This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
In the history section I would like to place the former diagnosis of drapetomania , “masturbational insanity” http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/pdf_extract/108/452/1 , epilepsy and homosexuality. The dates of the "discovery" as a disease and the removal from psychiatry.-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 12:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Citizens Commission on Human Rights is a Scientology front group and their website is NOT a WP:RS at all. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I am curious as to where the CCHR reference was used in the article? You need to be specific Harizoth. -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 13:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think some of this section falls under WP:UNDUE, especially the "Mental illness myth". How important for instance is Thomas Szasz? Is he a fringe figure? The section seems to give too much credence to his position.
and gay rights activists criticised the APA's listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
This simply does not belong in the section at all, as it is not about claiming mental illness is a myth.
A widely-publicised study by Rosenhan in Science was viewed as an attack on the efficacy of psychiatric diagnosis.[130]
This seems to be over stating it a bit. This should be covered but
Similarly there's a quote by Stuart A. Kirk. Who is he? Is he a WP:RS? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of starting the article. Anyone know where we can find a good image? There are a few at the commonscat link at the right. Any thoughts on sources? Google books is blocked here in China, so I am having trouble in that regard. Also, is it notable? There is Sigmund's famous couch, the presence in cartoons, an interesting history, the similarity to the chaise longue, pop culture, term "the couch", etc. I thought of making it a section in Couch, but it is not really a couch. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is currently at least 20% negative regarding the profession of psychiatry. The page's "Controversy" section consumes over 20% of the page, and is replete with non-stop negativity regarding the profession. This seems to me to be contrary to both the current WP:Due policy and the current WP:Undue policy which requires that sources should always represent, and be "weighted towards" the majority view, and should not unduly represent minority views. According to current WP:Due/ Undue policy, each of the criticisms ought to be logically and specifically "balanced" against the majority-view on each of these points, so that the article might not mistakenly mislead the public into misunderstanding the "majority view" on any of these points. Otherwise the controversial points should be removed all-together. I propose that this article be generally reverted back to a time prior to its current violation of WP:Due and WP:Undue. Scott P. ( talk) 18:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following chunk of ref tags that were disrupting the flow of the article as can be seen when comparing diffs. These had been integrated as part of the subsection on "outpatient treatment." They should be integrated as refs in such a way to appear under the proper section (whether references, notes, further reading, etc) without disturbing or disrupting the rest of the article:
Laval ( talk) 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scottperry has suggested reverting the article Psychiatry to a revision of 28 June 2012. The editor argues that this is necessary to address issues of WP:UNDUE in the controversy section of the current version of the article. They also argue that the article has experienced a general degradation of wording and phrasing compared to the 28 June 2012 revision. Regardless of whether the proposed reversion is justified, in the interests of article stability, it might be worthwhile to solicit a wider spectrum of opinion before applying such wide-ranging changes. A more detailed presentation of the arguments for this change can be found in the section above or in the following diffs [2] [3] [4]. Thank you. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Starting in the 1990's, the field of psychiatry has increasingly pushed towards becoming more objective in its diagnosis and treatment, as evidenced by the increasing proportion of research funding aimed at finding biomarkers for mental illnesses. Neuroimaging and genetic biomarkers, though mostly still used only in research, have begun to be used clinically. The hope of the National Institute of Mental Health and other entities is that large syndromic diagnoses, as are contained in the DSM, will gradually yield to more specific, biologically-based diagnoses. The process of identifying biomarkers for mental illness has been slower than expected due to difficulty in finding a marker of one disease from groups of patients sorted into DSM diagnostic categories which are thought to include many different specific diseases. The Research Domain Criteria is an alternative classification manual to the DSM, which aims to be more biologically-based. Genetics are now thought by prominent researchers to play a large role in mental illness. [1] Using advanced genetic techniques, researchers have been able to identify that 90% of the cause of schizophrenia lies in genetic networks and were able to parse out that the syndrome of schizophrenia is actually dozens of different diseases on the molecular level. [2] The genetic and heritable proportion of the cause of five major psychiatric disorders found in family and twin studies is 81% for schizophrenia, 80% for autism spectrum disorder, 75% for bipolar disorder, 75% for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and 37% for major depressive disorder. [3] The discovery of the biological causes of mental illness may lead to more targeted and specific diagnostic categories and treatments, as happened in other fields of medicine. |
Which biomarkers are being used clinical? Also we should be using high quality secondary sources not primary research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I edited the last paragraph of the lead (diff) and wanted to further explain reasons for the edits, and invite comments or suggestions.
