Talk:Psychiatry

---

For archived discussions, please see (oldest first): /Archive 1

---

Domain

...which is one of the things about Psyciatry I find particularly notable. As soon as a medically proven and remediable condition is found for an erstwhile "psychiatric" condition, the condition immediately becomes medical and no longer psychiatric - which leaves psychiatry with only those conditions which cannot be predicted, proved or cured. Hmmm...

Add "defined" to that list. For example, see Talk:Antisocial personality disorder, Delusion#Diagnostic_issues, and Schizophrenia#Diagnostic issues and controversies. A book on which the marginalization, imprisonment and mistreatment of so many people is based cannot accidentally have such logical errors.

-Anonymonster

"...becomes medical and no longer psychiatric...":  So far as I am aware, psychiatric conditions – when treated by psychiatrists – are medical conditions being treated by specialized medical doctors.

"defined":  It seems to me that psychiatric diagnosis is as much an art as a science, but, in experienced hands, I see this as a strength to be built on.

David Kernow 13:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

AIDS

I want to explain why I removed the AIDS refence. If nobody has a problem with it, this subject may be removed.

I removed the reference to AIDS possibly being discovered while treating a patient. Hormonal diagnoses as discovered due to looking into psychological issues makes sense; finding AIDS due to such issues doesn't. The only way I'm aware of AIDS affecting a person psychologically is because a person knows they have it.

-- nklatt

I don't understand your concern. If a patient has a history of many unsafe contacts, intravenous drug use, a suspicion of AIDS-related dementia or simply unfounded anxiety about carrying AIDS, it would be professionally negligent of the psychiatrist not to offer an AIDS test. I do agree the example is more far-fetched than thyroid disorders and diabetes, but I'm sure if I agree with the arguments for your removal. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Psychiatry nurse practioner

What's up with teh HUMANGEOUS nurse practioner section, wow is that overblown, there's around 10 lines of their different titles... I'm going to have to to a mega-edit djheart 03:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC) In Reading it over more carefully I really don't see the usefullness of keeping any of what was simply copy and pasted from another source into this section. If the editor wishes to write a short sysnpsis (approximately equal to the size of the psychiatry vs. psychology section) than it would be a usefull addition but in it's present state it's a large bloated, hard-to-read mess. djheart 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My deletion of the nurse practioner section was reverted with the explanation that there was no explanation which simply isn't true (see above)... but if a more in depth explanation is needed here I go:

-An article about psychiatry should not be >50% of the time discussing the role of a psychiatric nurse practioner... in fact it seems to now be almost 2/3 talking about them... especially since it makes the entire psychiatry entry way too long -The nurse practioner section is clearly just an virtually unformatted, unedited cut and past from some other again I point your attention to the extremeley long list of various psychaitric nurse practioner designations - The encylopedia is supposed to be international in scope and discussing at length a psychiatric nurse practioners who do not exist worldwide (I know for a fact they do not exist in Canada (or more specifically in Ontario or Quebec where I have practiced), and I'm fairly confident that they do not exist in the majority of countries worldwide) to the detriment of psychiatrists who do exist worldwide is clearly a disbalance - There probably should some discussion of nurse practioners, but that would be best discussed either in seperate entry and/or in a small 1 paragraph summary in similar length to the comparison to psychology. I would do it myself, but unfortunately, I have never had exposure to this profession even though I am a psychiatry resident.

That said it is true that I didn't discuss outside of the history summary my reason for deleting the insurance company. I deleted it because completely POV with not even a slightest attempt to be balanced, it also adds nothing to the discussion of pscyhiatry. Hence why I deleted it and why I will now delete it again.

djheart 04:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted again, as the field of psychiatry remains a medical field, with APNs taking over some medical roles in some countries. This is no reason to fill the article with equalized language to reflect that APNs are actually doctors (quod non). JFW | T@lk 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

what's the point of having a section dedicated to psychiatrists in fiction?

I looked under the surgery section, only to find that there wasn't a section for surgeons in fiction. Perhaps someone has a list of fictional surgeons they would like to contribute.

anyone interested in an anti-neurology page?

Since there is so much attention paid to anti-psychiatry within this article, I thought I'd propose an anti-neurology section.

