Talk:Thomas Szasz

English translation

Cher confrère, je trouve vos coordonnées sur le site AEP,sur lequel vous trouverez aussi les miennes [1]. nous pourrions échanger nos idées,l'avancée de nos travaux? Je participerai au congres international en Italie en octobre2005,et vous? bien cordialement. jean-yves métayer, LE HAVRE FRANCE

Quick translation of above for convenience:

Dear associate, I found your name and address on the AEP site, on which you will also find mine. http://zenartis.site.voila.fr

We could exchange ideas, the progress of our work? I will take part in the international congress in Italy in October 2005, and you? very cordially jean-yves métayer

LE HAVRE, FRANCE

I'm confused. Is the French haven talking to me? To Szasz? Dave 04:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I removed "(This is a surprise to most people with serious mental llness and their families.)" because it implies that wikipedia has a stance on whether there are mental illnesses or not. The article is about Szasz's views, not the authors beliefs. Prem, Florida

Wikipedia doesn't take a position on whether there are mental illnesses? Does wikipedia acknowledge heart disease or cancer? Does wikipedia take notice of whether the earth is round? LOL! --Agiantman 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It ought to take a position on whether there is a part of the anatomy identified as "the mind," and whether a biological basis for "mental illness" has ever been authenticated by autopsy. It should also document the endless trail of useless diagnoses and treatments proffered by psychiatry. Also, whether any biological test (urine, blood) validates any psychiatric diagnoses. Nicmart (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That's what NPOV is all about. Kurt Weber 23:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! Wikipedia does take a stance about the most preposterous claims, the so-called due weight policy. ―Cesar Tort 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

explanation for deletion

I took the following sentence out:

"Moreover, serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion" and the evidence that schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are brain diseases is overwhelming."

for the following reasons: (1) mental illness is most definitely not approached scientifically; and (2) the evidence for mental illness being a brain disorder is distinctly underwhelming.

In support of my two points above, I offer:

- psychiatrists vote on what constitutes a mental disorder and gets included in the DSM - there is no objective way to determine (such as a biochemical test) any mental illness - psychiatric research is heavily subsidized by pharmaceutical companies - psychiatry has yet to find any biological basis for any mental illness - psychiatry is closer to criminal justice than to medicine - the biochemical imbalance theory is discredited by several factors, including spontaneous remission of schizophrenia even decades after diagnosis - the World Health Organization confirms that schizophrenics do better without treatment - Dr. Loren Mosher and others proved that non-drug therapy has better outcomes - the categories in the DSM are broad, vague and the symptoms overlap

Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

please use talk page before radically changing article

Again, I am taking the offending sentence out. "Moreover, serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion" and the evidence that schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are brain diseases is overwhelming."

There is nothing scientific about the approach to mental illness. There is no objective test for it. Symptoms are grouped together in the DSM and many conditions have overlapping symptoms. Psychiatric diagnosis is often in error. There is no "overwhelming" evidence that these conditions are brain diseases. Indeed, there is no credible evidence whatsoever. Schizophrenia might be associated with certain brain abnormalities but it is not clear which arose first, the abnormalities or the condition. Schizophrenics do best without psychiatric treatment, according to the World Health Organization. That doesn't do much for the brain disorder theory.

This is pure silliness. There is indeed overwhelming evidence that these conditions are neurobiological disorders. Here is a bibliography to review: [2]. The idea that people with schizophrenia do better without pyschiatric treatment is extreme POV and I doubt that any respectable organization holds that position. I am restoring that section and adding the cite.--65.87.105.2 20:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there are article about a thing does not imply that this fact is true. Can you infer from the fact that there are a lot of articles and books about astrology that astrology is true and it can predict future?

About the allegged psychiatric prooves about biological disorder, who and how they made the tests? Psychiatrists have no way to make a test to prove what they belive. A psychiatrist told me that this is a very good thing becouse in this way nobody can tell them that their theory is wrong. Anyway anything that can not be check if it is false or not is not a thing that can be called science or that can call science in its behalf (see for instance Karl Popper). In many cases psychiatrists told that someone have done a measure that nobody has done. For instance they claim that it was scientific measured by neuroscientists that a reduction of serotonin level is present in depressed people's brain cells. However neuroscients neither have a way to measure such a level. For a non antipsychiatric point of view on this argument see for instance what have been found in a study ([3])that has really analized where the allegged prooves came from and what is behind the very rich market of antidepressive tratments. AnyFile 16:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, see, it's not "pure silliness." It's very accurate. Neither the Stanley Foundation nor its brainchild, the Treatment Advocacy Center, are accurate sources of information. Re schizophrenics doing better without psychiatrict treatment, this is not POV! This is what the World Health Organization found! And I'm thinking the World Health Organization is indeed a respectable organization, certainly more so than the preposterous Stanley Foundation. I think you should be doing your own research before telling others to do the same. Your tone is very offensive, by the way. Are you a psychiatrist? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If the World Health Organization holds that position, please provide a citation. I can't find any support for your statement. From reading the WHO site, they seem to be quite supportive that caring for individuals with mental illness includes "provision with essential drugs" --24.55.228.56 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

They are very famous studies that Robert Whitaker deals with extensively in Mad in America. I will find the cite for you. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

PubMed has them but there's a charge to enter the site. [4] I'm sure one of the anti-psychiatry websites has a version up. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a high school debater who uses Szasz's theories. I just wanted to say that the argument that mental illnesses are chemical imbalances is flawed for two reasons (at least from what I've read from Dr. Szasz's work):

1) While chemical imbalances may exist in the brain (I'm not a neurobiologist and wouldn't know), that doesn't mean that schizophrenia is a disease. While chemical imbalances might be diseases, emotional differences are not.

2) Because of the way the Therapeutic State functions according to Szasz, the state can label any personal behavior to be "dangerous" or unacceptable to society - therefore, any unwanted behavior is by fiat a disease.

To at least understand what Szasz talks about when he says mental illness doesn't exist, read his latest article in the Independent Review. I mean, who knows, maybe Szasz is wrong - but that's not for us to say. We're simply stating his theories, not presenting our own ideas of them (December 22, 2005).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.65.116 (talk • contribs)

Calton

In answer to your queries which were "rv - are you claiming that mental illnesses are NOT regularly approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion? Also, rv Scientology whitewashing"

Yes, I am saying that there is nothing scientific about how mental illnesses are approached and measured. Why on earth are you referring to civil libertarians as Scientologists??? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that mental illnesses are NOT regularly approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion doesn't pass the giggle test -- it's a factual statement that says nothing about how well or badly they do it (akin to saying "Some restaurant owners claim that McDonald's cooks hamburgers") and you've declined to provide any citations to the contrary.

Why on earth are you referring to civil libertarians as Scientologists? And where would this reference be? On the other hand, you deleted "Scientologists" in favor of "civil libertarians" (hence the "rv Scientology whitewashing" summary) -- would you mind showing me the ACLU's -- you know, actual civil libertarians -- official use of Szasz's arguments, as opposed to a Scientology front group appropriating the label?

Oh, and if you were paying attention, you might have noticed how to spell my name. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of how "well or badly they do it," because that is central to this issue - the scientific method includes making conclusions based on observable evidence that has empirical proof for it. A determination of mental illness, though, is completely subjective and means something different to each person - there is no standard as to what exactly is or isn't a mental disorder. So I'd agree that the people who practice psychiatry *think* they're practicing the scientific method, when it's quite clear that psychiatry is not science like geology is.

One only has to interview a psychiatrist to see how unscientific their brand of "medicine" is. And slurring people who are anti-psychiatry by calling them scientologists is common throughout all psychiatry-related wiki articles. If you're interested in the ACLU's position, check it out yourself. I don't actually take orders from anonymous posters. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I'm one of the main authors of the libertarianism page, though I've been mostly absent from Wikipedia for a few months. I'm writing a paper on the subject and spending quite a bit of time on Szasz. I was wondering if:

1. You would be interested in reading it. If nothing else, it will provide quite a bit of fodder for this article.
2. You would be interested in telling me if there are any other good arguments against Szasz that I am missing
3. You would be interested in telling me if I am being unfair to Szasz's argument in my paper and what counterarguments of his I am missing.

The paper is due Wednesday. If you are interested, email me or post your email address here so I can send you a rough draft. Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

criticism section

The reference to mental illness being approached scientifically should come out, unless it is balanced by referring to the fact that there is no objective test for it and that the error rate in diagnosis is very high. The Stanley Research Institute is what bankrolls E. Fuller Torrey's Treatment Advocacy Center. The Stanleys' son has a mental illness and it's well known that families of the mentally ill promote a biochemical (i.e. blameless) theory of madness. Psychiatry is what separate from the rest of medicine and that should be noted here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC (talk • contribs)

Dr. Torrey, the Stanley Research Institute, and the Treatment Advocacy Center are not the only ones who believe that severe and persistent mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) are neurobiological brain disorders and that serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion. That is the opinion of the American Psychiatric Association (the international association of 36,000 psychiatrists), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), the National Mental Health Association (NMHA) and every other mainstream organization on mental health issues. Szasz's view that mental illness is a myth is a fringe view long since discredited by modern psychiatry.--24.55.228.56 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're correct that all the organizations that you list promote the neurobiological model. However, the APA's statement that mental illness is "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion" is demonstrably false. The DSM contains merely checklists of symptoms which can be given any number of interpretations. Causation is simply not dealt with. A chemical imbalance is assumed, in spite of evidence to the contrary. That is not scientific. Many pro-psychiatry organizations are funded by Big Pharma, an obvious conflict of interest. You don't have to believe that mental illness is a myth (I certainly don't) in order to believe that psychiatry is a pseudoscience and a dangerous one. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, every legitimate psychiatric and psychological study on mental illness uses the scientific method. All of the cited studies by the Stanley Foundation follow the scientific method. Mental illness is indeed approached, measured, and tested in scientific fashion. The scientific method is as follows: 1.Define the question 2.Gather information and resources 3.Form hypothesis 4.Perform experiment and collect data 5.Analyze data 6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses 7.Publish results. The scientific method also involves peer review.--65.87.105.2 21:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

However, your argument falls apart at 6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses. The reason is that these conclusions are subjective and are heavily biased on a person's individual experience and not based upon any standard. For an example of how unique "mental illness" is to each individual and how psychiatrists can often draw false conclusions simply because they aren't basing their conclusions off of any facts, read the study by David Rosenhan in "Being Sane in Insane Places" (1973, Science).

65.87.105.2, we all know how the scientific method works. Psychiatry is flawed right from steps 1 through 7. Some examples -- 1. define the question -- psychiatrists vote on what constitutes a mental disorder at the APA convention every year. 3. form hypothesis -- psychiatry assumes without evidence that mental illness is the result of brain chemical imbalances. Then they disregard all evidence that works against them. That's not forming a hypothesis and testing it. Psychiatrists keep saying over and over "it's a brain disease" but it's just not supported by the evidence. If schizophrenia were actually found to have a basis in tissue pathology, we would have a new *physical* disease and treatment would be moved out of psychiatry into real medicine. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, they DO have physical evidence of schizophrenia, including neuron loss over large portions of the brain in schizophrenic adolescents at a far greater rate and range than nonschizophrenic, and decreased activation of the frontal cortex. The difficulty in psychiatry is not in figuring out what is happening, but what the causation is - compare, for example, the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, and Schacter theories of emotion. Saying "this occurs, and this makes this symptom vanish" is easy and empirical; the WHY is the hard part.

