Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Article Balance and Point of View 2 Something substantial 3 Psychiatric Crime 4 part about psychiatric in history repetitely removed

Article Balance and Point of View

Let's see, the article on psychiatry has almost no coverage of modern psychiatry from the point of view of or as applied by the mainstream medical community, features a five paragraph long section on "anti-psychiatry" ahead of the three-line long section on "the practice of psychiatry", this isn't unbalanced or pov or anything... -- Ithacagorges, knowing response from Scientologists and "anti-psychiatrists"

With regard to your proposal to rebalance the psychiatry article, please be careful not to go overboard. Given the vast wealth, and the immense and dubious influence, of the drug industry over the prevailing paradigm in the field, it is essential to allow a robust examination of 'anti-psychiatry' in the main article. Scant attention is generally given to the hyperfocused, relatively discriminatory cognitive faculties of the medical establishment's leaders, a matter which may be indicative of their own mental health issues. There are plenty of reasons to believe that, as a group, practitioners of the art of psychiatry have fallen prey to groupthink, expert worship, and mindbending by the drug industry, especially during psychiatric training and internships; as a result, most Western practitioners tend to resort to a questionable reliance upon chemical interventions, rather than sound medical reasoning. While there are likely greater disparities in wealth, power, and cultural influences that may contribute to higher rates of mental illness (and greater stresses creating relatively severe cognitive dissonances) in certain Western cultures, data produced by the World Health Organization clearly indicate remission rates are much better in countries that do not routinely rely upon chemical interventions (with all their attendant side effects), than in countries over-run by Machiavellian drug companies plying their trade. Ombudsman 4 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to rebalance the article (and if I did, given most editors of this article, it would likely be reverted anyway so I won't waste my time), I was just making a comment. However, I would suggest as an exercise to examine an article on psychiatry from a traditional encyclopedia like Encyclopædia Britannica and compare that to this article. While one could possibly argue that major encyclopedias would be "biased" towards "mainstream" psychiatry, I believe the Wikipedia article goes way beyond call in tilting the other direction. -- Ithacagorges 4 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Ombudsman, that was a strawman. Psychiatry is not just a field controlled by the drug industry. Your response reveals some biases that have been part of the psychiatry skepticism for decades, but are largely unfounded.

Psychiatrists are professionals and they have a systematic approach to mental illness, which should be covered. DSM IVR distinguishes between axis I and axis II disorders, someting that definitely needs mention. Multidisciplinary working between psychiatrists, occupational therapists, social workers, community support nurses etc certainly needs mention. In contrast, "mind versus brain" is not a day-to-day consideration. I think Ithacagorges is quite right in his criticism, and I think someone (preferably a psychiatrist) should come to tell us more about how psychiatrists work.

Ranting at the drug industry is not helpful. Without drugs, the mentally ill would still be chained to their beds in filthy madhouses. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

• I will also point out that editors of articles related to "alternative psychiatry" or "anti-psychiatry" often delete or drastically reduce criticisms or discussions of mainstream medical or scientific opinion, arguing the article should be primarily descriptive and giving supportive arguments, that the "alternative" perspective needs to be defended and presented, and that criticism should be limited. By analogous reasoning, what should the emphasis of this article be on? -- Ithacagorges 4 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

