This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Controversies about psychiatry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
They complain that psychiatric illness is a condition created for psychotherapy and other professional communities in which they have no confidence, participation, or representation (not even a little bit). 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They resent the legitimization in psychiatry of words like anosognosia, alexithymia, lack of insight, and treatment-resistance which are occasionally used irresponsibly as a cop-out or euphemism that belittles or blames the victim by portraying patients as vain or superstitious if they choose to argue with professional advice or choose their own treatment. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They reject anti-psychiatry and consider its application to be functionally a straw-man fallacy and an ad hominem predatory conspiracy intended to suppress legitimate grievances by corrupting their good-faith intentions. It would be comparably childish and absurd to retort that a psychiatrist critical of advocates should be classified as an anti-depressant or an anti-psychotic. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They argue that a small portion of psychiatric treatments, such as certain antipsychotic drugs, have side-effects that limit a person's abilities. Consequently for some patients, "treatment" is compared to replacing one form of disability with another. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They assert that if treatment is assigned to them but they are not resigned to it, then they have an ethical right to refuse the diagnosis, to renounce the legitimacy of the prescription, and to reclaim from their care-givers any authority to treat them. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They perceive that the problem of perverse power imbalance in psychiatry should be an ethical rather than a professional issue and that this problem could in practice be addressed by an advocate appointed for the patient but is not. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This article and Anti-psychiatry have a lot in common. I don't propose merging them but rather separating what is strictly "anti-psychiatry" (a term of the 1960s and early 70s) and the broader criticism of psychiatry. Otherwise the information is duplicated. -- Cesar Tort 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've slowly started to remove some material which seemed off-topic, and is already better covered elsewhere. And added a few things that seem highly relevant, but which have been overlooked till now. Comments are welcome. Johnfos ( talk) 22:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Johnfos you are the king eh? No discussion first here? -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is heavily unscientific and should be completely deleted. As a medical student, I was kinda shocked, that this article was even featured on Wikipedia Cell.83 ( talk) 12:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Controversy surrounding psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to have been tagged to within an inch of its life in May 2017, but there are no comments or talk related to the tagging??? Thepm ( talk) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Had the same thought. I'm not really competent enough to change it though. Brettwardo ( talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Formal request has been received to merge the article Anti-psychiatry into Controversy surrounding psychiatry; dated: February 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Anti-psychiatry is part of the controversy surrounding psychiatry. Discuss here. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of rewriting from a neutral point of view. E.g., referring to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as " electroconvulsive torture" is simply unacceptable, as it does not represent the mainstream view of most modern medical practitioners—psychiatrists or otherwise.― Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
As a person working in the medical field, this article is seriously unscientific, dangerous and propagandistic. I was kinda shocked, reading that wikipedia actually has such an unscientific article. The potential dangers this article offers to people with psychological diseases is immense. People might get the idea that „psychiatry is a fraud“ and would not participate in a therapy. Please delete this article or modify it, but please don’t share unscientific, medically wrong and propagandistic information. Cell.83 ( talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
? What the hell?! Medicine is a scientific profession of many hundreds of years. Psychiatry is a sub part of medicine which helped thousands and thousands of people. I have seen myself hundreds of people, who received help. Mental illnesses are serious and dangerous. And if you „don’t believe“ in mental illnesses that’s your problem. Because mental illnesses are real and people receive help in Psychiatries by doctors. This Wikipedia article was most definitely edited by people with no scientific knowledge and medical background who think that psychiatric methods of the 1930s are still in use today. By this definition surgery has to be fraud, considering the standards of 1930s surgery. Cherry picking on certain and unscientific news and calling the reality is just wrong and dangerous and might create the impression to mental ill people, that they should not search for help and should indeed just suffer by their illness. Whoever wrote the answer „psychiatry is damaging“ seriously needs to talk with the thousands of patients who are getting healed everyday by doctors from serious illnesses and who are happier than ever before. I am sorry for my not quite perfect English, but I guess you get my point. educate yourself and don’t spread false information. Cell.83 ( talk) 22:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
oppose strongly Censorship over truth is not acceptable. All psychiatric practices are not okay and their criticism must come forward. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggested earlier the deletion of this article. I already made a lot of changes of editing this article, but still a lot of misleading information remains. The article is written heavily subjective, unscientific, medically refutable and against the common scientific and statistically known results. If the article is not deleted, it should at least be heavily modified. I am medical student and I can confirm that nearly everything of this article is written as propaganda and with the purpose to tell people with serious diseases not to visit a doctor. Sorry for my English, I am from Germany ;) Cell.83 ( talk) 12:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is written heavily subjective and contains a lot of misleading and incorrect information. First of all, the whole article was written by someone who wants to label psychiatry as a „fraud“. As a med student I have seen thousands of patients with suicide thoughts, borderline disorders and so on being healed in psychiatries by doctors. Psychiatry is a sub part of medicine which exist to heal „damage of the soul“. Modern Psychiatries are full of light and in modern complexes. People with serious mental illnesses have been healed. The authors of this article are using wrong information and are trying to convince people with mental illnesses not to participate in psychiatry. This is a seriously dangerous article, which does not represent reality I could probably write pages about this article, but my English might be not good enough. However, i still hope that my writing is understandable Cell.83 ( talk) 22:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel as if this article is a bit of a colletion of stuff. I want to work out how to organize it better. The medicalization setions seems quite long and might contain material that belongs in other sections.