All that aside, while I'm sympathetic to Szasz's concerns over involuntary treatment, liberty, and improper medical therapy, there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict some of his claims about mental disease (claims which, all things considered, contradict logic - if there's physical brain, it can be damaged or defective, just as an arm can be damaged or defective, and while it is society that stigmatizes, many elements of the biological brain are understood well enough to conclude that the possibility of disease isn't just a hallucination [ironic use of "hallucination]). This article ought to have some substance to it, and its lack of critical perspectives is a major failing. -Akio

I don't understand this focus on schizophrenia and it's causes. The field of psychiatry covers hundreds of disorders, including organic brain disorders caused by injury and birth defects. It's true that the DSM generally does not cover the causes of various disorders, It doesnt have to. The DSM is used to determine the best treatment options based on the facts as observed so far. We know that when a certain amount of criteria are present, it has historically been a sign that a certain disorder is responsible. Of course psychiatrists would love for mental illness to be something that could be "shown on an operating table", but it is a much more subtle science and can only be shown in more subtle ways (changes in PET scans, etc.). We can all argue about chemical inbalaces causing Schiz. or the over-prescription of Ritalin, but to make these arguments the basis of a belief that those who affiliates themselves with the field of psychiatry are somehow, by definition, incapable of adhering to the scientific method is pure nonsense. Beren76

It is not nonsense. There’s no evidence whatsoever that mental illnesses are biological. In a statement released in September 2003 the American Psychiatric Association, which represents 36,000 physician leaders in mental health, conceded that “brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental disorder or mental disorders as a group […]. Mental disorders will likely be proven to represent disorders of intracellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry” (quoted in the Wikipedia article Biopsychiatry controversy). —Cesar Tort 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Among other things, Sullum points out, critics argue that some so-called mental illnesses are genuine brain diseases, although their precise etiologies have not been figured out yet."

What mental illnesses are genuine brain diseases? PLEASE LIST THEM--Mark v1.0 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If we take the standard of the DSM-IV, only those caused by neorotoxins. The rest of them don't have a somatogenic cause (but probably a psychogenic one).

You're right. The whole paragraph is extremely confusing and misleading. I propose to radically change it. Take a look at what I have written about this subject.

—Cesar Tort 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then I'm cutting it. To my knowledge any genuine brain disease is treated by a neurologist.--Mark v1.0 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph I myself wrote last year. The whole section is still confusing. I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps another critical analyst of Szasz's critique should be mentioned and just remove the whole Jacob Sullum confusing stuff? —Cesar Tort 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the quoted Donald F. Klein believes that a person who feels better smoking marijuana suffers from cannabanoid deficiency? Nicmart (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

CCHR

I saw the following in the article:

Together with the Church of Scientology, Szasz co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) in 1969 to fight what it sees as human rights crimes committed by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

Would it be more accurate to say that CCHR fights psychiatry and mental health profession, except as practiced by the Church of Scientology? According to CCHR materials, psychiatry and psychology are inherently bad - the problem is not abuses but the fields themselves. Further, any criticism of CoS's methods is notably absent.

So, how would this be for NPOV:

Together with the Church of Scientology, Szasz co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) in 1969 to fight psychiatry and other mental health professions, except for the Church of Scientology auditors.

Michael Voytinsky 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because the Church of Scientology doesn't practice psychiatry either - its auditing sessions aren't psychiatric sessions where someone can potentially be institutionalized. Either way, one could say that Szasz doesn't have a problem with the field of psychiatry so much as he does with involuntary treatment.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.109.101 (talk • contribs)

With respect, CoS has a history of involuntarily confining people - see Lisa McPherson. Further, according to CoS teachings, some mentally ill people, such as homosexuals, should be locked up.

CCHR has a problem with psychiatry and psychology in general - its view is that the pratice of both is fundamentally harmful - and Szazs is one of its founders. Further CCHR's anti-psych position has remained unchanged since it was founded, so there is, at the very least, a considerable overlap between its views, and Dr. Szasz's. Michael Voytinsky 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

The following sentence heads the "Criticism" section:

Some people argue that Szasz's theories deserve refutation only because they are often cited by Scientologists and other anti-psychiatric groups.

Now, there is a citation at the end of the article, but the only point it actually supports is the fact that Szasz's theories are cited by Scientologists, which is such a well-known fact I don't think it really required citation. It does not support the portion of that statement which is far more eyebrow-raisingly questionable, which is "Some people argue that Szasz's theories deserve refutation only because..." I bolded the last words because this is rather an extraordinary claim; surely the issue is whether or not Szasz's claims are refuted, and how they are refuted, rather than an argument about whether they deserve to be refuted.

The only construction I can put on this which explains what it's doing in the "Criticism" section is if the intent of the sentence is something like "Some of Szasz's critics regard Szasz's ideas as so plainly absurd that they would not deserve the response of a refutation, if not that they are often cited by...." However, if that's what it's intended to mean, I feel it might be too POV. It's definitely too POV when it's accompanied by the vague "some people". If we can't find a reference to someone actually stating this about Szasz's theories in about, oh, a week or so, let's remove it. If someone finds an actual quote to this effect we can decide then what to do with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dotted with errors and misunderstanding of Szasz

This article well illustrates the problem some of us have with Wikipedia: it is terrible. Badly written, not demonstrably knowledgable of the subject, factually wrong in several respects, and with clear bias against the subject.

Although his association with Scientology is a small aspect of his work and career, it appears early in this article, and without mentioning that Szasz is an atheist who has never himself been a Scientologist. The early appearance in this article of Szasz's collaboration with Scientology serves his critics (and Scientology.) In a 500 page biography of Szasz, the Scientology association would rate about two paragraphs.

The criticism section says that Szasz's detractors claim that his view of mental illness is a "fringe position." If we are talking about a genuinely scientific endeavor, which psychiatry claims to be, then it is a farce for psychiatrists to characterize any view of psychiatric practice as "fringe." In science a theory is either proven or unproven. That psychiatrists derogate Szasz in this way ironically lends support to Szasz's claim that psychiatry is unscientific: scientific controversies are not decided by popularity contests. As with many other historical examples, only a couple of scientists once believed that gastric ulcers were caused by a bacterium, those "fringe" scientists were showered with the sort of opprobrium heaped on Szasz, yet their theory is now the accepted explanation for which they have now received the 2005 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine. (Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. -- Richard Feynman, American physicist.) Isn't it in the very nature of establishments to consign dissidents to the fringe?

This again under Criticism:

"Some people argue that Szasz's theories deserve refutation only because they are often cited by Scientologists and other anti-psychiatric groups.[1] Szasz himself conducts a traditional psychoanalytic practice for individuals with problems of living; there is nothing in his writings to suggest that he has any experience with or ever treats patients with serious mental illness. Moreover, his critics maintain that serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion."

This might have been an appropriate place to mention that Szasz is not a Scientologist. It is not true that "Szasz himself conducts a traditional psychoanalytic practice..." He has been retired now for many years, except for writing and public speaking. And what is the source for the characterization of his prior psychoanalytic practice? Should it go unmentioned that there is not a single psychiatric diagnosis that can be confirmed with a biological test?

Under Szasz's main arguments:

"Szasz is associated with the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s. He has attempted to distance himself from the connection, though, noting that he is not opposed to the practice of psychiatry if it is non-coercive."

Who associates him with anti-psychiatry and why is this unstated? He is an adamant critic of those who have associated themelves with the term "anti-psychiatry," such as Ronald Laing. Szasz has not "attempted to distance himself from the connection" with anti-psychiatry. He has always been forthright about his profound disagreements with the anti-psychiatrists. The characterization of his having "attempted to distance himself" is false, just as it would be to claim he has "attempted to distance himself" from Methodism by mentioning his atheism, or "attempted to distance himself" from sobriety by advocating the right to self-medicate.

Another quote in this section:

"Although Szasz opposes psychotropic medications, he favors the legalization of illegal drugs."

Szasz does not "oppose psychotropic medications." (He would say that the very idea of opposing a medication, rather than opposing its use and misuse, is irrational.) He opposes forcing people to use any drug involuntarily, including psychiatric drugs, aspirin, or penicillin. He believes that individuals have the right to voluntarily consume any drug, including "psychotropic medications."

I doubt that Szasz has ever written that involuntary hospitalization is a "crime againt humanity," and no source is offered to support this. He speaks of injustice done to individuals by psychiatric practices, including hospital imprisonment.

Szasz has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles, yet his voluminous output is ignored. The web site szasz.com. dedicated to his life and works, is replete with information, including discussion of matters such as his association with Scientology and his views on anti-psychiatry, but it seems that those who contributed to this entry prefer mostly to rely on second-hand information or their speculations.

As one of the prominent American intellectuals of the past 50 years, Szasz has an interesting history. For instance, his academic freedom was attacked and severely limited because of his dissident views. He provides some biographical information in the book "Szasz Under Fire," but none of that history is reflected in this Wikipedia entry. He came from a prominent Hungarian family and emigrated to the U.S. with the Nazi arrival looming. There is also a biographical chapter about him in Jim Powell's book, "The Triumph of Liberty."

The article makes no mention of prominent (not "fringe") intellectuals who have supported Szasz's criticisms of psychiatry, including Karl Popper ("Freedom - yes, psychiatry - no!") and Milton Friedman. You will not learn this because the article is not even-handed. (I would argue that Popper is at the very center of science, and he was favorably disposed to the core of Szasz's critique of psychiatry.)

Hi, there. I agree with you that Szasz's arguments are clearly misunderstood here. However, Szasz did say that involuntary treatment is a crime against humanity, a statement with which many psychiatric survivors and civil libertarians agree. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't doubt you, but I think it should be referenced if he said it. -- nicmart

Neither Popper nor Friedman have any credibility in the field of psychiatry. Popper was a second-rate philosopher with quack views on psychiatry. Friedman is an economist so it is not clear to me why anyone would look to him as an expert on mental illness. --24.55.228.56 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't take somebody within the field to understand the field. Journalist Robert Whitaker is a great example. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Whitaker is just another fringe antipsychiatry advocate who relies on Peter Breggin's quack research as the basis for his antipsychiatry nonsense. Like Szasz's 1960 theory, it is all old hat and inconsistent with modern science. I am not impressed.--24.55.228.56 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Whitaker is a distinuished Pulitzer-nominee. Whitaker took a serious look at Torrey's claims and found his methodology seriously flawed. It's not at all "old hat" and there is nothing scientific about modern psychiatry. How typical of you to smear even Whitaker. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Breggin is not a quack. And Torrey certainly is a quack and also a fascist who has set back mental patients' rights even further. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Breggin is arguably the biggest quack in America. Don't want to take my word for it? Checkout Quackwatch.org.--24.55.228.56 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For honesty's sake, shouldn't you mention that Quackwatch is the web site of a psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett? Nicmart 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is true, Quackwatch is a conventional psychiatrist website.The fox in charge of the henhouse so to speak.--Mark v1.0 05:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer to read a researcher's work and draw my own conclusions. You might want to try this approach yourself sometime. Breggin makes a lot more sense than mainstream psychiatry does. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But, while we're on the subject, what does quackwatch.org have to say about Robert Whitaker? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Whitaker has no medical credentials, he can only rely on quacks, he can't become one himself.--24.55.228.56 20:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, such a different view you have. See, for myself, I was impressed that a serious journalist such as Whitaker, who had no axe to grind (i.e. no vested interest in the outcome either way) looked at all the available evidence and came down firmly on the side of the "quacks." Somebody a little more open-minded than yourself might want to take a minute to think about that. But carry on with your insults and sneering, if you prefer. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've put you in for a "request for comment" due to your obnoxious behaviour on wiki. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a laugh and very hypocritical. Afterall, you are the one who has called people "facists" and "a##holes" on wiki. Plus, you are an admitted member of a extremist group and yet you continue to edit mental health articles after repeatedly being advised that you shouldn't do so. I suggest you review your own behavior.--24.55.228.56 03:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't do it to amuse you, 24.55. It's for the benefit of wikipedia. And I don't belong to any extremist organizations. The only people who have advised me not to edit are people such as yourself with an unwarranted fear of mental illness and consequent hatred of the mentally ill. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nonsense. Whitaker is a distinuished Pulitzer-nominee." That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. One nominates one's SELF for a Pulitzer. Submit a published article or photograph to the committee and you too become a Pulitzer nominee. Being a Pulitzer nominee isn't much of a credential, it just means he knows how to use a stamp to mail a letter with an entry fee. Scotto 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The arguments in Robert Whitaker’s book Mad in America have never been refuted by psychiatrists. Never. Any honest person who reads this exposé would easily see that biological psychiatry has no scientific basis. Furthermore, one does not need to read Whitaker or to have academic credentials to spot a pseudoscience. Occam’s razor and the unfalsifiable hypothesis are the surest “litmus paper” test to spot a false science. Biopsychiatry does not pass the test [5]. 15 March 2006. Cesar Tort

I admit to not wading through every word of this tedious debate, but has anyone on any side mentioned that many of Szasz's critics have a vested interest, a profit interest, in opposing him? Many of his critics are on the Left, and they energetically criticize many industries for taking positions in their self-interest, but not the mental health industry. Nicmart 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

Is he a member of the Church of Scientology? How did his relationship for the CCHR come about if he isn't? Can any of that be explained? gren グレン ^? 13:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Szasz felt so isolated by the academic establishment that he tried to advance his cause through the CoS. But he has never been a scientologist —just like me. I do some anti-psychiatry activism in Mexico and, though I have some scientologists friends and even have spoken against psychiatry in their auditoriums, I have never taken any of their courses. Szasz and I are secular humanists. Just that simple. Cesar Tort 15 March 2006.

