Talk:Kay Redfield Jamison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Can anyone help clarify Jamison's professional training/qualifications before I try to clarify on the page. It is listed here and in many places on the web that she is a professor of psychiatry or a psychiatrist, but in some places, including a recent book I have, that she's a clinical psychologist. The Wikipedia disambiguation page for her name refers to her as a Psychiatrist.

I read that she originally started undergraduate medical training but stopped about halfway through, instead switching to clinical psychology in which it seems she qualified [1]. I see she later moved from UCLA psychology dept to the psychiatry dept of John Hopkins and was made professor, but she doesn't appear to be an MD [2].

So it looks like she's actually a clinical psychologist (but is she practicing/certified to practice as one?) rather than a psychiatrist, who nevertheless works mainly in psychiatry and was made a professor of psychiatry by John Hopkins University... EverSince 11:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently heard her speak April 30, 2010 at the DBSA National Conference in Chicago. She is not a MD or a Psychiatrist. She TAUGHT psychiatrists at John Hopkins University. She holds a PHD from UCLA and is a clinical psychologist. She even made it clear in her talk that she is NOT a psychiatrist. You do not have to be an MD to teach every subject. As a person with a very intelligent mind, she was not MADE a professor, she EARNED it. Dr. Jamison, in spite of her bipolar disorder, has written several books. Her books and speaking engagements have helped countless others succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Her talk, this past weekend, was about the death of her husband and she has recently written a book about the subject of dealing with grief.

According to her web page at John Hopkins she is Dalio Family Professor in Mood Disorders and Co-Director, Mood Disorders Center see FYI a psychiatrist is always a medical doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


It's probably immaterial, but I wonder what her right eye (viewer's left) really looks like. Notice that most of it has been copied from her left eye (viewer's right). Is the original photo available?

I recognize that it probably wouldn't significantly contribute to the usefulness of the page any more than the modified photo could be said to detract. Just a small question. JMiykal (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


"She had miscalculated the lethal dose, so the attempt failed."

I think this statement is inaccurate. I read her autobiography An Unquite Mind and she quite clearly writes herself that she took a massive overdose which by definition is leathal. The reason she survived (she nearly died) was because she answered the phone when she was already severely affected by lithium toxicity after she took the overdose and thus alerted her brother that something was wrong. Her brother in turn called her psychiatrist immediately and I asume he alerted emergency services which managed to get her to a hospital on time. She also worked as a clinician at the hospital and she has lots of professional knowledge about medication so she would have known exactly what the leathal dose is. If you take fistfuls after fistfuls of lithium you're bound to get toxic and you die without medical intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


If she said that we've known for hundreds of years that bipolar disorder is genetic, there is really no reason at all to criticize her for that: it is almost certainly true that it's been known to be hereditary for hundreds of years (it tended to run in all the "high" families with meticulously maintained family trees, and the signs were unmistakable to all those experts in (selective) breeding.) "genetic" is simply the term that is used today instead of hereditary - a typical development in language use: generalization. I therefore propose to remove that particular "criticism" as not worthy of mention in Wikipedia. (Personally, I don't think that misstatements of any kind on live(!) TV or radio are critique-worthy, come to think of it. After all, all they tell you is that the person who made that statement is human like the rest of us and makes mistakes, especially under pressure.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:4B:2E50:4686:71C8:733E:451D:91A0 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)