Jump to content

Talk:Psychiatry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.46.113.248 (talk) at 11:33, 11 August 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


About my remove

too influenced by ideas from medicine causing it to misunderstand the nature of mental distress

@Talpedia It is a speciality of medicine, you meant by other specialities? Most critics I've read are the opposite: that it lacks what all other specialities of medicine have: diagnoses are subjective, biochemical explications for mental disorders lacks replicability and that diagnosis criterias are mostly empirical and arbitrary, in short that is not EBM; (or that it is justification for social control). I think this goes against most critics (I also did not find something similar from my glance at your cite but you may have reformulate).

its use of drugs is in part due to lobbying by drug companies resulting in distortion of research

Your quote from the source does not says that it distorts research.Hploter (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote from the source does not says this may well be a bad summary. I'm open to a suggestion of better wording - and would look into making one now, but am doing other things. In general this sort of distortion works by changing *what* is researched rather than the outcomes, so for example people might be more inclined to look for drug based interventions than social ones. To be clear, I have not seen good evidence that proves or disproves this, rather the source asserts that people make these criticisms.
lacks what all other specialities of medicine have my thoughts on this are it *wants* well-defined diagnoses with biological causes that can be addressed with general interventions. It doesn't necessarily want complicated psychological models that are difficult to test with multiple specific interventions. In trying to fit its interventions into this framing it at time fails (e.g. misdiagnoses, people moving between diagnoses, receiving multiple medications. But... I think the source sort of says "ignores psychological and social explanations bececause they don't find into the model". Basically if it didn't pretend that it had diagnosis and treatments all the time it might have better interventions.
BTW the source is open access so would could look at the some context for the quotes for different summaries and better wording. Also I found this paper as a reasonable good secondary source summarizing critiques from psychiatrists, but there may well be better sources out there: we should uses WP:BESTSOURCES. The author is potentially a bit biased being critical of some psychiatric ideas herself, but that doesn't necessarily undermine the scholarly standard. There are also potential WP:DUE arguments if we found some other sources that had different focuses

Talpedia (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dominant view, even among its critics, is that the nature of psychiatric disorders is in fine biochemical (see Type physicalism), and that we can study them with neurology and neuropsychiatry (medicine). They're misunderstood, because of the difficulty and lack of medical study, not because of its influence. Hploter (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that above is really in conflict with a physicalist viewpoint. Critics viewpoint would be that speech influences "thought" which in turns influences the biochemical function of the brain. The assertion would be that the best way to understand the brain's function might be through social and psychological constructs (and potentially those of the patient) rather than neurological ones. The analogy would be between particle physics and thermodynamics. No physicist really disagrees with partical physics, and yet they might still argue that the concept of temperature and thermometers are useful tools.
I don't really disagree that massive advances in Neusopsychology could be useful for treating a range of psychiatric and psychological disorders. But I don't think that's at odds with the idea that the underlying assumptions and practices of medicine are at times an ill-fit for addressing people's thoughts and behaviours.
Of course, here we are only saying that some notable people have made these criticisms and that it is WP:DUE. I might dig up some sources describing this sort of thought a little later but for now both Anti-psychiatry and Controversies about psychiatry will cover some of it. Talpedia (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion would be that the best way to understand the brain's function might be through social and psychological constructs (and potentially those of the patient) rather than neurological ones
That's better said. A reductionist / medical approach ignores its external causes, so social environnement approach is needed. But Psychiatry already do that so I think it is a minor view and doesn't belong at first or even in a summary. Hploter (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Psychiatry already do that I agree that there has been some acceptance of psychosocial interventions within psychiatry, especially with the rise of multidisciplinary teams. I still suspect more psychologists would view psychiatry as "overly biomedical" and for certain diagnoses (e.g. psychosis) the diagnosis is still entirely biomedical (though psychology doesn't really have any tested interventions...). Perhaps some of this critique is out of date. I know that psychiatry differs between countries in terms of how much psychology gets pulled into psychiatry.
I've added some material that discusses how psychiatry has embraced anti-reductionism itself from a paper. Talpedia (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been argued that psychiatry confuses disorders of the mind with disorders of the brain that can be treated with drugs
Double argues that most critical psychiatry is anti-reductionist
We should put valid criticism instead of dualist pseudo-scientific view that one guy said.
The section should be overhauled. IMO we should summarise the controversies article (which is good content IMO) with the structure of this draft (french): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Psychiatrie#Critiques_2 and some scholars.
(a critic section was once removed, maybe this was good content and we should look at the archive) Hploter (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
pseudo-scientific I mean... it's a contextualised quote from the british journal of psychiatry that is anti-critical-psychiatry and adds your argument that psychiatry has already internalised the critiques of critical psychiatry. We are getting a little niche here... so I wouldn't necessarily expect systematic reviews. I don't think it's pseudo-scientific or dualist, arguing that social constructs exists is not so say that mind exists separately from the brain. Do you like the second sentence, and do you think we should include response to the critiques of psychiatry?
I mean everything always needs "an overhaul". The french version looks like a very short version of the longer controversies article. I have no issues with starting to expand this section out here in a similar way... but also don't see much wrong with the summary as it stands with a link to the full article. Talpedia (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the paper which is an argument for WP:DUE. But I guess would agree that there should be additionally information on psychiatry's adoption of psychosocial models along with this content.
If we could find other sources that talk about controversy surrounding psychiatry (and perhaps give defences) it might be easier to assess WP:DUE... Talpedia (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for certain diagnoses (e.g. psychosis) the diagnosis is still entirely biomedical
It's not, it's behaviour assement. Hploter (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the diagnosis is behavioural but the hypothetical theoretical causes are mostly biological as are the treatment modalities. Talpedia (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing in some other sources. This looks interestin for contextualization / defence from within psychiatry (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7684769/)
The collection of essays "Philosophical issues in psychiatry" probably lets us go deep into these issues.
Here is a course offered by the royal college of psychiatry (uk's professional body for psychiatrists) teaching a course by one of the author of the paper on the same topic. Talpedia (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't belong at first I've reordered the clauses in the sentence so that it appears last. I have no particular preferene for the order. My take is that if it's in a section on controversies and the end of the article and people are still arguing it at the moment then it probably belongs - but I've added contextualization to anti-reductionist critiques to the section. Talpedia (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientologists

I agree that the discussion of scientologists in anti-psychiatry can often be a little distracting. They do appear to have been *historically* relevant to the movement. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights, but I guess history isn't so relevant in this article. Also I don't know how much work the Citizens Commission on Human Rights does... Talpedia (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High incidence of psychiatric patients being raped

I like that we've now got a consensus going on the "Psychiatry as a religion" discussion but honing in on one point mentioned there, namely: how psychiatric inpatients are raped at an extremely high incidence - and if I recall correctly there was also a UK study where a large percentage of psychiatrists admitted to raping patients explicitly for the patients' perceived benefit. By rape, I'm specifically referring to genital rape as opposed to brain rape (i.e. invasively stimulating the nerves higher up in the nerve pathway, or attempting to invasively exert coercion over another person's brain generally), which the UK study I believe did not bother enquiring about.

While I know we're dodging a bullet by avoiding including it in the article, is there a way to make the omission less striking? We haven't gone into conservateeship here in the Criticism section either but maybe we can give it a mention instead without explicitly going into the Thirteenth Amendment implications.

Again, I'm not saying we upset the careful line we're treading but if we want to keep not mentioning (a) gender dysphoria, gender affirming care, detrans & the separation of children from anti-trans parents, (b) (progressively increasing) rates of suicide amongst those being subjected to modern psychiatric treatments, (c) schools which taze special needs students, (d) failures of drug studies to be "conducted on the same timeframe to which they are recommended to be prescribed" (i.e. lack of follow-up studies) and various other "hallmarks of pseudoscience" ("failure to provide controls using spurious reasoning," "gathering results that are inherently subjective but are in this case subjective explicitly on the part of the person who is supposed to be impartially running the study"), (e) the insane and selfish geopolitical critiques about psychiatry as being a parallel hegemonic one-world government that gave the Marxist East a foothold in each country in the otherwise democratic West which was then leveraged as "wokeness" to bring the West to the heel in the space of a few short years, (f) the so-called "addictive" nature of pharmaceuticals and they're "common failure" to produce any result other than symptoms of mental disease (leading to that old fallacy that mental illness doesn't actually have a biological root in hormone imbalances), (g) the failure of psychiatry after many decades and billions of dollars invested to "find any objective markers of most mental diseases whatsoever" (i.e. diagnoses continuing to be unfalsifiable by those subjected to them despite, as the article rightly points out, psychiatry trying very hard to make their diagnoses falsifiable - even if they haven't necessarily made any visible progress in the last half-century or whatever), (h) the incompatibility of psychiatry with almost every other major religion (and involuntary psychiatry especially), (i) the (probably coincidental) ideological similarities and common motifs shared between modern psychiatry and what a Jew would explicitly describe as Satanism, (j) involuntary deaths frequently caused by forced psychiatric therapies and professional liability insurance and laws protecting from recourse against it amounting to a "license to kill," (k) the difficulty of a person generally to seek legal recourse once they have been targeted by it, getting put on treatment before an appeal, having one's body controlled by the people one is suing, indefinite limits on incarceration, bla bla, (l) discrimination by psychiatry on racial, gender, age but, most particularly, class grounds, (m) the use of "This person is encouraging others not to take their meds!" as a dog-whistle and quirky silencing tactic illegalizing so-called legitimate concerns raised about psychiatry, especially on harms experienced by people taking their meds, (etc.) to name a few, including in the Criticism article itself, we should probably throw a bone to the critics, just making sure it's not a big one IMO.