Request:

I would like to know more about Szasz's connection with the CoS.

Did he go to them or did they go to him.

I once read that stated he would work with ANY group that opposes psychriatic abuse.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.5.26 (talk • contribs)

He is not involved with the cult but rather CCHR - it's a scientology front froup to push Hubbard's anti-psych beliefs and they use Szasz theories as justification for their stance. Stating he is involved with the CoS is a big stretch. Cruise worships the guy from what I cansee- quoting him word for word quite often - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Szasz gets very well paid for the keynote addresses he delivers in CCHR auditoriums. —Cesar Tort 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort has not a clue how much Thomas Szasz is paid for his addresses. Tort wavers between expressions of admiration for Szasz and vituperative attacks on him. Tort's views are idiosyncratic and unreliable. Nicmart 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do have a clue… —Cesar Tort 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he gets paid for his keynote adresses or not, but it seems to be true to me that he has taken over the viewpoint of Scientology about people who are not successfull in earning money. I've read something about this opinion of Szasz in a foreign language, i.e. in German language, only. That's why I have to refer to my memory, no english source available. Austerlitz 88.72.3.133 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One can only surmise why you try to recall what you think Szasz may have written, or someone else may have written about him, in German "about people who are not 'successfull' in earning money" (sic) when he has made his opinions crystal clear in his voluminous English writings. Perhaps an ant resembles a cow if you view it with a high-powered microscope. Nicmart 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read it by your own, its from his book "Cruel compassion" [6] It has been sold in english language, too. Austerlitz 88.72.8.126 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you bother yourself to quote things rather than to insinuate them? If any person alive is more clear than Szasz about his beliefs, I can't think of who is might be. Nicmart 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Szasz' views are very different to scientologists' views.

Scientologists believe in conspiracy theories, for example, that September 11 was caused by psychiatrists. They also believe that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). Nobody in the secular psychiatric survivor movement or in the critical literature by professionals (like Szasz's) holds such views.

Anyone who reads both the Antipsychiatry article and the Scientology and psychiatry article can see the big difference. The roots are also different. Classic antipsychiatrists like David Cooper and Ronald Laing had ties with the political left of the 1960s; Szasz, with the civil libertarians of the right. On the other hand, Scientology started as a mix of Aleister Crowley’s magic, Freud’s abreaction therapy and bad science-fiction.

Furthermore, scientologists are religiously committed to never take psychiatric drugs. Not even the most prolific critic of psychiatry, Szasz, holds such commitment. Szasz even published a book about the right of adults to take illegal drugs. Also, many secular critics of psychiatry may take, say, Valium to get some sleep. A pious scientologist would never do that on principle.

Another major difference is the total rejection of psychology by scientologists. No secular antipsychiatry activist reaches that extreme!

Szasz is only a nominal founder of CCHR. In real life Szasz has never had any power whatsoever in an organization ruled by faithful scientologists. In fact, many of Szasz’ views are heretical ―e.g., “our right to drugs”― and even evil for the church’s dogmas ―e.g., his agnosticism about post-mortem survival (reincarnation is a central dogma for scientologists, who really abhor materialism). But Szasz has not broken with the “secular” branch of the Church of Scientology, CCHR, and probably never will.

Strange bedfellows… Tito58, 18 December 2006

The "pointless" photo

Since Szasz co-founded CCHR, he is still on their Board of Advisors, he still attends their annual awards dinners, and possibly gets very well paid for it (claim by Cesar Tort above), how is a CCHR PR photo of him at one of those dinners arm-in-arm with one of CCHR's celebrity supporters "pointless"? AndroidCat 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it overfocuses on his membership to the CCHR and on the Scientology aspect, and thus lends a POV style to the article as one user here as well shown. If the reader wants more information on the CCHR, there is plenty available and linked from here to go. Lapaz 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thus lends a POV style to the article..." For God's sake the whole article- save for one small paragraph on criticism and an accompanying counter to it--is predominantly pro-POV. For someone who's been so controversial, so criticized and who is, by a vast majority in the field today, relegated to the fringes of the there's very little criticism in the article.71.50.11.38 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As a facet of his many years as an opponent of psychiatric falsehoods and the use of force, his CCHR association is trivial. The emphasis on CCHR (and no, I'm not a Scientologist) is like a history of Ford Motor Company from the viewpoint that the Mustang is the most important part of it. It is emphasized by those who think his association with CCHR brings him descredit. Nicmart 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If we're reviving this discussion, I have no problem with the article mentioning that his "Founding Commissioner" position on the CCHR board of advisors is powerless. The question is how to cite it. The reference is there to show that he didn't just co-found the CCHR and then walk away with no further connection since 1969. AndroidCat 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on Szasz and the CoS has been continued here.

Since I have a lot of work to do in the real world, I’m removing this page from my Watchlist. I hope, however, that someone else will address the POV issues in the current article. ―Cesar Tort 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Szasz himself about Scientology Thomas Szasz, here, in German language [7]

Austerlitz 88.72.14.248 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• what he said about himself and Scientology (still in German):

"Ich bin kein Scientologe und war es nie. Scientology ist eine Religion, und ich bin ein überzeugter, bekennender Atheist. Ich habe die CCHR aus denselben Motiven mitgegründet, wie ich Jahre davor zusammen mit dem Soziologen Erving Goffman und dem Juraprofessor George Alexander die American Association for the Abolition of Involontary Mental Hospitalization (AAAIMH) ins Leben gerufen habe. Die CCHR ist auf mich zu gekommen, weil sie sich meinem Kampf gegen die Institution Psychiatrie anschließen wollte, nicht umgekehrt. Diese Unterstützung begrüße ich, denn: Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund. Dies allerdings nur insoweit er meinen Feind bekämpft, nicht unbedingt in der Verfolgung anderer Ziele. Amerika und Großbritannien, Roosewelt und Churchill haben Seite an Seite mit der UDSSR und Stalin gekämpft. Deswegen sind weder die Briten noch wir Stalinisten geworden. Ich widme meine Arbeit seit über einem halben Jahrhundert der Bekämpfung psychiatrischer Sklaverei, das heißt der Abschaffung der staatlich sanktionierten Gefangennahme von Menschen unter medizinischer Schutzherrschaft – eine Praxis, die in den letzten Jahrzehnten zu einer staatlich sanktionierten zwangsweisen Verabreichung von Drogen an unschuldige Menschen ausgewachsen ist. Im Kampf gegen den therapeutischen Staat hätte ich die Unterstützung von Juden, Katholiken und Moslems sehr begrüßt, auch wenn ich deren religiöse Prinzipien und Praktiken genauso ablehne wie die von Scientology."

I hope that I or somebody else is going to translate this.

Austerlitz 88.72.14.102 02:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

“ I am not Scientologist and never was. Scientology is a religion, and I am a convinced, admitting Atheist. I encountered the CCHR with the same motives as I brought years before it together with the sociologist Erving Goffman and law professor George Alexander of the American Association for the Abolition Of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization (AAAIMH) into being. The CCHR did not turn around on me too come, because she wanted to follow my fight against the institution psychiatry. I welcome this support, because: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. However this is only to that extent it mean enemy fought, not necessarily in the pursuit of other goals. America and Great Britain, Roosevelt and Churchill fought side by side with the USSR and Stalin. Neither the British nor we became Stalinistan. I've dedicated my work since over a half century to fight psychiatric slavery, i.e. the abolishment of the nationally sanctioned capture of humans under medical protectorate - a practice, which has attained full growth on innocent humans in the last decades to a nationally sanctioned obligatory administration of drugs. In the fight against the therapeutic state I would have very much welcomed the support of Jews, Catholics and Muslims, even if I reject their religious principles and practices exactly the same as I do the Scientology sect. ”

I'm noy sure if it's all 100% accurate, you might want to check it, but that's the gist of it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad2 (talk • contribs)

The above are translated words of Sazsz, as explained above by Austerlitz. —Cesar Tort 02:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claim of influence on Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus

I edited the sentence "Szasz's work has influenced thinkers as diverse as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Michel Foucault, and Anti-Oedipus authors Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari," removing the reference to Deleuze and Guattari. Anti-Œdipus was written in 1972, far before the francophone world (and much of the anglophone world) had heard of Szasz, though R. D. Laing certainly had considerable influence on Guattari. Furthermore, I cannot find any interviews or articles where either of the two even mention Szasz, although they do mention Laing quite frequently (and not always favorably, see for example Guattari, Felix. "Laing divisé." La Quinzaine littéraire 132 (1972)). Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari are often lazily grouped with Szasz. If someone can find a primary source document which refutes my claim feel free to revert the sentence with citation. I left the mention to Foucault intact despite the fact that Foucault's main work on psychiatry occurred much earlier than Szasz's, since Foucault discussed Szasz in later interviews in the seventies and there is considerable overlap between their views. I will read through the relevant articles in Dits et écrits, a collection of essays and interviews of Foucault, to find out how he represented his work's relationship to Szasz's. Frankieist 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pov tag: CCHR membership over-focused

AndroidCat:

You haven’t responded fairly to what Lapaz wrote above about your copyedits:

Because it overfocuses on his membership to the CCHR and on the Scientology aspect, and thus lends a POV style to the article as one user here has well shown. If the reader wants more information on the CCHR, there is plenty available and linked from here to go.

He is right: the photo you inserted today already appears in another WP article. Nicmart replied to Lapaz above:

I agree. As a facet of his many years as an opponent of psychiatric falsehoods and the use of force, his CCHR association is trivial.

I wonder, AndroidCat, if you are not trying to use this as a straw man argument to diminish Szasz’s reputation among the intelligentsia? Nicmart is absolutely right: Szasz’s association with CCHR is trivial. By placing this stuff at the middle of the article you’re giving it a POV style. Therefore I am placing a tag. The photo should be removed.

Tito58 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to respond before it's "fairly"?

• I replaced the photo that Cesar Tort removed without discussion Mar 8th.
• I shifted the very NPOV section out of Criticism, where it didn't belong, but I didn't put it back as the lead section.