JFW, you wrote "Psychiatry is not just a field controlled by the drug industry." Where are you from? Over 50% of the FDA's funding comes directly from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Outfits such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are similarly funded by the drug companies. Drug companies purposely publish misleading propaganda and the public is encouraged to believe it. Drug trials are corrupted by financial interests. "Ranting" at the drug industry is indeed helpful. As a result of such "ranting," some policies have changed, for instance, drug reps are no longer allowed to sit in on doctor/patient appointments -- a small step, but an important one. Some people do indeed feel that they've been helped by psychiatric drugs and nobody should be allowed to prevent them access to them. However, for many others, their lives have been destroyed by psychotropic medication and, in many cases, these drugs were administered without patient consent. The drug companies' involvement in the practice of psychiatry has led to the pathologization (and resulting medication) for psychiatric "disorders" that have very questionable status. Think about social anxiety disorder or oppositional disorder or ADHD or any other bogus contrivance that psychiatry comes up with. There are 5,000 infants -- infants -- on powerful and dangerous antipsychotic medication in the USA. You bet we're going to be watching the drug companies carefully. Somebody has to. JFW also wrote "Psychiatrists are professionals and they have a systematic approach to mental illness." Well, psychiatry does call itself a profession and certainly the educational requirements would suggest that. However, to jump from there to calling psychiatric diagnosis a "systematic approach" just doesn't follow. The only thing "systematic" about psychiatry is that it absurdly clings to the DSM IV as the bible of all undesirable human behaviours. There is simply nothing about psychiatric diagnosis that is objective or in the least scientific. And Ithacagorges, you're the last person in the world who should be complaining about unwarranted editing. You sneer at what you don't understand.Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone supposed to respond to this? Or was it just a manifesto? You seem to be mistaking the American situation for that in the whole Western world. Psychiatrists do not "absurdly cling to DSM". Who says so? JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you were the one wanting to know why psychiatry is accused of being driven by the drug industry. I do apologize for my North American slant, however. So what book do they use in Europe to diagnose their troublemakers? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, ICD-10 and DSM are accepted diagnostic guidelines, but all the psychiatrists I've worked with have strayed from DSM rigidity for the sake of diagnostic conviction. What is the support for your assertion that adherence to DSM is excessive? JFW | T@lk 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the DSM has become a quasi-legal document and a psychiatric label from it carried profound legal and ethical implications. As well, health insurance often depends upon a DSM diagnosis. I have never come across a mental patient that wasn't given one or more such diagnoses but I'm happy to hear that psychiatrists you know "think outside the box" a little bit. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone care to cite some of the "some believe"'s or "other critics"? That's just poorly written.

I agree. We should be avoid weasel terms, especially if there is no WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do some of this during my last edit. We need citations though. Semiconscious • talk 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Something substantial

After all the bickering above I finally wrote a small outline of the work of psychiatrists. Having worked for 6 weeks in an acute secure unit I cannot claim any familiarity with psychiatry, but I do know a little bit which I have reflected over here. I have attempted to leave out controversy: this is how psychiatry is overwhelmingly practiced in the Western world.

Hopefully this balances out the long section on "anti-psychiatry", which is really fringe compared to mainstream psychiatry. Psychiatrists tend to be modernisers in medical care, and (in many areas in the world) have introduced changes long before colleages in other fields did the same.

Please expand at will. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is very good. I added some comments about inpatient and outpatient care, some examples of Axis I and Axis II disorders, added a couple qualifications to the anti-psychiatry section that I thought in fairness were needed, and added a section on criticisms of psychiatry as practiced today (not from the perspective that disputes psychiatry as a whole, and perhaps more relevant to the average reader). --Ithacagorges 05:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me as weird that it took over four years for someone to write something substantial about psychiatry on Wikipedia while the anti-stuff kept on piling up. Perhaps the field of psychiatry has an image problem? JFW | T@lk 09:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I see the "anti-psychiatry" slime is starting to build up again. I moved the anti-psychiatry sections back so they are beneath the full description of psychiatry. (Heck, if the anti people are going to bash things left and right (e.g. DSM), shouldn't you explain what they are first before you go into attack mode? I know that's less fun.) I strongly question the added detailed description of a single drug case in the main psychiatry article; this can be found in the prozac article, and the main anti article, and seems like filler to make the "anti" section longer. Furthermore, the new "psychiatric crime" section seems like ranting nonsense. Even if the figure is correct (814 "psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric worker" criminals), although a bit difficult to figure since three groups are lumped together, this appears to be well under 1% (120,000 psychiatrists and psychologists nationwide and probably a larger number still of "pscyhiatric workers') and very likely less than the crime rate for the population as a whole. -- Ithacagorges 04:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Just remove whatever you see fit, and state clearly that there is a seperate article on anti-psychiatry. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the size disbalance of psychiatry vs. anti-psychiatry is really outstanding, it would be like if the anti-evolution sub-section of the evolution category took up more than half the total space. It's extremely inappropriate and surprising contrast from the 'mental illness' article which actually has more relevant material pertaining to psychiatry than this section. E.g., the section outlining different psychiatric diagnoses... oh well, I guess the scientologists have more time on their hands... ---dj