Thinking through what it should look like:
How does this seem to people? Talpedia ( talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
While I did a bit of research, I found a lot a similarities of this pseudo scientific article to articles provided by Scientology. I mean there’s no reason to provide an article about „controversies“ of a medical field. That would be the same, as if I would create an article about the „dangers“ of vaccines featuring wrong thesis and pseudoscientific quotes. The subjective writing of this article and the use of words is very similar to the structure of Scientology articles. Scientology, a religious cult, tried in the past and in the present to replace the medical field of psychiatry with their own pseudo scientific dianetics, of course without success, but they are kind of still trying. The article about psychiatry actually features a section of controversy and criticism, why would there be a need to feature a whole new article about made up controversies, other than to frighten mentally ill people. This is straight up dangerous, considering that mentally ill people might think it would not be a good choice to visit a doctor, who studied medicine and specialised in the medical field of psychiatry. I made an internship in med school in a psychiatry. The place had a lot of windows, colourful walls and a warm atmosphere. The doctors and nurses were nice and you could see the recovering process of mentally ill people. Thank you for reading my feedback and sorry for my language (English is not my first language) I will now report this article for deletion Cell.83 ( talk) 09:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sincerely, Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Szasz expressly rejected anti-psychiatry. Nicmart ( talk) 08:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
“The founder of the non-psychiatric approach to psychological suffering is Giorgio Antonucci.”
That is patent nonsense. Humans adopted many non-psychiatric approaches to suffering many millennia before Antonucci was born. Nicmart ( talk) 08:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Anti-psychiatry is a movement rather than just criticism of psychiatry which has a connotation that entire stream of psychiatry is bad. But there are various kinds of practices in psychiatry and psychology which are criticised, obsoleted and changes with time, just like any other branches of science. Sometimes there is a delay in this change or updatation though. I want to request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychology practice, and how it changes with time.
Controversies about psychiatry article discusses the subject of psychiaty as a matter of controversy, it does not have a discussion on individual practices and methods and their criticism.
Therefore I request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychological "practices" rather than entire psychiatry and/or psychology. 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lr775, Meholl, Lmv54 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ashleyrensted, GraceRademacher.
We (lr775, meholl, lmv54) are planning on adding a section on racism in psychiatry to this article. It will include a broad overview on examples of racism within psychiatry, particularly focusing on diagnosis. -- Lr775 ( talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
szasz is mentioned.... this might be relevant to this article....
maybe mention ideas in this essay about phlogiston as it relates to mental illness and Szaszian views. "Mental illness: psychiatry's phlogiston"
"Mental illness is to psychiatry as phlogiston was to chemistry. Establishing chemistry as a science of the nature of matter required the recognition of the non-existence of phlogiston. Establishing psychiatry as a science of the nature of human behaviour requires the recognition of the non-existence of mental illness."
"For example, Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), the great English chemist, could not relinquish the phlogiston theory, even after he himself had discovered oxygen and after Lavoisier's work swept the scientific world. He continued to view oxygen as “dephlogisticated air”. In a pamphlet titled, “Considerations on the doctrine of phlogiston and the decomposition of water”, published in 1796, he referred to Lavoisier's followers as “Antiphlogistians”, and complained: “On the whole, I cannot help saying, that it appears to me not a little extraordinary, that a theory so new, and of such importance, overturning every thing that was thought to be the best established chemistry, should rest on so very narrow and precarious a foundation”"
i am rather bias about this subject, so i wont make this addition myself. i just want to put this idea out there in case anyone feels it is a good idea. limitless peace Michael Ten ( talk) 02:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
So... Is anybody willing to change the article to be a better one?