I really have to wonder at the POV of people who want Szasz's co-founding and continuing association with CCHR to go away. The section that you have tagged sticks to the minimum simple cited facts, and it is your OR that it is trivial. AndroidCat 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The objection is to the fetish of the anti-Szaszians and anti-Scientologists to push this minor part of his life to the fore. Szasz obviously has no objection to working with Scientologists or to be seen in public with them. But relative to the sum of his lifetime labors, the relationship is trivial. I think some of Szasz's supporters (of which I am one) worry to much about Szasz being smeared by linking him with Scientology, but that's not because there are not those who do try to smear him with the link. It isn't as though Scientology conducted the Spanish Inquisition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicmart (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

CCHR membership?, try cofounder

Not only did he cofound the CCHR, but he publicly extolls the virtues it, produces content for it...in a word there has been a long and continuing relationship between the CCHR and Szasz. Is that overfocus?...and who really has POV issues here? --scuro 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And on their board of advisors [8] (although probably an emeritus position). I believe that he was a keynote speaker at this years' annual dinner 2007-02-17, but I don't have a reference for that. AndroidCat 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

“Emeritus position” may be right. Just for the record, when I relocated the section two days ago I copied and pasted it first to my Word processor. The removal of the photo was an accident. —Cesar Tort 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for explaining that. I do agree that the section shouldn't be the lead section, but I didn't think it belonged under Criticism. BTW, the article briefly mentions the Thomas S. Szasz Award, but doesn't explain it. As of 2004, CCHR now awards it, "named after CCHR co-founder, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at Upstate University, Syracuse, New York. The award is presented for outstanding achievement in exposing or eradicating human rights abuses in the field of mental health." [9], but I'll leave that for others to decide if it should be mentioned here. (Added: There seems to be some confusion about who awards it. [10]) AndroidCat 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This is one of the worst entries I've read in Wikipedia. It is the archetypal example of feuding sides tearing the subject's carcass to shreds. The partipants ought to be ashamed that a dispassionate presentation of Szasz's beliefs and career is not even vaguely arrived at. Take the CCHR membership. That it is real there is no dispute, but it is a footnote in Szasz's intellectual life. In a 600 biography it might merit 2 pages, and most of that over the controversy it has raised. There is no dispute that Szasz is not a Scientologist, and that the organization was created to oppose psychiatry. It was founded long after Szasz had become psychiatry's most prominent critic, and it has had little-to-no effect on his prominence (or lack thereof). He freely acknowledges all aspects of his association with CCHR, but that he "produces content for it" is treated like a matter of international intrigue. Perhaps I've missed it: what content does he produce for it? The reference to Peter Breggin's opposition to NAMI is silly and irrelevant, so I have removed it. Likewise, the long list of mental health organizations that disagree with Szasz is foolish. Why not list every mental health organization in the world? After all, Szasz is a critic of what they believe and do. I condensed that list. There is room for all of Szasz's key views to be presented, and those of his critics to be properly represented. But, as it stands, this entry is awful, and it will remain so until that far-off day when the quality of the entry is more important than attacking or defending Szasz. Nicmart 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes: attention on the subject is over-focused. What we really need is a published source stating that Szasz has never had any political power in the organization. All CCHR decisions are taken by the church. Do you know that source? I know that Szasz is only a nominal founder of CCHR since I have talked with CCHR officials. But we still need a published source. Why doesn’t Szasz himself make a statement? —Cesar Tort 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with CCHR?.--Mark v1.0 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important that Szasz still publically produces content for the CCHR which he helped found. This an organization still is under the umbrella of Scientology. Here is a organization/religion that clearly has a belief system that is not objective. In an objective biography the long association and nurturing of the CCHR would warrant significant attention because it goes to the root of what he believes in.--scuro 12:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Szasz is a scientologist? Szasz produces content just for the CCHR? and you bring "objective" into this? are you freaking kidding me?--Mark v1.0 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relax chum, it helps with objectivity. You are putting words in my mouth to make your point.--scuro 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ADHD

The comment that .."he criticized the use of methylphenidate to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).", is misleading. It is trying to make it sound like he believes in ADHD, yet disapproves the mediacation for it. The main focus should be that he criticises ADHD. This is deliberately misleading, and I am going to delete it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.100.202 (talk • contribs)

Does this solve the CCHR-related neutrality problem?

I have removed the extended reference to Szasz's atheism and replaced it with a statement about his relationship to CCHR which is posted to the official Szasz web site. Whatever the merit of the section's existence, it seems to me to now be impartial. I don't understand the objection to the picture of Szasz and Cruise. Szasz himself clearly had no objection to being photographed with Cruise. Nicmart 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo is ok with me. We only have to address what I just posted above. —Cesar Tort 08:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Convention for using ellipses

In the US, the convention for quoting a paragraph in which the first sentence is truncated is to place the ellipses at the end of the truncated sentence and to leave the expected space between sentences. That is how I originally meant it to be, but I didn't do it quite right. Now I have correct it. Nicmart 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to check the WP convention and manual of style here. I’m not sure if truncated ellipses are suitable for WP since sometimes they appear separated (one ellipses on a line the other on another line). —Cesar Tort 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted bad external link

Some of the external links are of questionable reliability. One just led to site with nothing of Szasz so I deleted it.--Mark v1.0 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the lawsuit (hearsay) link, it can't be substantiated, so I deleted it. It isn't relevant even if true.--Mark v1.0 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Myth of Mental Illness publication date

The book was published in 1961. I don't know why someone keeps changing the year to 1960. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicmart (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Influence

"Szasz's work has influenced thinkers as diverse as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, and Michel Foucault." I don't know much about Friedman, but surely in the cases of Popper and Foucault Szasz was more influenced than influence..? Prometheus912 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe (not sure) that he wrote his first book before Foucault’s dense and opaque and extremely irritating and boring treatise on psychiatry. And Popper behaved as a real coward about psychiatry: a shame since he could have easily debunked it. Tito58 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence

From the blurb:

"He is a defender of counterculture movements, and believes that the practice of medicine, use and sale of drugs, and sexual relations, should be private, contractual, and outside of state jurisdiction."

The commas here are problematic. What is this supposed to mean? --Roman à clef 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I eliminated three commas. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How is Szasz a "defender of counterculture movements"? Where does he offer this defense? Source, please. Nicmart 15:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just removed it and added "suicide". —Cesar Tort 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

... verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses...

I think "confirming or refuting DSM diagnoses" might be clearer. I'd especially like to see the word "falsifying" changed. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Drogophobia

The word "drogophobia" is used early in the article, and defined somewhat later. It gets 0 Google hits other than this article. Could someone verify that this is the actual word used in the original source, and if so, cite that source? The word should also be defined on its first use in the article, since it is, apparently, extremely rare. --Trevor Burnham 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the words should be removed from article. Any objections? —Cesar Tort 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Additions to Criticisms

The "Criticisms" was completely anemic when I found it. It is apparent that this page is overwhelmingly the work of Szasz supporters. I tried to restore some balance by cleaning up this section and adding a concise mention of a few of the more robust arguments against Szasz that I have come across. I hope more people will add to and improve them in the interest of a more complete entry on Szasz, and that those who disagree with the criticisms will have the integrity not to delete or bowdlerize them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storydemon (talk • contribs)

Where is your signature and timestamp? I think the general population knows and believes in the brain chemical imbalance theory, so to state it here is silly. --Mark v1.0 12:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole book on the subject: Jeffrey Schaler's (ed.) 2004 Szasz Under Fire: The Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics (Chicago: Open Court Publishers). —Cesar Tort 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is quite arrogant given the fact that the page on mental illness has no section at all on the critique of mental illness. Since when do people have criticisms? Arguments can have criticisms perhaps, but not people. So such a criticism section would make sense if there were a separate page defending Szasz' arguments; however, this article is about Szasz the person. For example, consider the article on John Locke. David Hume published an influential critique of Locke's work; is there a section about this in Locke's article? Of course not, because that's not what defines Locke's life. I am deleting the criticism section, and please do not put it back unless you can come up with prominent examples of biographical articles that have "Criticism" sections. Alternatively, if you are going to make this page about Szasz' arguments and not about the life of the person himself, then it is only fair that you simultaneously add a criticism section to the article on mental illness. Metsfanmax (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

• Online discussion groups or chat forums
• Personal webpages and blogs
• Multiple links to the same website
• Fundraising events or groups
• Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
• Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Szasz's criticisms don't hinge on 'Dualism'

note from peter105:

I am not happy with the article's claim that Szasz's objections presuppose a Cartesian dualist philosophy of mind, whereas modern psychiatry accepts a purely physical view of mental illness. It's true that most psychiatrists believe that psychological phenomena are products of brain activity, i.e. they are physical in nature. The philosopher Descartes had argued that mind and body were distinct substances, hence 'dualism'. However, Szasz's points are largely unaffected by this opposition because a) psychiatrists are still heavily dependent on normative and sociolological (not rigorously physical) criteria of mental illness; b) even if you had an exhaustive knowledge of how the brain works, how would you decide which states should be considered illness and which health? The only way would be to rely on value judgments, notions of what sort of behavior a 'normal' or 'healthy' brain would produce, and this would open the way for Szasz's arguments. (You might say something like "unhappiness should be classified as a malfunction" - but that is plainly wrong: if you've just lost your family in a plane crash and you aren't unhappy you are very abnormal!)

The key concepts used in psychiatry - the ones that describe complaints for which people seek treatment - evolved as a way of talking about observable gross behavior, physical and verbal. Assuming dualism is false and materialism true, we are still far from being able to give neurological definitions of despair, loneliness, ambition, sarcasm, jealousy, self-loathing, or planning to move to Florida. Similarly with anxiety and depression. So Szasz's point remains: the definitions we frame reflect value judgments and cultural norms (some of which may be sensible and uncontroversial.) Neurological studies will yield helpful findings, but to this point what you hear about chemical imbalances and neurotransmitters is very glib and after the fact. I have seen therapists for depression on and off for years and I have yet to have one attempt to test my serotonin level. (Moreover, the drugs which 'correct' the level cause impotence and anorgasmia -if these are indications of a healthy brain it's a miracle the race didn't die out!) It is not even certain that there is a physical definition for depression, apart from any dualist argument, for there may not be a 'fit' between purely neurological descriptions and psychopathological descriptions that are in part normative and sociological. By way of analogy, imagine trying to give a precise physical definition of unfashionable clothing, aggressiveness at bridge, or a good party. Of all the possible 4D configurations of matter in the universe defined over a continuous stretch of time, a subset of them will be ones in which Peter is unfashionably dressed or Roger is bidding his hand aggressively, but try to imagine a purely physical formulation that would sort out these cases from the others.

Having said all that, I concede that psychiatrists have gained a rough and ready knowledge of how to help people with drugs. But the dream that one day psychiatry will be as precise and value-free as physics is doomed, apart from whatever truth philosophical dualism may possess. Peter105 (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read about 10 Szasz books. You are right: Szasz's objections to biological psychiatry do not presuppose a Cartesian dualist philosophy of mind. It's common of critics of antispychiatrists to conjecture they have a dualist agenda. In fact, the most known anti-psychiatrists, Szasz, Michel Foucault and R.D. Laing, never subscribed to dualism. Szasz himself wrote a book on the subject, The meaning of the mind, where he criticizes Descartes in a few pages. —Cesar Tort 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

use of the word disease in the criticism section

As my title suggests, I think the terms 'disease' and 'illness' are quite misleading when making the comparison between mental and physical health. I don't that the mainstream view suggests that depression, schizophrena etc are caused by viruses? I don't know Szasz very well at all but I would suggest that even he would agree that Syphilis is a disease of the brain, schizophrenia which probably does not have an extrenal cause, is not. Kiwifruitrulz (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream view among experts is that schizophrenia is a disease. Thus, it should be called that in the section.Twerges (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm...no, condition is better. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Erm...no, condition is better" is not a helpful comment. Why is it better? The medical community considers mental problems to be diseases, most psychiatric medication is prescribed by General Practitioners not psychiatrists, so disease is the conventional term to use. Paglew (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography?

