni reverted an edit by Austerlitz but Rockpocket himslef seems to be willing to the inclusion of that article. See Psychiatry and Jeffrey Masson talk pages. --Cesar Tort 10:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(sadly) My executive authority here doesn't count for much, though it is true that i suggested the link should be here if anywhere on Wikipedia.
However, i only went as far to suggest "perhaps it might be appropriate for Anti-psychiatry" followed by "If you are so keen on linking to Cesar's page, why don't you simply link it in the anti-psychiatry article? Strictly speaking, there is a good argument that it isn't even appropriate for that, but at least the content would be relevent."
Not being an expert in the field, i don't know how notable Cesar's opinion might be - at least in his native Mexico - but it seems to make a decent, sourced argument for anti-psychiatry related issues, so i don't really have a problem with linking it here. Might i suggest that it was the nature of the link style that drew Genie's attention in the first place, perhaps if the external link was formatted correctly it might be acceptable? Rockpocket 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to do the format as soon as I get from Amazon Books the Dreamweaver manual that will teach me how to handle my web page. --Cesar Tort 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECT

I think the term electrochock should be changed to the more neutral ECT or Electroconvulsive Therapy. --Myelina m 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn’t advice it since “electroshock” is the widely-used word in the antipsychiatric movement (psychiatrists on the other hand use the term “ECT”). —Cesar Tort 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't to write the Anti-psychiatry article from the antipsychiatric point of view, however. I would advise using "electroconvulsive therapy" because that is the formal name of the treatment, and thus comes with less embedded assumptions than "electroshock". -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's OK with me and thanks for converting the footnotes. —Cesar Tort 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome; it was my pleasure to do it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low-importance?

Retrieved from Cswrye and Cesar Tort’s talk pages:

I have noted that in Talk Anti-psychiatry article you inserted the phrase: "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale." (Doesn’t the fact that 200,000 people are being electro-shocked each year and that millions of healthy children are drugged with psychiatric drugs is remarkable?)

I wonder if this is your opinion or if the rating has been consensual? —Cesar Tort 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That was just my assessment. You can feel free to change it if you want; it won't bother me. I'm just trying to place assessments on all the psychology articles, and most people either don't pay attention to or don't care how most articles are assessed. I know that some of my assessments will be challenged, and that's fine. Just start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, or if you're feeling bold, just change the assessment and see if anyone else challenges it. I will point out two things. First, this assessment is only for WikiProject Psychology, not for Wikipedia as a whole. It is possible for an article to be rated high importance in one WikiProject and low importance in another. Second, the assessment is relative to other articles in the WikiProject. There are many topics that may be important but are not necessarily crucial to gaining an understanding of the field of psychology. You can see the assessment scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. —Cswrye 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You can find a better explanation of importance at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. Some WikiProjects use the term "priority" rather than "importance", but in practical terms, they mean the same thing. I do want to make the point that a "Low" assessment doesn't mean that the article isn't important, only that it's not a topic that one would expect to find in a psychology encyclopedia. —Cswrye 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyrighted material?

http://www.taxglosses.com/Showc-to-Tecno/Anti-psychiatry.html The webpage at first glance appears to be identical to the Wikipedia anti-psychiatry page. Insights anyone? --Scuro 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a mirror of our article. I notice they do not abide by the terms of the GFDL licence nor do they link back to this article, thus they are infringing on the copyright of the major contributors. If you could find an email address from the site owner you could always send them a notice like this, for example. Rockpocket 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The site is registered through Domains By Proxy, [4] whose T&C's prohibit activities that "violate the law or infringe a third party’s trademark or copyright". Thus we could always contact them at:

DOMAINS BY PROXY® Attn: Legal Complaints 15111 N. Hayden Road, Suite 160 PMB 353 Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Or at their email listed here -- Rockpocket 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-psychiatry_d610.html"