I would do it myself, but English isn't my native language. And my research strengths are related to literature and films only. Sebastián Arena... 13:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Controversies about psychiatry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
They complain that psychiatric illness is a condition created for psychotherapy and other professional communities in which they have no confidence, participation, or representation (not even a little bit). 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They resent the legitimization in psychiatry of words like anosognosia, alexithymia, lack of insight, and treatment-resistance which are occasionally used irresponsibly as a cop-out or euphemism that belittles or blames the victim by portraying patients as vain or superstitious if they choose to argue with professional advice or choose their own treatment. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They reject anti-psychiatry and consider its application to be functionally a straw-man fallacy and an ad hominem predatory conspiracy intended to suppress legitimate grievances by corrupting their good-faith intentions. It would be comparably childish and absurd to retort that a psychiatrist critical of advocates should be classified as an anti-depressant or an anti-psychotic. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They argue that a small portion of psychiatric treatments, such as certain antipsychotic drugs, have side-effects that limit a person's abilities. Consequently for some patients, "treatment" is compared to replacing one form of disability with another. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They assert that if treatment is assigned to them but they are not resigned to it, then they have an ethical right to refuse the diagnosis, to renounce the legitimacy of the prescription, and to reclaim from their care-givers any authority to treat them. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They perceive that the problem of perverse power imbalance in psychiatry should be an ethical rather than a professional issue and that this problem could in practice be addressed by an advocate appointed for the patient but is not. 66.239.61.216 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This article and Anti-psychiatry have a lot in common. I don't propose merging them but rather separating what is strictly "anti-psychiatry" (a term of the 1960s and early 70s) and the broader criticism of psychiatry. Otherwise the information is duplicated. -- Cesar Tort 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've slowly started to remove some material which seemed off-topic, and is already better covered elsewhere. And added a few things that seem highly relevant, but which have been overlooked till now. Comments are welcome. Johnfos ( talk) 22:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Johnfos you are the king eh? No discussion first here? -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is heavily unscientific and should be completely deleted. As a medical student, I was kinda shocked, that this article was even featured on Wikipedia Cell.83 ( talk) 12:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Controversy surrounding psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to have been tagged to within an inch of its life in May 2017, but there are no comments or talk related to the tagging??? Thepm ( talk) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Had the same thought. I'm not really competent enough to change it though. Brettwardo ( talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Formal request has been received to merge the article Anti-psychiatry into Controversy surrounding psychiatry; dated: February 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Anti-psychiatry is part of the controversy surrounding psychiatry. Discuss here. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of rewriting from a neutral point of view. E.g., referring to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as " electroconvulsive torture" is simply unacceptable, as it does not represent the mainstream view of most modern medical practitioners—psychiatrists or otherwise.― Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
As a person working in the medical field, this article is seriously unscientific, dangerous and propagandistic. I was kinda shocked, reading that wikipedia actually has such an unscientific article. The potential dangers this article offers to people with psychological diseases is immense. People might get the idea that „psychiatry is a fraud“ and would not participate in a therapy. Please delete this article or modify it, but please don’t share unscientific, medically wrong and propagandistic information. Cell.83 ( talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
? What the hell?! Medicine is a scientific profession of many hundreds of years. Psychiatry is a sub part of medicine which helped thousands and thousands of people. I have seen myself hundreds of people, who received help. Mental illnesses are serious and dangerous. And if you „don’t believe“ in mental illnesses that’s your problem. Because mental illnesses are real and people receive help in Psychiatries by doctors. This Wikipedia article was most definitely edited by people with no scientific knowledge and medical background who think that psychiatric methods of the 1930s are still in use today. By this definition surgery has to be fraud, considering the standards of 1930s surgery. Cherry picking on certain and unscientific news and calling the reality is just wrong and dangerous and might create the impression to mental ill people, that they should not search for help and should indeed just suffer by their illness. Whoever wrote the answer „psychiatry is damaging“ seriously needs to talk with the thousands of patients who are getting healed everyday by doctors from serious illnesses and who are happier than ever before. I am sorry for my not quite perfect English, but I guess you get my point. educate yourself and don’t spread false information. Cell.83 ( talk) 22:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
oppose strongly Censorship over truth is not acceptable. All psychiatric practices are not okay and their criticism must come forward. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggested earlier the deletion of this article. I already made a lot of changes of editing this article, but still a lot of misleading information remains. The article is written heavily subjective, unscientific, medically refutable and against the common scientific and statistically known results. If the article is not deleted, it should at least be heavily modified. I am medical student and I can confirm that nearly everything of this article is written as propaganda and with the purpose to tell people with serious diseases not to visit a doctor. Sorry for my English, I am from Germany ;) Cell.83 ( talk) 12:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is written heavily subjective and contains a lot of misleading and incorrect information. First of all, the whole article was written by someone who wants to label psychiatry as a „fraud“. As a med student I have seen thousands of patients with suicide thoughts, borderline disorders and so on being healed in psychiatries by doctors. Psychiatry is a sub part of medicine which exist to heal „damage of the soul“. Modern Psychiatries are full of light and in modern complexes. People with serious mental illnesses have been healed. The authors of this article are using wrong information and are trying to convince people with mental illnesses not to participate in psychiatry. This is a seriously dangerous article, which does not represent reality I could probably write pages about this article, but my English might be not good enough. However, i still hope that my writing is understandable Cell.83 ( talk) 22:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel as if this article is a bit of a colletion of stuff. I want to work out how to organize it better. The medicalization setions seems quite long and might contain material that belongs in other sections.