There is zero biographical info in this article other than his birthdate and academic affiliation. Surely there must be more information on this individual than that! Peter G Werner (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is stuff about I am sure. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some biographical information especially about his education. Turkeyphan^t 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Szasz Under Fire (Schaler, 2005) includes a chapter-long autobiography of Szasz, including information about his childhood and early career at SUNY.Szasz1961 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section devoid of real criticism

The criticism section is seriously lacking – right off the bat the first sentence is an unnecessary recap of Szasz’s beliefs of which the reader is already well aware from reading the rest of the article: “While teaching at SUNY, Szasz offered private psychotherapy to individuals with "problems in living," consistent with his belief that mental illness is a myth and that drugs do not solve emotional conflicts”

The criticisms that are listed are unattributed: “Szasz's critics maintain that, contrary to his views, such illnesses are now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion” – who are these critics? Are they psychologists, if so the reader would be interested to know. Without attribution it is hard to take these criticms seriously since there are people who disagree with just about anything, to be useful to the reader the section should contain specific references to established scientific and medical organizations such as the AMA, and NIH, and statemenst they have made either about Szasz specifically or the reality of mental illness in general.

Finally, the reference to Jacob Sullum is wholly inappropriate – it is not a summary of the critiques but a dismissal of them by an unknown journalist who is clearly a supporter of Szasz. The Reason magazine for which Mr. Sullum works is far from a mainstream publication - its readers number a mere 60,000 according to their own website and to uncritically quote Jacob Sullum gives the reader the incorrect impression that he is representative of the news media, whereas nothing could be further from the truth- the reference should be removed if for no other reason than its not a criticism of Szasz but praise from one of this supporters

Paglew (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section can certainly be improved. I think that deleting it altogether isn't the right way to go. Controversial persons often attract criticism that's notable, and well referenced information about that is WP:DUE, in my opinion.Sjö (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between criticisms of a person and criticisms of his work. If you wish to comment on the legitimacy of Szasz' theories, perhaps the place to go is the article on anti-psychiatry. However, any page about Szasz should be strictly about Szasz. If peoples' criticisms of his work are relevant to Szasz' life and are notable, then they should be added in the appropriate section in response to the given topic; however, most biographies do not contain criticism sections; for example John Locke, John Rawls, David Hume, Sigmund Freud, etc. Metsfanmax (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a telling point. Why should Szasz be treated differently in Wikipedia than any other intellectual. They all have critics, but most do not have sections of criticism in their entries. Nicmart (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New External Link Suggested

In Oct 2007 Szasz spoke with a small audience (40 or so) at the Centre of Excellence in Interdisciplinary Mental Health (CEIMH)at the University of Birmingham as part of CEIMH's 'Conversations with...' series. The audience consisted of users of mental health services, mental health professionals and academics. The videos of his brief introductory talk and the longer Q&A session with the audience are available at the CEIMH website (see e.g. Szasz Preview) and I suggest putting these in the external links section. If no-one raises any objections in the next week I'll go ahead. KitBull (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

I got permission from Dr. Szasz to upload a picture a relative of his took, which he sent me; however, I've never used a picture on Wikipedia before so I'm not entirely sure how to do it. The file is uploaded at the Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TSS01.JPG. If someone could upload this, noting that the permission is pending, that would be great, thanks. Metsfanmax (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no longer a picture at that link. There needs to be a photo with the Szasz entry, though. There are two at szasz.com for which permission can probably be obtained by the site owner. Nicmart (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Szasz and the debate over psychiatric pharmaceutical treatment

Hi, I'm doing my PhD on mental illness and paternalism. The article refers to the argument that the effectiveness of pharmaceutical medications undermines Szasz's position, and then claims that evidence of ineffective drug treatment supports Szasz's position. Both claims are highly misleading. Szasz sometimes gets coopted by other authors seeking to cite his work in favour of opposition to the use of pharmaceutical psychiatry. However, that directly contradicts Szasz's own statements on the issue. Szasz argues explicitly for the unrestricted legalisation of all drugs, including psychiatric medication, in The Myth of Mental Illness and other works. He has also repeatedly clarified that he is NOT opposing drug therapy for psychiatric patients, he has never opposed drug therapy and he in fact recommends it on occasion to his own patients (don't have the source on hand, but if you do a search through the medical ethics databases you'll find a series of almost monthly 1-2 page articles he writes, mostly repeating the same claims he always makes - if you do a search through those you'll come across it).

More to the point, the issue of drug treatment is completely irrelevant to Szasz's argument. Whilst he believes that mental illness is a social/moral problem, he never claims that drug therapy is not an appropriate solution so long as it is done with a patient's informed consent. When you get down to it, Szasz only has 2 major points of disagreement with mainstream psychiatry (which may explain to some why he was never sacked from his long-held chair of psychiatry, and why he still manages to practice as a private psychiatrist treating many patients): (1) the language used to describe mental illness, and (2) the claim that mental illness deprives the suffer of the capacity for effective autonomy (which underlies both the insanity defence and involuntary psychiatric treatment). There is nothing in his work (and, in fact, there is the occasional statement to the contrary) to indicate that his methods of treating voluntary and consenting patients are radically different to other psychiatrists. (this also undermines the logic of his argument - he doesn't seem to deny the end phenomena of mental illness, just its categorisation in medical, rather than social, terms and he then derives (2) from (1). The 2nd conclusion doesn't follow from the 1st - one can interpret the end-phenomena of mental illness in purely social/moral terms and STILL conclude that it may deprive the sufferer of the capacity for autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.61.113 (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have all of Szasz's books on my shelf. You understand his arguments poorly, which is unfortunate if you have read his works and are "doing a PhD" on related matters. But this isn't the place to argue this, and it is almost certainly pointless to do so. Out into the world heads another academic who misapprehends his subject Nicmart (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more citations

Thomas Szasz is such a controversial figure that wikipedia article should be based entirely on citations of good sources. There are many people wanting to define Szasz to be either a very bad or a very good person due to his criticism against the modern psychiatry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.78.254.165 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article states 'As Szasz said, having become convinced of the fictitious character of mental disorders'. This is false because of the use of the word 'fictitious'. Szasz used the academic definition of the word 'myth'. A myth is not a 'fiction' - i.e. to deny that it exists, and a quote from Gilbert Ryle is pertinent here; "A myth is of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging in one category in the idioms belonging to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to reallocate them." This has caused much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Szasz's position. Please can this statement be changed. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Change to CCHR section

I have modified the section substantially to more directly reflect Szasz's view of the organization. Rather than having someone speak for him about CCHR and Scientology, I have included a quote, with source, where he explains why the organization was formed, and that he is not involved with, or a believer in, Scientology. I have also removed an unsourced quote about why the organization was created ("clean up") because it was vague and the new Szasz quote makes it unnecessary. The footnote includes a link to both the transcript and the audio of Szasz making this statement about CCHR. Nicmart (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Section Criticism

The criticism section is deplorable. Szasz's argument has been heavily criticised by many (and not just psychiatrists) and his position is that of a minority--the criticism section should reflect that as per WP:SCICON. Furthermore there should be no WP:NOR (which I have deleted). With respect to the scientific consensus--which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect--Szasz's denialism parallels Aids denialism, antivaccinationsism and Climate change denial and hence should be treated the same way. Clearly Szas's polemics have not caused the closure of any psychiatry departments at any universities nor have they toppled the dominant biomedical paradigm (in fact that paradigm has only gained in strength since Szasz published his first polemic) so the minority status of Szasz's position shouldn't be obscured and should be treated as per WP:FRINGE. Also for those that are here to aggressively promote Szasz's views your personal ideas on the history and philosophy of psychiatry and mental illness are irrelevant unless you can WP:VERIFY. Your original research or polemic which you have sourced from some anti-psychiatry forum or website is also irrelevant and not citable as a source. I will add some (well-sourced) criticisms of Szasz's denialism shortly. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added Kendell's critique of Szasz's arguments and I tried to present Szasz'z response as honestly and accurately as possible. I read over Szasz's reply to Kendell (which I encourage others to do) and he fails to even address Kendell's principal arguments let alone rebut them. He offers nothing new. He justs repeats the arguments he made in The Myth of Mental Illness. I really couldn't do anything useful with Szasz's reply. I tried to summarise it but scrapped it 3/4-way through because it was largely unrelated to Kendell's main arguments (as I understood them) and was not more than a synopsis of The Myth of Mental Illness. None of Kendell's arguments that I enumerated are addressed by Szasz. Szasz promises a response when he quotes Kendell on some of the arguments but what follows is not a point by point rebuttal of Kendell's argument but instead a rephrased repetition of one or more Szasz's original arguments. Criticisms from others will follow, time and energy permitting. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits have taken things too far, and now the article is too critical of Szasz. Szasz has many supporters, and their views need more prominence; Szasz has responded directly and at length to his critics in Szasz Under Fire, and more of this material should be included, see [11] Johnfos (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Szasz may have many supporters but his views remain fringe and at odds with WP:SCICON and the article should make that clear. The purpose of a criticism section is to communicate criticism of what precedes it not for further advicacy of the subjects views. Szasz has "spoken" in the article, the criticism section gives his interlocutors an opportunity to "answer" him and therby express the scientific consensus on the matter. I have Szasz Under Fire and Szasz consistently uses his allocated pages to just reiterate his original arguments in other words. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is far too critical of Szasz. Szasz was well-respected within the psychiatric community, a lifetime fellow of the APA, a life member of the American Psychoanalytic Association, etc. Karl Menninger eventually came to side with Szasz and Szasz still has many supporters in academia, even within psychiatry. How anyone can claim that Szasz did not influence American psychiatry is beyond understanding. His work has led (directly or indirectly) to the closure of state hospitals, added legal protections for patients, and to the recovery movement in mental health. His work has also influenced the work of Allen Frances, DSM-IV chair, who raises similar questions about the concept of mental illness and about psychiatry in general. The criticism section must be shortened to reflect overall criticisms. There should not be separate sections for each individual critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.22.116 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No Szasz was not well-respected within the psychiatric community and those membership don't demonstrate otherwise. Psychiatry as a branch of medicince is uninfluenced by Szasz'z conception of mental illness, i.e. that it doesn't exist and that patients are just malingering. No university administrator ever said, "Oh f*ck it then, we may as well shut down our psychiatry departments, there are no mental illnesses and people have just been pretending." That never happened and it doesn't look like it ever will happen. The criticisms reflect the disposition of the majority of the psychiatric profession towards Szasz hence they need to be there consistent with WP:SCICON. If you disagree then find me a psychiatry syllabus or a clinical psychology syllabus that is based around Szasz's key ideas. Supporters of Szasz represent a minority within psychiatry and psychology just as scientists that believe in Young Earth Creationism represent a minority. Telling me that X people subscribe to Szasz's beliefs means nothing. Here's a list of scientists that believe in creationism. What does it mean? Nothing because as a proportion of the total scientists in the world this list represents a tiny and insiginificant fraction. You name two people. You could name two-hundred people and it wouldn't help your case. Look at the textbooks on psychiatry, looks at course syllabi in psychiatry and clinical psychology, look at journals in those areas and in psychopharmacology--Szasz's idea's have had zero impact there. The criticisms could be reorganised thematically but they shoudln't be substantively altered in terms of their content. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I don't know whether you have any personal experience in the fields of psychiatry or psychology, but I am a faculty member in a major U.S. psychiatry department and a private practitioner. Your claim that Dr. Szasz has no supporters within the field of psychiatry is incorrect; I know of many, and there are many more (perhaps the majority) who hold some level of concern about the expanding scope of psychiatry and mental health. My experience has been that more intellectually-minded people tend to consider Szasz's arguments, while simple-minded people simply dismiss his ideas as "outdated" or "irrelevant." Your claim that Szasz is not listed in textbooks of psychiatry or clinical/abnormal psychology is also unfounded, and there are classes taught around the nation specifically about Szasz's ideas in departments of sociology, philosophy, and legal studies. Our psychiatry department continues to expose residents to Szasz's ideas. To say that Thomas Szasz did not have any influence on American psychiatry is incredibly naive. He was perhaps the best known psychiatrist in the world in the 1960s and his work has contributed to various sociopolitical movements and trends, including the mass closure of state psychiatric hospitals, greater overall emphasis on patient rights and autonomy, the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, etc. Clearly, you have only limited understanding of the history of psychiatry. Just because Szasz's ideas have not been adopted by mainstream psychiatry does not mean that his ideas have had no influence, and it certainly doesn't invalidate them. Three hundred years ago most people believed in witches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.174 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your occupation in and of itself is irrelevant to your argument so there is no point mentioning it. If you actually have a cogent argument it will stand or fall on its own merits. You have conceded my argument:"Szasz's ideas have not been adopted by mainstream psychiatry". That is precisely my point. Szasz's ideas do not represent WP:SCICON, they are fringe ideas like HIV/AIDS denialism and vaccination alarmism. If Szasz's ideas where embraced by the psychiatric profession then there would be no psychiatry and psychopathology textbooks—they would be pamphlets that just say "Malingering" under every syndrome description. Kaplan and Sadock remains a standard reference in psychiatry and its contents have not been deleted and replaced with the contents of The Myth of Mental Illness. I didn't say Szasz is nowhere mentioned in psychiatry and psychology textbooks—he is only mentioned and barely as more than a footnote. "He was perhaps the best known psychiatrist in the world in the 1960s"—it is now 2013 and the course of biological psychitary has thoroughly invalidated Szasz's denialism. "[D]epartments of sociology, philosophy, and legal studies" aren't departments in psychology and psychiatry and I don't know any suicidally depressed people that seek out a sociologist or a lawyer for relief from their mental anguish. You have presented no case, you have no argument. As an "intellectually-minded" "faculty member in a major U.S. psychiatry department and a private practitioner" you are remarkably bereft of substantive argument all you have offered is irrelevancy, factoids and trivia. You history is also wrong. The "declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder" was largely as a result of the activism of the gay community especially those that eventually formed the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists and the activism of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. If one person is to be singled out as spearheding the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness it is Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist). Spitzer along with Freedman were pivotal in the decision to declassify homosexuality. Szasz played no significant role in that regard. "Three hundred years ago most people believed in witches." And? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

