Jump to content

Talk:American Psychiatric Association

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.99.206.64 (talk) at 18:54, 22 December 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Renée Binder IS AN EVIL ILLUMINATI PSYCHIATRIST WERE-RABBIT THAT HAS A HIDDEN NEUROLOGICAL WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Psychiatry: An Industry of Death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychiatry: An Industry of Death From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum Psychiatry death museum.jpg Established 2005 Location 6616 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California Coordinates 34.0976°N 118.334°W Website Official website

Psychiatry: An Industry of Death is a museum in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, USA, as well as several touring exhibitions.[1] It is owned and operated by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an anti-psychiatry organization founded by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. The museum is located at 6616 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California and entry to the museum is free.[2]

The opening event on December 17, 2005[3] was attended by well-known Scientologists, including Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie Presley, Jenna Elfman, Danny Masterson, Giovanni Ribisi, Leah Remini, Catherine Bell, and Anne Archer.[4]

The museum is dedicated to criticizing what it describes as "an industry driven entirely by profit".[5] It has a variety of displays and exhibits that highlight physical psychiatric treatments, such as restraints, psychoactive drugs, Electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery (including lobotomy, a procedure abandoned in the 1960s[6][7]).

Contents 

   1 Film
   2 Reception
   3 Touring
       3.1 Exhibits at Worldcon 2006
   4 See also
   5 References
   6 External links

Film

In 2006, a documentary film also called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death was released on DVD by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. Two scholars featured in the documentary, Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum and bioethics scholar Arthur Caplan, have rejected the attack on psychiatry and psychology. Berenbaum stated that "I have known psychiatrists to be of enormous assistance to people deeply important to me in my life," and Caplan complained that he had been taped without being told what the film was about, and called the producers "smarmy and dishonest."[8] Reception

The CCHR has been criticized by journalist Andrew Gumbel for "crudeness" and "paranoia" in its criticism of psychiatry. Gumbel, who wrote about the museum for Los Angeles CityBeat magazine, described how CCHR publicist Marla Filidei attempted to engage him in a debate about the evils of psychiatry: 

   I told her I wasn't a scientist and had no interest in getting into a detailed argument about the benefits or dangers of mood-altering drugs; on the other hand, she wasn't a scientist either, and the Church of Scientology had absolutely no standing to pronounce on medical issues. That clearly riled her, because by the time I got home there was an e-mail waiting in which she called our meeting "the most bizarre encounter I have had with a reporter in 10 years" and essentially berated me for refusing to engage in an argument she was clearly itching to have […]. The crudeness of the anti-psychiatric argument is tinged with a distinct patina of paranoia. It's not enough for Scientologists to express their near-pathological hatred of psychiatry in all its forms; they also have to feel they are being persecuted for their beliefs.[9]

Touring

The museum has had traveling exhibits (sponsored by the Scientology-related advocacy group, Citizens Commission on Human Rights) which have been in places such as the Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City, Missouri, St. Louis, and Kansas City.[10] Exhibits at Worldcon 2006

The museum had a large display area at the 2006 World Science Fiction Convention held in Anaheim, California, United States at which it presented a variety of exhibits on CCHR's controversial views on psychiatry. 

   Piod museum entrance.jpg
   Piod museum children.jpg
   Piod museum controlling.jpg
   Piod museum origins.jpg
   Piod museum warning.jpg

DSM-IV-TR Permissions Controversy

[This discussion might be interesting to anybody interested in,or knowledgable about, DSM-IV-TR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#DSM-IV-TR_Copyright_question --82.195.137.125 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Expanded

I've expanded this article and removed the stub marker. EverSince 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism and support to eugenics

Decades ago, American Psychiatric Association gave full support to eugenics and racism.Eugenics sterilization had full support of this association, for many decades.The article article has nothing, about these supports.Agre22 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Then add it yourself, don't expect other people to do it for you. 69.138.243.26 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was blocked many times doing thing such as your sugestion. In this site: [Kr] you can read at the end:

"A psychiatrist named Foster Kennedy gave an address to the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 1941. In it, he strongly advocated not only for the forcible sterilization of the mentally retarded, but for killing them, especially if they fell below a certain functional level. Because he assumed that such individuals were in constant suffering and would be better off dead, he referred to this killing as euthanasia or mercy killing. His address was published in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association in July of 1942. In the same issue an opposing viewpoint by another psychiatrist, Leo Kanner, was also published, along with an editorial. While Kanner had no objection to sterilization, he did object to euthanasia. He also questioned the validity of assuming that people of low IQ would necessarily beget children who were also mentally deficient, but did not spend any time exploring the ramifications that would ensue for his philosophy if this were indeed the case. He believed that sterilization should be reserved only for those who could not perform useful work. He feared that stopping more functional people of low intelligence from reproducing might lead to a labor shortage in unskilled occupations which would adversely affect the functioning of society. Of note is the fact that by July of 1942, psychiatrists were already aware of what was going on in Germany. Kanner noted, “If [journalist and historian] William Shirer’s report is true – and there are reasons to believe that it is true – in Nazi Germany the Gestapo is now systematically bumping off the mentally deficient people of the Reich…”"Agre22 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Possible new section

This line was removed from the disambuation page for Young Turks, as there is no mention of this here, the target article. Perhaps with some research this could be added to the article:

ref is broken, but im leaving it here to help with research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Young Turks was used as a metaphor in that context. I don't think those psychiatrists called themselves that, or that they were a unitary/organized group, but I could be mistaken. There are some chapters in this book you may want to read. It doesn't say anything about Young Turks though. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug company ties

Nobody in their right mind would reject that some, if not most, researchers in psychiatry take grants from drug companies, (and some even fail to declare a conflict of interest thereafter), and that US clinicians go to some pimp CMEs, but that section is written like an anti-psychiatry pamphlet, with little logic gluing the sentences together to their inevitable conclusion. Looking at reviews of the main source, they hardly seem to conclude it's an unbiased or reliable source. Seriously, this blog is a more reliable source about such matters than W's book, and while you probably shouldn't cite the blog at all, the papers and mainstream media articles it cites are probably okay. But it's hard to draw conclusions about APA as a whole. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: It looks like Carlat has a book out and an interview in NPR, [1]; perhaps it's time for Daniel Carlat? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/EducationCareerDevelopment/Library/APAHistory.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hej. Those 2 Links to psych.org from the references section that I tried to follow ended up "page not found" (reference 8 and 9). Using the search on psych.org for e.g. "position statements" gave "no result". maybe someone knowing the new structure of psych.org can fix the references' links. thanks Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Psychiatric_Association&oldid=696374952"