Thinking through what it should look like:
How does this seem to people? Talpedia ( talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
While I did a bit of research, I found a lot a similarities of this pseudo scientific article to articles provided by Scientology. I mean there’s no reason to provide an article about „controversies“ of a medical field. That would be the same, as if I would create an article about the „dangers“ of vaccines featuring wrong thesis and pseudoscientific quotes. The subjective writing of this article and the use of words is very similar to the structure of Scientology articles. Scientology, a religious cult, tried in the past and in the present to replace the medical field of psychiatry with their own pseudo scientific dianetics, of course without success, but they are kind of still trying. The article about psychiatry actually features a section of controversy and criticism, why would there be a need to feature a whole new article about made up controversies, other than to frighten mentally ill people. This is straight up dangerous, considering that mentally ill people might think it would not be a good choice to visit a doctor, who studied medicine and specialised in the medical field of psychiatry. I made an internship in med school in a psychiatry. The place had a lot of windows, colourful walls and a warm atmosphere. The doctors and nurses were nice and you could see the recovering process of mentally ill people. Thank you for reading my feedback and sorry for my language (English is not my first language) I will now report this article for deletion Cell.83 ( talk) 09:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sincerely, Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Szasz expressly rejected anti-psychiatry. Nicmart ( talk) 08:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
“The founder of the non-psychiatric approach to psychological suffering is Giorgio Antonucci.”
That is patent nonsense. Humans adopted many non-psychiatric approaches to suffering many millennia before Antonucci was born. Nicmart ( talk) 08:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Anti-psychiatry is a movement rather than just criticism of psychiatry which has a connotation that entire stream of psychiatry is bad. But there are various kinds of practices in psychiatry and psychology which are criticised, obsoleted and changes with time, just like any other branches of science. Sometimes there is a delay in this change or updatation though. I want to request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychology practice, and how it changes with time.
Controversies about psychiatry article discusses the subject of psychiaty as a matter of controversy, it does not have a discussion on individual practices and methods and their criticism.
Therefore I request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychological "practices" rather than entire psychiatry and/or psychology. 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lr775, Meholl, Lmv54 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ashleyrensted, GraceRademacher.
We (lr775, meholl, lmv54) are planning on adding a section on racism in psychiatry to this article. It will include a broad overview on examples of racism within psychiatry, particularly focusing on diagnosis. -- Lr775 ( talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
szasz is mentioned.... this might be relevant to this article....
maybe mention ideas in this essay about phlogiston as it relates to mental illness and Szaszian views. "Mental illness: psychiatry's phlogiston"
"Mental illness is to psychiatry as phlogiston was to chemistry. Establishing chemistry as a science of the nature of matter required the recognition of the non-existence of phlogiston. Establishing psychiatry as a science of the nature of human behaviour requires the recognition of the non-existence of mental illness."
"For example, Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), the great English chemist, could not relinquish the phlogiston theory, even after he himself had discovered oxygen and after Lavoisier's work swept the scientific world. He continued to view oxygen as “dephlogisticated air”. In a pamphlet titled, “Considerations on the doctrine of phlogiston and the decomposition of water”, published in 1796, he referred to Lavoisier's followers as “Antiphlogistians”, and complained: “On the whole, I cannot help saying, that it appears to me not a little extraordinary, that a theory so new, and of such importance, overturning every thing that was thought to be the best established chemistry, should rest on so very narrow and precarious a foundation”"
i am rather bias about this subject, so i wont make this addition myself. i just want to put this idea out there in case anyone feels it is a good idea. limitless peace Michael Ten ( talk) 02:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
So... Is anybody willing to change the article to be a better one?
I would do it myself, but English isn't my native language. And my research strengths are related to literature and films only. Sebastián Arena... 13:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)