PPPS:- You wrote: "Just because Szasz's ideas have not been adopted by mainstream psychiatry does not mean that his ideas have had no influence, and it certainly doesn't invalidate them." (Personal attack removed) Szasz's ideas have had no influence on the practice of modern—i.e. biologically-oriented psychiatry AND they have not been adopted by modern—i.e. biologically-oriented psychiatry. Also, Szasz's ideas have been invalidated both philosophically and empirically. Read the criticism section of the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal attacks. I will choose not to comment on them because I believe they are outside of the purview of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.174 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that AnotherPseudonym has violated at least one of Wikipedia's policies in his previous posts, and I am asking for the help of more experienced editors in dealing with this matter. I would like to see the personal attacks deleted and the information related to my physical location removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.174 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down AP. I think its great that we have academics who are willing to contribute to Wikipedia, and we should be careful not to scare them off with bad manners. 75.109 I suggest you open a (free) account as it provides more privacy. And if you feel the need, take the matter to the WP:Administrators Noticeboard, to ask an admin to intervene here, and make the deletions you have requested. Johnfos (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Point taken but I don't think (s)he is an acedemic. What of the innuendo in 75.109s post: "My experience has been that more intellectually-minded people tend to consider Szasz's arguments, while simple-minded people simply dismiss his ideas as "outdated" or "irrelevant."" Is that permissable? I think not. Delete the innuendo if you are going to delete my response to the innuendo. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnfos. I have created an account to maintain privacy. AP, I do not care whether you believe me or not. I feel secure enough with my training and experience not to care whether someone chooses to believe me or not regarding my academic qualifications. The point of me bringing up the fact that I hold an (adjunct) faculty position in psychiatry is that you claim to have some knowledge about Thomas Szasz's reputation and standing within the psychiatric community. I don't know whether you are a member of that community (you do appear to have knowledge of psychiatry), but I am in the profession and communicate with mental health professionals on a nearly daily basis about the work and ideas of Szasz. He does indeed have a following among people in the field. I would like to try to address some of your points, but I would prefer if we could keep this conversation civil. Some of the things you said yesterday were very graphic and disturbing. I apologize for the innuendo, although it wasn't necessarily an attack on you personally. It is just my general experience about people (in my profession) when talking about Szasz.

My main reason for posting on this page is because I felt the article was too critical of Szasz, particularly the criticism section. The section is rather lengthy and I think the criticisms could be summarized well in a paragraph or two, rather than giving each critic his or her own subsection. Also, I think you are too quick to assume that the scientific consensus is that the experiences we call mental illness are biologically-based diseases. There are many psychiatrists and psychologists (not necessarily Szaszians) who take issue with a purely biological approach to mental illness and with the disease concept in psychiatry. There is no real scientific consensus on this matter, outside of maybe schizophrenia and psychosis. I mentioned Menninger and Frances because they are two well-respected psychiatrists who are generally regarded as major figures in American psychiatry.

Regarding homosexuality, Szasz was the first psychoanalyst to speak out against its classification as mental disorder. Others who came after Szasz "knowingly borrowed" the idea from him without giving him credit. Szasz's "fault" was that he did not limit his argument to homosexuality. See the "For the record" section on the Szasz site owned by Schaler: http://www.szasz.com/record.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szasz1961 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing some pages about other controversial figures in psychiatry, I am now of the opinion that the Criticism section should be substantially shortened or eliminated. This page is about Thomas Szasz, the person, not about his ideas on the myth of mental illness. Freud's ideas have been attacked by "mainstream" biological psychiatry but his page does not have a Criticism section. Perhaps a Legacy section for Szasz is more appropriate. Szasz1961 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing your proposal "I am now of the opinion that" you have failed to establish a case for change and the criticism section will stay as is. You should familiarise yourself with the principles and policies of Wikipedia. Your qualifications—real or imaginary—are irrelevant as are your—real or imagined—"communicat[ions] with mental health professionals on a nearly daily basis about the work and ideas of Szasz". Articles are composed on the basis of WP:VERIFY. The WP:SCICON is that mental illness is real illness and that it has biological basis. The term consensus means "general agreement" not "universal agreement". So there is nothing to be gained by telling me that some psychiatrists and psychologists reject the biomedical model of mental illness. I know that. It was largely due to psychoanalysis that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the first place and Szasz played no significant role in the declassification. Judd Marmor proposed that homosexuality was not a mental illness as early as the 1950s; at that time Szasz was writing on "Oral Mechanisms in Constipation and Diarrhea" and "Psychosomatic Aspects of Salivary Activity" and other such pseudoscientific psychoanalytic bunkum. So am I supposed to take the claim seriously that people that disagree with you are "simple-minded" and that you want to have a "civil" discussion. You've pre-framed any dialogue with you such that you have ruled out civility and mutual respect. Intelligence and knowledge are demonstrated not declared. "It is just my general experience about people" that when they merely assert their superior intelligence and superior knowledge they lack both. Thus far you have demonstrated neither civility, knowledge nor intellect. Your supercilious—and vacuous in terms of substantive content—initial post, its cheap innuendo and pointless bragging received the response it deserved. Also, Wikipedia articles must conform to the same standards as peer-reviewed academic journals, i.e. full citations are required. Your, "Once during brunch, after the corn fritters were served, Fred commented that Szasz is a genius"-form of quotation doesn't quite meet Wikipedia standard of citatbility. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, AP. I think what we really disagree about is whether or not there is a scientific consensus on the disease concept, and how this should impact Szasz's page. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the scientific consensus is that "mental illness is real illness and that it has a biological basis." This may be the case within psychiatry, but psychiatrists are not the only professionals who study and treat the experiences called mental disorders. Psychology takes a non-biological approach to mental illness (with the exception of some biological psychologists who do laboratory research) and clinical social work takes a broader social/sociological approach. Most psychologists and clinical social workers reject the disease model outright. The Wikipedia entry for mental disorder states, "Mental disorders can arise from multiple sources, and in many cases there is no single accepted or consistent cause currently established." There simply is no scientific consensus on the matter. And, for the record, I said I was an adjunct faculty member in psychiatry, not a psychiatrist! I did find the corn fritters comment quite funny. Szasz1961 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You are ignorant of the way in which Wikipedia "works" and you have a supercilious manner which is incongruously coupled with an ignorance of the subject matter which you claim to have expertise in; that is irritating but I will push on. Psychiatrists are the subject matter experts in relation to mental disorders. Mental illness is the official purview of psychiatry and psychiatrists. You and others may not like this but that is besides the point. Psychology is only peripherally concerned with mental illness, most of psychology has nothing whatsoever to do with disease. You are also conflating etiology with treatment modality. Psychology takes a "non-biological approach to mental illness" only in so far as the method of treatment is concerned but it is either indifferent/agnostic or consistent with psychiatry on the etiology of the illness. For example, CBT is used by some psychologists to help psychotics deal with their auditory hallucinations but so doing doesn't commit those psychologists to a non-biological view of the etiology of psychosis. Social workers are irrelevant to the notion of scientific consensus to which WP:SCICON pertains. Social work is not scientific. You are also being deliberately uncharitable in your reading of what I write and in your conception of the biological model of mental illness. The biological model of mental illness neither states nor implies that mental illness has a unitary cause. No exponent of the biological model that I am aware of rejects the influence of environment in the etiology of mental illness. The consensus of psychiatrists (clinical and experimental) on the etiology of mental illness is the scientific consensus on the etiology of mental illness. By virtue of WP:SCICON it is contrary to policy to obscure or confuse the consensus view with a fringe view. Further, because this article pertains to a medical concern WP:MEDRS also applies and this policy places a limit in the manner in which Szasz's views can be presented. None of Szasz's ideas (that have an empirical content) have been subjected to to any empirical test and there exists no Szaszian response to any of the evidence that favours a biological etiology. Szasz's ideas are at best unvalidated—if we ignore all of the scientific evidence—and at worst invalidated—if we take account of that scientific evidence. What you are seeking to do violates both WP:SCICON and WP:MEDRS and I am confident that is case. You have also demonstrated your bad faith by misrepresenting the contents of Szasz Under Fire. Nowehere in that book—nor anywhere else—does Szasz answer the criticisms I have compiled under the Criticisms section. Szasz just repeats his original thesis just as he does in all of his many books and on occasion he addresses a purpose-built strawman argument which he invents and attributes to his interlocutor. As an exercise in personal intellectual integrity have you gone through each of the criticisms presented in the Criticism section? Your innuendo implied that you were "intellectually-minded". I would expect a person that claims to be "intellectually-minded" to address each of those substantive criticisms to themselves. Not to me or in the article but privately to themselves. I doubt that you have done so. I asked you for the page references to Szasz Under Fire where Szasz addresses each of the criticisms listed in the article and you have gone silent on that matter. You've gone silent on this because Szasz doesn't address any of these criticisms. Are you familiar with Reznek? Reznek is both a philosopher and a psychiatrist and he provides a comprehensive philosophical rebuttal of Szasz in his book The Philosophical Defence of Psychiatry. Szasz never answered Reznek's criticisms and Reznek's book remains unanswered. I doubt you have read Reznek's book. To be blunt I think you are a an intellectual charlattan, an intellectual fraud, that is why you felt the need to declare an occupation and to make a claim to being "intellectually-minded". You knew that the content of your posts would be deficient and vapid so you resorted to an attempt at an argument from authority: a loud fanfare of trumpets to announce an impotent king. Your proposed text and your other posts have met my very low expectations. In summation you have no case and the Criticism section will stay as-is. So now you aren't a professor of psychiatry nor even a psychiatrist [shaking my head in disbelief]. Now you are an "adjunct faculty member in psychiatry". God help me. Do you think that this is helping you? Can you at least concede that anyone with access to the internet that had just read The Myth of Mental Illness and understood perhaps half of it could have performed your behaviour, i.e. any idiot? Given that I wish to remain anonymous would there be any point in me posting my qualifications? How would I substantiate my claim and at the same time preserve my anonymity? That being the case how would I distinguish myself from a fantasist or a liar? I can't, and how is it that this didn't occur to someone that is "intellectually-minded" such as you are? In any event my qualifications and profession per se are irrelevant they don't buy me exemption from the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia so on those grounds alone why mention them at all? But you took this foolishness a step further, you declared your intelligence as if that were something that a fool is unable to do. The irony of this has escaped you even though you are "intellectually-minded". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatrists do not "own" "mental illness", regardless of what you say or claim to know. Your arrogance and petulance are astounding. You repeatedly use the term "disease" with no sense of its original meaning in medicine and in doing so reveal that you have had little or no training as a mental health professional yourself. Even the most ardent supporters of biological approaches to psychiatry shy away from the term "disease" because they know that "mental disorders" don't meet the established criteria for classification as disease. If you have read Szasz (which at this point I'm not sure you ever have), you would know that his arguments cannot be invalidated by biological psychiatry. The discovery that a "mental disorder" is actually a brain disease only validates its existence as a brain disease; it says nothing of its existence as a mental disorder. This is the Szaszian response. Philosophical attempts to refute Szasz's arguments have all failed, Kendell's and Reznek's notwithstanding, because they presuppose that Szasz was a Cartesian dualist, which, of course, he was not. Kendell essentially agrees with Szasz that mental illness is a myth but attempts to claim that physical illness is also a myth. There is no reasoning with you. I guess there is no arguing with a delusion. As Szasz used to say, "What do you call a person who has the delusion that he is delusional?" Szasz1961 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatrists do "own" mental illness and disputing that is as foolish as disputing that dentists "own" dental disease. Merely because some foreign party can proffer an opinion on a subject does not dissolve disciplinary demarcataion. Are primary care physicians not the authorities on general medical care because there are naturopaths? I am fully aware of Rudolf Virchow's conception of disease which is what Szasz is relying on. Firstly, etymology is not meaning; secondly, no branch of medicine conceptualises disease strictly in terms of Virchow's definition. You wrote: "If you have read Szasz (which at this point I'm not sure you ever have), you would know that his arguments cannot be invalidated by biological psychiatry. The discovery that a "mental disorder" is actually a brain disease only validates its existence as a brain disease; it says nothing of its existence as a mental disorder. This is the Szaszian response." That is just a bunch of unfalisfiable garbage; it is a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. If X is found to be a "brain disease" then Szasz was wrong that it was merely malingering. Also, it is the contention of biological psychiatrists that "mental illness" is brain disease so that response is irrelevant. Szasz is effectively a Cartersian dualist, he refers to "minding" as if it has no biological substrate. Merely because Szasz does not conceive of the mind as a "thing"—as a fully dedicated dualist would—he nevertheless accords his "minding" a magical transcendental status—and he needs to do so to make his case. If it is acknowledged that "minding" has a biological substrate then a corollary of that is that disturbed "minding" is due to a disturbed biological substrate—and that is the foundational assumption of biological psychiatry. Szasz attributes his own flawed metaphyical assumptions to his interlocutors and then proceeds to tilt at windmills. In your original post you posted something to the effect of "300 hundred years ago people believed in witches". You and your psychoanalytic brethren belong in that era. An essential element of witchcraft is a belief in the magic of words. You practice a form of modern-day witchcraft. The idea that by merely talking to someone using the magic words that you have been trained by a senior witch to use you can heal people of melancholic depression, schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder is witchcraft par excellence. Your superstition also contributes to the stigmatization of persons with mental illness. Rather than allowing afflictions such as MDD to be understood as illness proper—which would have a destigmatizing effect—witches like you promote the idea that someone that is so profoundly depressed that they seek to end their lives has some sort of transcendental malaise that can be banished using magic words. Szasz is even worse in this reagrd in that he contends that those with mental illness are just malingering. Your ideology is a vestige of a past when it was believed that magic words could treat all afflictions. Psychoanalaysis represents a quantitative rather than a qualitative change from that era—now magic words can treat only some afflictions. In 300 years psychoanalsysis will look as ridiculous as traditional witchcraft looks to us now and it will likely be used in tha manner in which you invoked traditional witchcraft as an exemplar. Your career as a witch turns on persuading people that you can heal them using your magic words and that is why you are here to try and spread folk tales about your witchcraft. Your devotion to Szasz is entirely opportunistic: any port in a storm. A positive case cannot be made for psychoanalysis so a purely negative case is made. The idea that a psychoanalyst is a "mental health professional" is risible. If the praxis of a belief system that has as one of its foundations the idea that children want to have sex with their parent represents professionalism in mental health then so too does Haitian Vodou. Psychoanalysis is not scientific so its practitioners views are irrelevant to determining WP:SCICON. Psychoanalysis is institutionalised superstition and its marginalisationa and the continuation of that trend is entirely positive. Szasz's ideas are fringe crackpot ideas—that have as much relevance to modern mental health care as ideas of perpetual motion machines have to modern physics—and as per WP:SCICON and WP:MEDRS this article won't be used to obfuscate or distort the scientific consensus on the etiology of mental illness. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You should re-read your above post just as I have to fully appreciate its mindlessness. You are just blindly and habitually repeating the original thesis rather than answering the criticisms provided in the article. I'll show you.