Possible topics for exploration could include the influence of large corporations like General Electric on the use of questionable data from MRI scans produced by multi-million dollar devices that are forced on clinics and research centers by political lobbyists.

Attention could also be drawn to the health risks of intense magnetic fields as these instruments are used more an more in "diagnosis" of mental illness.

Another issue for exploration is ethics of using those with brain injuries to draw conclusions about locations of functional behavior in the brain.

I've never heard of an anti-neurology movement. It personally doesn't concern me because neurologists don't inflict their services on unwilling patients. Psychiatry is the only branch of medicine that authorizes practitioners to treat people against their will and that's ironic considering it's the least medical field of all of medicine. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 22:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It uses the same principles as somatic medicine, but doesn't have the luxury of scans and blood tests in the majority of conditions. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good grief! Psychiatry is as relevant to somatic medicine as astrology is. The "majority of conditions"??? How about you show me ONE psychiatric disorder that can be diagnosed via scan or blood test? And, in somatic medicine, I don't believe you'll find provision for incarceration and forced drugging. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

reversion re electroshock

I put the following back in

"and that each treatment lasts only about four weeks, or about the same amount of time the brain requires to heal from a mild closed head injury"

because it is neither subjective nor irrelevant, as the editor claimed. The brain does indeed mostly heal within four weeks from the injury of electroshock and that's why many psychiatrists promote "maintenance" electroshock, i.e. shocking the brain at monthly intervals indefinitely. This is evidence that whatever the short term results are do not last for any substantial length of time. This has to be factored in to the whole risk v. benefit equation when deciding whether to proceed with this very controversial treatment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But what does it have to do with traumatic brain damage? It is certainly not relevant on this general page, and not without a source. The whole comparison with trauma in unduly alarmist. JFW | T@lk 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It has *everything* to do with traumatic brain damage, as that is the method by which electroshock "works." And, no, it's not particularly relevant to the psychiatry page but then neither is electroshock itself. However, if the portion on electroshock remains, then the controversy portion shall also remain in the article. And, far from being unduly alarmist, it's actually completely accurate and it would be negligent to mention electroshock without talking about what it actually is -- a closed head injury. The link to Breggin's paper would be suitable here. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

ECT induces a seizure. Whether it damages cerebral parenchyma is disputed. To state this as a fact is a violation of NPOV. "Negligence" is not applicable to an encyclopedia. There is already a link to the Breggin paper, by the way. JFW | T@lk 01:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The sensible thing was to remove the "anti-psychiatry" paragraph altogether apart from the basics. The relevant information should be in anti-psychiatry anyway. JFW | T@lk 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is also disputed. So to claim it as a fact is therefore also a violation of NPOV, right? Good. I'd hate to think the rules only applied to some subjects. The cause and effect relationship with electroshock and brain damage is about as clear as the cigarette cancer link. All that being said, I agree with removing the paragraph altogether. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is undisputed in current medical literature. The idea that ECT causes brain damage is at the very least extremely controversial, but more accurately just an remote idea from a vocal small minority and not really even discussed in the mainstream medical literature. djheart 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The truth about electroshock is indeed a minority view in the scientific literature. However, the experts on the effects of electroshock are the people who have had it inflicted upon them. Survivor testimonies are disregarded by psychiatrists. The fact that something is pushed in the mainstream medical literature does not make it good. Let's not forget that insulin shock was also peer-reviewed and approved of by the vast majority of psychiatrists. The survivor testimony against electroshock is overwhelming. That a branch of medicine chooses to ignore it is merely sad and indicative of how little regard psychiatrists have for their patients. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are depicting psychiatrists as malicious. All clinical trials on ECT meticulously document "survivor" experience, side-effects (qualitatively and quantitatively with formal testing) and possible confounders. If you think there are misrepresentations in these large and generally well-designed studies, you will have to explain why the investigators did not report certain experiences by their clients. We have all heart about isolated cases of scientific fraud, but it would be rather odd if all studies came to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?