In short, I don't think we're doing a good enough job drawing away from the framing of psychiatry in constitutional, human rights, political, criminal, legal, religious or (conventional) health grounds, and so my thought is if we're going to include the Criticism section at all we throw in another sentence or two that keeps the same tone but really paints one or two standard objections in the proper light.176.46.113.248 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, instead of "Lobotomies haven't been performed since the 1970s." we should specify "surgical lobotomies" in case someone tries to be clever and point out that involuntary inpatients are given chemical lobotomies almost without exception, now that they have replaced surgical lobotomies.176.46.113.248 (talk)
Also, I can see why we've got it in the article that there's a specific subset of psychiatrists that are disgraced for being anti-medical ethics, but even mentioning that might encourage people to examine the relationship between psychiatrists generally and medical ethics in pursuit of a comparison. "See glossary of psychiatry" in the lede is a bit overtly cult-like. On the other hand, can I just say I love the "The success of the drug... proved mental illness has a biochemical basis" line. Whoever didn't want that statement included must have a lead deficiency, haha! Great article overall.176.46.113.248 (talk)

"Blood ritual" footnote

@176.46.113.248: is proposing addition of this footnote to the article:

The goal of psychiatric medicine, and involuntary medicine in particular, is to address the symptoms of mental illness such as to provide a subject with persistent and stable health. However, while force may be involved (and at such times death may even occur), this should not be considered a blood ritual, to which it is distinct.

This has been reverted by two editors now in what is an edit war, but one that clearly shows there is opposition to the addition, and I also do not see the relevance of this footnote. 176 you argue that consensus has been established from a talk page discussion - in the most recent archive there is only a single entry of "blood ritual" here. Just to be clear, even though no-one challenged the proposed addition at the time this does not establish consensus as it has not been in the article before as far as I can see. You have tried adding it now, which is a reasonable WP:BOLD move, but it appears consensus is against it. If you want to continue to propose it, now is the time for discussion not further reversion. |→ Spaully ~talk~  09:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You actually sound a little like @Talpedia, who I think is on watch for a 3RR violation. It's always so wild when things like that happen, haha!
Okay great, my bad, I thought when more than one user agrees on something and then at that point everyone else is happy letting the discussion close, that's consensus. Actually, that is consensus, but don't worry you're and you're family's heads about that right now:
I can see you may not like the wording of the solution that Wikipedians arrived at to address the points that were initially raised in that recent Talk topic you linked to (the one that has the exact wording of the edit in question or, as you naughtily phrased it, "the only one [you] can find", haha!)
In fact, given it was just archived days ago and you suddenly do have strong opinions on it and aren't lying, what do you say to you/Talpedia following Wikipedia's actual protocols and returning it here? Just if you think it's not settled and we're now talking about following Wikipedia's protocols and not having one's valuable accounts banned, I mean (obviously).
I'd love to then hear your responses to the points that discussion raised!
(P.S. Neither WP:BOLD or whether or not something that has actively subjected to discussion "wasn't in the article before" applies but you're doing really well! Keep going, just start being a bit more accurate. Even if you're new, please don't do any more page edits till you've made up your mind about whether it's a settled discussion or not though... Oops!) 176.46.113.248 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychiatry&oldid=1103895279"