Even the most ardent supporters of biological approaches to psychiatry shy away from the term "disease" because they know that "mental disorders" don't meet the established criteria for classification as disease.

The response to this is provided in Kendell (1), (2) and (3). Migraine, torticollis, essential tremor, blepharospasm and torsion dystonia don't meet Virchow's criteria of disease either, i.e. there is no demonstrable lesion. Are these conditions non-existsent, mythical and just malingering? Mental illness doesn't meet Szasz's' criteria of disease—viz. demonstrable lesion as per Virchow—but neither do many other illnesses. No one other than Szasz uses Virchow's definition of pathology as a criterion for determining disease.

If you have read Szasz (which at this point I'm not sure you ever have), you would know that his arguments cannot be invalidated by biological psychiatry. The discovery that a "mental disorder" is actually a brain disease only validates its existence as a brain disease; it says nothing of its existence as a mental disorder.

The response to this is provided in Shorter (2).

Philosophical attempts to refute Szasz's arguments have all failed, Kendell's and Reznek's notwithstanding, because they presuppose that Szasz was a Cartesian dualist, which, of course, he was not.

That is a false generalisation. Kendell (1), (2), (3) and Shorter (1) are not predicated on Cartesian dualism.

Kendell essentially agrees with Szasz that mental illness is a myth but attempts to claim that physical illness is also a myth.

See Kendell (5), Shorter (1). What you have provided is an idiotic rendering of Kendell's argument that also hides Szasz's commitment to mind-body dualism. The only diseased bodies simpliciter are those in morgues. There are no such things as diseases of minds and diseases of bodies there are only diseases of organisms. Lesion per se is not sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of diseases, some sort of functional impairment is also required, e.g. dextrocardia exhibits lesion but produces no functional impairment hence it is not deemed a disease; and we don't treat corpses for disease. Szasz's argument is predicated on mind-body dualism that's why he keeps on refering to possible disease states of the brain as if the "minding" he describes emerges from some place other than the brain. Yes Szasz does argue that "mind" is an abstraction and hence an abstraction can't become diseased but no one argues that mind qua organ becomes diseased other than psychoanalysts. But this criticism betrays Szasz's metaphysical commitments. Yes, mind is really a verb, a description of what the brain does (and none of Szasz's interlocutors suggest otherwise so this is a really a strawman argument) but if mind (or "minding" to use Szasz's preferred term) is based in the brain then it necessarily follows that disturbed "minding" is a result of a disturbed brain function. If we are committed to the idea that "minding" is what the brain does then there can be no avoiding this conclusion. Szasz does avoid this conclusion hence he must secretly believe that "minding" is something other than the activity of the brain. If minding is a product of the brain—an idea which Szasz claims he is committed to—then what is the problem in responding to "minding" that the patient does not want, e.g. MDD, BPD, schizophrenia, with treatments directed at the brain qua physical organ that is the seat of "minding". Excluding Szasz's idiotic ideas that everyone with mental illness is malingering (pp. 117–9 of The Myth of Mental Illness) or that all psychiatric interventions are coercive, why does there even need to be a demonstration of lesion? If a persons "minding" is causing them distress and they want relief from that distress then that is sufficient warrant to intervene in the brain's functioning to produce a different , less-debilitating "minding". That is the substance of Kendell's argument and there is no Szaszian response to that. Whether a problem of "minding" is treated by a neurologist or a psychiatrist is besides the point, it is entirely an operational matter that has no bearing on ontology or epistemology. Furthermore, whether a problem of "minding" is best treated by talking to someone versus intervening directly in the functioning of the brain is entirely an empirical matter. The weight of evidence indicates that the most severe problems of "minding"—MDD with melancholic features, schizophrenia and other psychoses, BPD—are best treated by intervening directly in the functioning of the brain. So excluding coercive treatment which is exceptional—most people with problems of "minding" seek out assistance from psychiatrists—what is the problem and how exactly does Szasz help? If you are going to answer then actually respond don't just repeat Szasz's original thesis over-and-over. If what you are going to post is answered in the Criticism section then don't bother posting. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseud - The comments above show a profound misunderstanding of Szasz. Have you read 'The Meaning of Mind'? You state 'If a persons "minding" is causing them distress and they want relief from that distress' is answered by Szasz in his reply to Kendell when he states the fact that many people do not suffer from their 'minding'. That they cause other people to suffer. Which is why many, such as the 'paranoid schizophrenic' have to be coerced into 'treatment'. Szasz was never against consensual psychiatry. As stated above, Kendell's argument is that Szasz was right to say that mental illness is a myth but that physical illness is a myth also. Perhaps a wikipage be created on the 'Myth of Physical illness' that Kendell subscribes to. Kendell himself is an obscure fringe UK psychiatrist that no-one has even heard of or would not have if it wasn't for Szasz's book. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to remind both of you that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to debate the merits or demerits of Szasz's ideas? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that every person with paranoid schizophrenia is treated coercively is patent nonsense and you fail to explain how this grand psychiatric conspiracy relates to those that do seek out psychiatric help. The issue of coercion is incidental to the issue of the reality of mental illness and most psychiatric treatments are not coercively administered. If they were coercive then there would be no need for public advocacy campaigns such as this that encourage troubled people to seek out psychaiatric help. Only the most florid cases of psychoses and severe cases of mood disorder (in which there is a refusal to eat and drink) are treated coercively in Australia. You can seek to present a radical libertarian argument against treating these exceptional cases quite independently of any argument that mental illness is mythical or that all psychaitaric treatment is coercive. Regardless of your Quixotic quest the criticism section is well-sourced and accurate so it will stay. Wikipedia isn't an instrument for disseminating crackpot ideas and superstitions about mental illness so kindly fuck off. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This debate about the merits or demerits of Szasz's ideas is inappropriate, as already noted. It is of course totally unacceptable to tell another editor to "fuck off", AnotherPseudonym. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You could be blocked if you continue to behave this way. Oh, and please try to keep talk page comments in chronological order. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The "patient" as malingerer

I have moved this material here for discussion:

According to Szasz, the many manifestations of so-called ″mental illness″ are essentially malingering. The so-called ″patient″ has something personally significant to communicate—their "problems in living"—but unable to express this via conventional means they resort to illness-imitation behaviour, a somatic protolanguage—a "body language—which psychiatrists and psychologists have misguidedly interpreted as the signs/symptoms of real illness. Szasz writes:

The significance of the affective use of body language—or generally, of the language of illness—can hardly be exaggerated...It is part of our social ethic that we ought to feel sorry for sick people and should try to be helpful to them. Communications by means of body signs may therefore be intended mainly to induce the following sorts of feelings in the recipient: "Aren't you sorry for me now? You should be ashamed of yourself for having hurt me so! You should be sad seeing how I suffer..." and so forth...[T]he flamboyant "schizophrenic body feelings" encountered today, represent communications in the contexts of specific social situations. Their aim is to induce mood rather than to convey information. They thus make the recipient of the message feel as if he had been told: "Pay attention to me! Pity me! Scold me!" and so forth...[C]hildren and women often can get their way with tears where their words would fall on deaf ears—and so can patients with symptoms. The point is that when some persons in some situations cannot make themselves heard by means of ordinary language—for example, speech or writing—they may try to make themselves heard by means of protolanguage, for example, weeping or "symptoms"...We have come thus to speak of all these silent and not-so-silent cries and commands, pleas and reproaches—that is, of all these endlessly diverse "utterances"—as so many different menal illnesses!