I am not suggesting there are no side-effects, but I'm wondering whether those whose ECT experience was less than perfect aren't just particularly vocal (supported by Breggin and other ECT critics). Of course every medical treatment has side-effects; people die from organ transplants and even routine surgery. What proportion of ECT patients do you think report those harrowing experiences? JFW | T@lk 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the Breggin article as it answers your questions far more effectively than I could ever hope to. Breggin effectively slices and dices those "meticulous" electroshock trials. I don't believe psychiatrists as a group of people are malicious, although there are certainly sadists in that field but fortunately they are not too common. However, I do think psychiatry as a field is uncommonly arrogant and ignorant, which is a dangerous combination. "Less than perfect" is somewhat of a euphemism to describe the electroshock experience for many of us. Some of us were dragged out of seclusion cells kicking and screaming to the shock room. I wouldn't even be able to guess what proportion of electroshock patients report their experiences. Certainly the patients who were killed outright by electroshock did not report. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, deaths related to ECT are reported in the literature but they are extremely rare (far less than most procedures or medications) and almost always related to the use of anesthetics agents during the procedure and not the ECT itself. Second, standards of evidence are much higher in all fields of medicine since the advent of evidence-based medicine so many ideas that were accepted the past (e.g. insulin shock therapy's usefulness, that stress caused ulcers, that the medication Colace is useful for constipation etc. etc.) have been proven to be incorrect. Third, 'survivor' testinomony on anti-psychiatry websites may be overwhelming but certainly do not represent the overall patient experience. Forth, patients only receive ECT if they (or alternate decision maker if they are incapacitated) sign a consent form authorizing it's use.

Most importantly though, none of what you have written supports the contention that there is a widespread consensus in the scientific community that ECT causes brain damage so anything alluding to this idea is POV and has no place in a wikipedia article. djheart 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong on just about all your points. Deaths following electroshock are relatively common, possibly as high as 1 in 1,000. "Evidence-based" medicine is something of a misnomer. Basically, it means ignoring individual experience. Survivor needs no quotation marks. And I wasn't suggesting that everybody had a bad electroshock experience. And your fourth point IS OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG!!! In Canada and the USA and many countries in Europe, consent is simply not required. I never said there was widespread consensus within the medical community about the damaging effects of electroshock. But I did say that there is overwhelming evidence of same. NPOV doesn't just mean majority vote, you know. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How about continuing this discussion on talk:Electroconvulsive therapy, which seems to be the subject of this thread? JFW | T@lk 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

PIAGET was not a psychiatrist hence deleted

I think I need some guidance.Piaget and Overland are not psychiatrists but psychologists.Do we have to include them in the list of famous figures in psychiatry?Jk 1st Dec 2005

Both had a significant influence on psychiatry. JFW | T@lk 08:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree.But I thought this column was only for qualified psychiatrists.That was the reason Kay Redfierld Jamieson was moved to another section.Otherwise we shall have to include Anna Freud,William James,Wolpe and a whole lot of others.I think we need some clarification.It would perfectly be in order to have another column for non psychiatrists who influenced psychiatry but I have a feeling this column should be left for qualified psychiatrists.JK 2nd Dec

savodnik's article

Recent LA Times article by a psychiatrist covering several criticisms of modern psychiatry. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Lab tests in Psychiatry