DJ, there are two solutions: making the Scientology section shorter or making the "substantial" section longer. As a resident you are eminently qualified to talk about the field, practice models, care schemes and everything else. I've been very cautious in my wording to avoid chaos when I wrote that section. I wasn't aware that there was mental illness in Canada :-) JFW | T@lk 17:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I will add a short section discussing the different treatment modalites in psychiatry (medication, psychotherapy, other) and I will also trim the anti-psychiatry section... those long quotes seem somewhat unneccesary but I'll have to read them carefully to ensure that the message is not lost as a result P.S. HOw did you know I was from Canada? djheart 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You both are really being offensive. Scientologists are not the only people who question psychiatry. Most anti-psychiatry activists are people who have been harmed by psychiatry and have nothing whatsoever to do with Scientology. Your attitude shows here and it's all too familiar from my interaction with sneering psychiatrists in the past. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatric Crime

The whole section "psychiatric crime" should be removed. Does anyone object? It sounds like LRH-inspired malicious fiction. JFW | T@lk 16:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Have any of you looked at the main source given for this information? Boston Magazine appears to be a social column about shopping, restaurants and general stuff to do in Boston. Is that really a solid enough source to make such viscious accusations? If they can't give a better source than this I think the whole section should be removed (along with the seperate Psychiatric Crime page if I had my way) TastyCakes 18:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

K, I've looked at it enough to really annoy me now, I'm deleting it. TastyCakes 20:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You were right to do so. It was libelous nonsense, most likely coming from or inspired by the scientologists. As for the article on psychitric crime (and anti-psychiatry for tht matter)... well, I won't go there.--Ithacagorges 21:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone read the scathing commentary in this week's J Clin Invest? Rather to the point. JFW | T@lk 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the link for the above: "Tom Cruise is dangerous and irresponsible". J Clin Invest 2005 115: 1964-1965. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I added the link on Tom Cruise's article. TastyCakes 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see Ithacagorges still slandering the anti-psychiatry movement. Repeat after me: anti-psychiatry does not equal scientology. Ithacagorges refers to "anti-psychiatry slime." How nice. I'm guessing he works in the field. He certainly exhibits all the characteristics. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell from the history page what happened to the psychiatric crime reference, nor do I know how that term is being used here. If the reference is to psychiatric assault, then it belongs here. Psychiatric assault is a serious human rights issue. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It was not. It was about some fairly thin assertions that psychiatrists are more likely to be convicted felons. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I agree it doesn't belong in the article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

part about psychiatric in history repetitely removed

I inserted the follwing piece <quote> Historically one of the main aim of the early psychiatry was to allied that criminal was acting devil for being sickness in order to avoid that their acts due to socila condictions or misgoverments. Since psychiatrists give no proof when they declare a person ill or mad (and they proudly adfirm that what they said can not be prove as true or false and that the only thing that is worth is their own experience and judgment), psychiatry has been used many time in history to imprison political opponent without a fair process declaring them mental ill. </quote>

It was remuve two time asserting that it was bad written and POV. Unluckly my English is not perfect, but anyone can correct it. About the POV: how can be this POV? It is how think really went. Phereps it is just that you can not belive it. About the first part look at the works of Lombroso, the first Italian psychiatrist. About the second part you can even found a very partial list of person put to death in this way during the German Nazism (very saddly the number of the deaths is much longer than the one of the name that was possible to register in the list) at [1] (click on the links on the first column of the table to see the list of the table in the selected range). What it is POV is to hide some historical event. AnyFile 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyfile, let me try to parse your paragraph: "Psychiatry has been used in certain circumstances to stigmatise policital dissidents and have them committed to institutions without due process; examples of this approach can be found in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the 20th century, although many other earlier examples are known."

Is this what you meant? In that case, you are completely right. You are, however, making some statements that could be seen as a value judgment and would fall under NPOV (e.g. "proudly"). What, in your view, constitutes "evidence" in psychiatry? JFW | T@lk 21:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is psychiatrists that should explain their method, and it should use a method that it is scientific accettable. What was saying is that they just say :"This person is ill" or "This person is to be confined", but they do not saying anything in support of it and if asked they answered that they only thing that iti importat is that they have decided so. I am looking for some document about the second half of XIX century's psychiatry. Criminal (also common criminal such as thieves) were considered mental ill to avoid to admitt bad goverment. They same thing was done som years before by looking at the shape of the head or something like that.

Proudly' is not a comment of mine, it is a comment and habit of them!AnyFile 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You inserted it as a criticism of psychiatry. Most if not all the comments have little if any relevence to modern psychiatry. If you want to find or make an article about historical psychiatry and its problems, go ahead. Furthermore, it wasn't just "bad grammer", parts of your entry were more or less unintelligible. People can't correct your english if they don't know what you're trying to say. TastyCakes 22:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please look at WP:NPOV. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)