— Thomas S. Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct,

Many authors discuss the malingerer idea, not just Szasz, and where I've seen Szasz discuss it in his writings, he quickly refers to the extensive work of Freud on this subject. Also, very long quotes belong in WikiQuote, not here. Johnfos (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. I can accept the deletion of the lengthy quotation but Szasz's contrual of apparent mental illness as malingering is pertient so I will reinstate it. It is besides the point that "[m]any authors discuss the malingerer idea"; why is that even relevant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Legacy section

I am proposing that the criticism section be eliminated and replaced with a legacy section. This is an article about Thomas Szasz, not his ideas or the reception of his ideas. See the entry for Sigmund Freud; there is no criticism section, despite that fact that many of his ideas are now unpopular in mainstream biological psychiatry. There is no need to have very detailed criticisms of Szasz's work in his entry. These belong elsewhere. Criticisms of Szasz's specific works should be located on the Anti-psychiatry page or on pages for his various books, including The Myth of Mental Illness. Below is some text that could be a starting point for a legacy section. Please feel free to comment and expand.

Thomas Szasz is generally viewed as a controversial figure in psychiatry. His writings have attracted both criticism and praise by those within and without the psychiatric and mental health professions. Szasz was once described in the Journal of Psychiatry & Law as having "more impact on the actual practice of psychiatry in this country than anyone since Freud." His work continues to influence research in sociology, philosophy, and legal studies, and he maintains a small following in psychiatry and mental health. Critics claim that Szasz’s arguments are inconsistent with findings in biological psychiatry and that his premise about the myth of mental illness does not stand up to rigorous philosophical inquiry. In Szasz Under Fire (Schaler, 2005), Szasz responds directly to his critics. Szasz1961 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoah, woah! Slow down. There is no such thing as Szaszianism under which criticisms can be placed. The Freud article doesn't have criticisms because those are in Psychoanalysis. There is Anti-psychiatry but that is just an umbrella term that encompasses a motley collection of ideas that are unified only by their opposition to some aspect or all of psychiatry. Placing the criticisms of Szasz there would be inappropriate. I suggest the criticisms of Szasz be retained here and the content remained unchanged. The only change I would support is a reorganisation into a thematic form. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the scientific consensus; familiarise yourself with that policy here. You wrote: "His work continues to influence research in sociology, philosophy, and legal studies, and he maintains a small following in psychiatry and mental health." Yes! A small following in psychiatry and mental health. Further his influence on "sociology, philosophy, and legal studies" is irrelevant with regard to matters medical which have a more stringent evidentiary standard than other articles (see here). Also you are overstating Szasz's influence in "sociology, philosophy, and legal studies". Szasz did not originate anything which could be described as a theory in any of those disciplines, he is not a Michel Foucault, a Karl Marx, a Max Weber, or a Émile Durkheim. There is neither a philosophical, sociological or juridical theory associated with Szasz. I've read Szasz under Fire and no Szasz does not answer his critics; Szasz ignores the criticisms and just repeats his original thesis using a different selection of words, analogies and metaphors. Nowhere does Szasz even address any of the substantive criticisms. Tell me where Szasz's rebutts the biological evidence. Your suggested text is poorly composed, lacking in citations and misleading. Hence it is unusable. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Szasz does not need to rebutt the biological evidence because there is none. There are no biological markers used in the diagnosis of a 'mental illness' Even Jeffrey Leiberman, head of the APA, and Tom Insel, head of the NIMH lament this fact. Allen Frances is another prominant psychiatrist who accepts this. The DSM5, does not have any biological markers for any of the mental disorders. Not one. If you think that Szasz does not answer Kendell you have read a different piece from that which I have read. But anyway, I see from reading this talk page that many others here, more qualified than I, have requested changes which have been ignored. So there is no point in even bothering. It is a shame that wikipedia is being hijacked in such a manner. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No biological markers are used to diagnose migraine, it is diagnosed entirely in terms of syndrome. Many diseases have a similar history, e.g. malaria before microbiology. Are/were these imaginary conditions? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How pathetic your thinking is. Yes many diseases have been misdiagnosed before science found out what they were caused by. But we have moved on since such times when bloodletting was the norm. These conditions, such as measles or smallpox were diagnosed always on physical empirical observations - you know.. spots on the flesh etc. . Psychiatry is not. And of course there are some medical diseases such as migraine that medical science cannot explain fully. But no ... I repeat.. no 'mental illness ' has been shown to have a physical cause. And of course as Szasz said,if the cause of a mental illness is shown to be biological... then it is immediately removed from psychiatry. (Neurosyphylis and epilepsy for example). Szasz said that if all mental disorders were shown to have a biological cause thn psychiatry would not exist. Because they would be moved to science based medicine. Quite frankly.. (Frank Quitely). .. you do not know what you are talking about do you? It is not worth speaking to a zealot. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So is migraine a mythical condition merely because it is diagnosed syndromally? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for general discussion. This debate you are having with the IP is quite unproductive. I suggest you both stop. You've also both violated talk page guidelines for insulting each other. Please note that you could both be blocked for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Please feel free to comment and expand." Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You have made no case for your proposal and your propsed text doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. I thoroughly reject your proposal. There are many articles that are biographical that include a section on criticism, e.g. Heidegger, Leo Strauss, Paul Tillich. Where a persons work forms a recognised theory and thus justifies a dedicated article then criticism should go there. Where there is no theory as such their biographic article is the natural place for criticism. Given that Szasz has really written only one book, The Myth of Mental Illness and all his other books are just that book in a different form the criticisms cut across all his books and we aren't going to confine the criticisms to that one book (The Myth of Mental Illness) nor are we going to reproduce them for all his books. As I wrote above Anti-Psychiatry does not comprise a distinct theory or even a collection of theories. Laing—for example—has nothing in common with Szasz other than his opposition to psychiatry. There is no such "thing" as "Anti-Psychiatry" beyond an abstraction for the grouping of a disparate bunch of ideas that are grouped only by virtue of their hostility to psychiatry. But aside from that look at your proposed text! You claim to be not only a psychiatrist but an adjunct professor no less and you propose that piece of drivel replace the criticism section. The entire mess is without one iota of substantiation! Moreover it is misleading. Tell me where in Szasz Under Fire Szasz provides a rebuttal to any of Kendell's criticisms. Show me where Szasz rebutts the points (1) through (5) that I have summarised under Kendell's critique. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym has destroyed this piece and shows that he does not know much about Szasz. To say that Szasz, 'has written only one book' merely confirms a profound ignorance. Kendell, in his critique states 'there is no illness that is purely physical' - which is of course scientific nonsense. Also Kendell's statement that 'Szasz's contention that mental illness is not associated with any morphological abnormality is uninformed by genetics, biochemistry and current research results on the etiology of mental illness' is not the current position of the APA who state that there are no biological markers for any mental disorder. I agree that the criticisms section is mere opinion, and has been answered by Szasz and this has not been represented, and thus should be deleted. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Even were it true that Szasz had successfully rebutted the criticisms that have been made of his ideas, that wouldn't be a valid reason for removing the criticism from this article. As editors, we aren't supposed to care about whether arguments for or against Szasz are correct: we're meant to fairly represent the views that appear in reliable sources. If I don't revert your edit, that's simply because I'm not sure whether the criticism of Szasz belongs in this article rather than in, say, the article on The Myth of Mental Illness. That article seems neglected, and could perhaps be expanded with some of the content you are so intent on removing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You have allowed a complete idiot like AnotherPseudonym to decimate what was previously a balanced article with his schoolboy rubbish. There are a thousand nutjobs that have criticised Einstein. I do not see that shit in his wiki page. I, for one, will not be using wikipedia as a reference in the future. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Though you are of course entitled to hold whatever view you wish of other editors, it's not helpful, in a collaborative project, to call an editor a "complete idiot." And there is no point in blaming me for whatever may be wrong with the article. You might accomplish more if you made an effort on the talk page to describe what you see as the article's problems. If you expect all criticism of Szasz to be removed, however, then that's unrealistic. Szasz isn't exactly Einstein. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Myth of mental illness" section

This article has a long section (placed within a larger section called "Szasz's main arguments") called "The myth of mental illness." I have just removed a template from that section, but that was because the template properly applies to entire articles rather than to only sections of an article. The point the template was being used to make - that the section is written like an essay or personal reflection - seems to be correct. Given that the "myth of mental illness" section has minimal sourcing - the only sources are one of Szasz's books and a YouTube video - I think it should be removed entirely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not undo factual statements

FreeKnowledgeCreator - will you stop vandalising. I can only report you to the authorities now. Thanks. 24.253.64.178 (ee talk) 22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Making false accusations of vandalism won't help you win a oontent dispute. Feel free to report me for vandalism if you wish, however - you'll only make a fool of yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How are they false? Explain to me why you have deleted them then. In detail. Thanks. This page is not a collaboration, it is an attempt by you to express a biased point of view. The fact is that the views of Szasz are still taken seriously by psychiatry. A simple google will show you this. You have no credibility to edit these pages. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content policies permit (and in fact require) the removal of unsourced or biased material, of the kind that you added. Removing it is therefore not vandalism. So your accusation is false. It's stupid to call the article an attempt by me to express a biased point of view, since I didn't write most of it. It was AnotherPseudonym, not me, who added all the criticism of Szasz. I agree that the article is probably now unfairly slanted against Szasz, but unfortunately your attempts to remedy that bias aren't helping - they are making things even worse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@24.253.64.178, it is you that is vandalising the article by tacking on unsourced and semi-literate nonsense. Familiarise yourself with WP:VERIFY. The overwhelming majority of psychaitrists do not take Szasz's ideas seriously. Kaplan and Sadock is a standard textbook on psychiatry and in its near 1500 pages it devotes one small paragraph to Szasz and in that paragraph Szasz's ideas are described as "controversial". Szasz is nothing more than a footnote in the curricula of most psychiatry departments around the world. Psychopharmacology continues to flourish as a field and there are more journals in biological psychiatry than there ever were. Szasz is part of the crackpot fringe and as per WP:SCICON, WP:PSCI and WP:PROFRINGE the article should reflect that. Further, because the article is concerned with medical matters an even more stringent evidentiary standard is required as per WP:MEDRS. The article as it currently stands is not overly critical, it is as critical as it needs to be given WP:SCICON, WP:PSCI, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Also, you haven't answered my question: migraine is diagnosed solely with reference to syndrome, no biological markers are used to diagnose migraine; is migraine a mythical condition? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)