Francesca, stop deleting the reference to lab tests. They are frequently used in the diagnosis of psychiatric disoders, the most frequent example is TSH levels to ensure that the patient isn't suffering from a disbalance of thyroid hormone which can cause depression or anxiety. As for brain imaging, a CT scan in any first episode psychosis or new onset dementia is routine. djheart 05:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the wording, djheart. The way it was worded suggested that mental illness could be diagnosed via lab test and that's patently false. Ruling out thyroid dysfunction is a good idea but that's not diagnosing mental illness. I don't know where in the world you are, djheart, but I can tell you that CT scans are the exception, not the norm, in psychiatric practice around here. Furthermore, when they are used, they can't diagnose mental illness either. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but if the psychosis is the result of cerebral vasculitis you'd rather that this is identified, uh? JFW | T@lk 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would! But the sad reality is that physical diseases are not usually even considered, especially when you've already been slapped with a psychiatric label. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretending that medical procedures like lab tests and scans are actually used in diagnosis and treatment of psych disorders is dishonest. It would be closer to the truth to say that those procedures are used while the patient is still receiving medical care. Once those tests are over (assuming they're negative), then the patient is treated with psychiatry and there scientific medical procedure stops. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Lab tests and CT scans are used in what is called the differential diagnosis in medicine including psychiatry. Non-psychiatric medical conditions must be differentiated by purely psychiatric causes of the presenting symptoms. For example, you cannot diagnose someone with Major Depressive Disorder without doing a TSH test, which is sometimes forgotten by the family and emergency docs who refer patients to psychiatry (also the test takes 48-72 h to give back results so patients are often under the care of psychiatry before the results are in). As for the CT scans, ironically I live in the same country as you Francesca, and I can tell you that in Ontario CT scans for a first episode psychosis or a new onset dementia are indeed routine and a standard of care. djheart 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read some of the 'clarifications' that were made to the lab tests section. Lab tests and medical imaging are useful to differentiate psychiatric illnesses from a long list of non-psychiatric conditions inluding: increased and decreased levels of cortisol, primary brain tumours, metastases to the brain from other cancers, epilepsy, drug intoxication, hepatic encephalophathy, stroke, normotensive hydrocephaly etc. etc. djheart 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that these procedures (e.g. lab tests and brain scans) are only used to rule out true medical disorders. They don't "differentiate" psychiatric illness from medical illness. They are NOT used to diagnose/treat mental illness except by saying, for example, well we can't find a physical culprit therefore it must be mental. That should be reflected in the wording of the article. And if CT scans are routinely used in Ontario, then that's great, you're miles ahead of British Columbia. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Cronian (talk · contribs) has littered the "pratice of psychiatry" section with several uses of the word "controversial". It is rather easy to label things such, but evidence is lacking. Also, this controversy is really just confined to the political opponents of psychiatry, and should be dealt with in the relevant section and not in the section that explains the practice of psychiatry as perceived by the field itself. I've allowed the exception of ECT, although I still think it is not correct to label it "controversial" just because Breggin and his lot make such a fuss. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to have your eyes closed to believe that evidence is lacking for the controversy over psychiatry. You've "allowed" an exception. How gracious of you. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't type with my eyes closed. But the article already has a "controversy" section, and Cronian was WP:POINT in the wrong section. By the way, there is no branch of medicine without scientific controversy. Thank God, that keeps it interesting. But outside attacks are not just controversy, especially when politically motivated. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how my skepticism about psychiatry (which is based on years of psychiatric assault) could be considered an "outside attack." Even better, please enlighten me as to what my political motivations are. I agree with you that all of medicine encounters controversy. However, psychiatry is in a class by itself when it comes to disregarding patients' views, blundering along without recourse to science and throwing civil liberties out the window. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you had just wanted to rearrange Cronian's contribution, fine, but that's never good enough. You take every opportunity to belittle people's very valid criticism of psychiatry. Psychiatry is a joke, more religion than medicine. If mental illnesses were actual illnesses, they'd be treated by actual doctors such as neurologists. I wonder if you will ever acknowledge all the lives destroyed. There's something horribly sadistic about psychiatry. I wonder if people become psychiatrists because of some deep-rooted insecurity that makes having authority over the defenceless seem attractive. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

more bullshit from the psychiatric front

Now we're going to pathologize prejudice: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Allan, I've refrained from including myself in this discussion until now. Allow me to preface my future statements by saying I'm truly sorry that you have experienced what you call "psychiatric assault"; the fragility of the mind is one of the most frightening things and anyone who would prey upon one so maligned is truly a disturbed person. However to retaliate by denouncing what is--in earnest--a scientific endeavor to understand the workings of the mind (with the goal of helping those in need) is injurious to all parties involved. I work with psychiatrists, neurologists, and neuroscientists every single day. Every one of the people with whom I collaborate is truly a good person. You may disagree with the practice of psychiatry, scientific advances may show its tenants to be false, but that is only for time to tell and is not a battle that will be won in the discussion sections of an online encyclopedic article. The history of psychiatry is assuredly filled with many horrors--as well your past may too--but your anger and vengeance here is not helping anyone.

This article doesn't indicate that psychiatry is trying to make prejudice a pathology; rather it indicates that people are now researching whether extreme prejudice is the result of a neurological process. This seems completely rational and valid. Please try to remain civil here: everyone is willing to listen to your comments, but they are more prone to give them regard if you present them without anger or frustration. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have completely misunderstood me. Nobody was "preying" upon a "fragile mind." I'm referring to general psychiatric treatment. I'm talking about solitary confinement, being thrown onto the floor, tortured with neuroleptic drugs, being lied to and threatened by doctors. But all that is just business as usual for psychiatrists. There is nothing scientific about psychiatry. It's just a bunch of subjective judgments applied against people who don't conform. As far as the article goes, trying to make every human oddity a psychiatric disorder is neither rational nor valid. It's just another excuse to teach people that they have no control, no personal responsibility whatsoever. I'm sorry but I'm done being civil with people who perpetuate hatred and prejudice. I am not going to sit idly by and let people write asinine comments about the glories of psychiatry without responding with the truth. The horror of psychiatry is not in its history -- it's now -- creating an epidemic of psychiatric labelling and medicating an ever-increasing segment of the population. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Allan: I don't misunderstand you in terms of this conversation at all. Phrases such as "But all that is just business as usual for psychiatrists" are so broad as to make your point invalid. Such actions (forced treatment, lying, threats) are not business as usual for any psychiatrist, but rather your perception and perhaps unfortunate experience. As I have said, I have worked with dozens of psychiatrists, neurologists, psychologists, and neuroscientists in research and clinical settings, in hospitals and in psychiatric care institutions. Over the years I have befriended (yes, befriended, not treated, as I am neither a doctor nor therapist) many patients who have opened up a great deal to me. Never once have I heard anyone--patient, therapist, clinician, or even colleague--mention any mistreatment. I have friends who have been on drug treatments and been placed into psychiatric institutions, and all of them were able to stop treatment, leave the hospital, and end therapy of their own volition without any repercussion.

There is no harm done in investigating potential underlying neurobiological causes for debilitating conditions. In the article you linked, the man mentioned in the beginning seems to have been unhappy with his situation. Was it biological? I cannot yet say. Is there harm in researching this to find out? No. However none of these points and none of your points are indicative of issues with psychiatry, but rather belie the underlying motives that individual people have. Do I agree with the use of medications for all "disorders"? No I do not. Does this bode ill for all of psychiatry? No it does not. Is this problem going to be solved here and now, on wikipedia? Probably not. Does it have relevance to this article? Yes, and it is already addressed in the primary article in the large section titled Opposition to and criticism of psychiatry.

It is clear that what I say here will not have an effect on your actions. I withheld from this conversation until today, and I have now said what I have intended to say. Nothing more will be said on this matter by me, as we clearly disagree. It is my impression that you are editing articles with a heavy bias, blaming an entire scientific ( see list of peer-reviewed psychiatry journals) field for terrible, but isolated occurrences. I'm not sure what your goal is here on wikipedia, but I do not think you will achieve it until you begin approaching it with a less accusatory, heavy-handed approach. Semiconscious (talk · home) 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am basing my comments on various abuses I have suffered in various psychiatric hospitals throughout British Columbia. Unfortunately, solitary confinement, forced drugging and threats are indeed the norm. These are not isolated occurrences. Many psychiatric survivors have similar histories to relate. My goal with wikipedia is to try to counteract the immense pro-psychiatry POV evident in all psychiatry-related articles. Psychiatry is not a "scientific" field. I have no idea why psychiatrists keep insisting that it is. If these were neurological disorders, as psychiatry claims, then they'd be treated by neurologists. It's very telling that neurologists decline to do so. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So, in accordance with your comments above, I guess it was just my "perception" that I was locked up and drugged almost into oblivion. Look, the only reason we have mental health legislation is to inflict treatment on the unwilling. Are you seriously suggesting that psychiatrists don't use the involuntary treatment provisions? Because everybody you happen to know was free to walk away doesn't mean that we all were. Please try to understand that your experiences may not reflect the experiences of everybody else. The fact that the system is set up to allow the kind of abuse that I suffered is wrong, terribly wrong. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)