> Question: I am so used to using "e.g.," that it is second nature, but should we avoid it in articles? I am sure there is an answer to this question somewhere in the Style Guide, but I had trouble finding it after searching for a bit.
Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 05:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel that the article should cite a source showing how frequently, and to what extent, Psychiatrists make use of Objective Medical techniques (such as Neuroimaging or Neurophysiological techniques) to inform the diagnosis process. I am afraid that common sense (the expense of such techniques being one common sensical factor) indicates to me that these techniques are woefully underused.
ASavantDude ( talk) 23:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I said "IP editor" here, but that was a mistake and I can't fix it (I don't think). Just clarifying. —PermStrump (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I made some edits, mainly to correct grammatical errors or improve clarity of expression in the Subspecialities section. But I noticed that while the section mentions ABPN certification, the subspecialty lists do not differentiate between those where ABPN certification is required and those where it is not (based on the ABPN website).
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk)
16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Similar to how psychology page is improved by linking with the Psychology Portal, Psychiatry need to be connected to it's respective portal. I will be attempting such a move — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadha1998 ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I found that the restriction is specially target to the view which opposes psychiatry. I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox, but only mentioning the fobidding about opposing psychiatry is not comprehensive enough for such a article, since the talk page requires that talk page is not fourm. Just removing discussion about opposing psychiatry is somewhat unfair, even if Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Please consider this and please give a response. I think even that state cannot be changed, a FAQ of explaination is still good for us. Thank you! 2409:8930:FFC0:2774:9F74:93EB:7077:ABDE ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The article at present mostly relates to the practice of psychiatry in the United States, except for the history section which has perforce to cover Western Europe: but the sidebar relating to the education of psychiatrists lists several qualifications which turn out to be for Barefoot Doctors in Kenya, though the main article says nothing about how they practice. I see no value in having it there at all. NRPanikker ( talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Someone needs to work on their perceptions and/or racist tendencies ("Barefoot doctors??"), and no - clinical officers are not "other kinds of mental health professionals." Their primary qualification is clinical medicine and surgery with the option of a second qualification in psychiatry. Clinical Officers Council. Ronns ( talk) 18:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
A added a carefully referenced sentence to the Inpatient treatment section ( diff), which had been removed on 9 Oct 2019 ( diff), perhaps by mistake. Please discuss here before removing this sentence a second time. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've reworked the criticism and controversy section:
This section seems controversial:
It feels like there might be a bit of POV-funnelling going on here (everything critical belongs in anti-psychiatry - e.g. so that we can suppress criticism on this page) and controversy was being characterised as undue influence. So we'll see what happens :)
(edit: grammar)
This text was added and reverted from the lead on the grounds of being large change that requires some discussion.
"This medical specialty differs from other medical specialties as it is the only one to diagnosis disorders based upon common symptoms as opposed to cellular pathology (e.g., neuroscience). [4]"
My 2 cents:
-- Talpedia ( talk) 19:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I agree that excessive weight on the scientologists is unnecessary (I wrote the initial paragraph on "mainstream" anti-psychaitry) - much of the material is covered in other articles. I am unsure how noteworthy scientologists are - they are a well-known group with prominent members. I do think that the fact that they founded an organization with Ssasz is significant, so a couple of sentences linking to other material seems relevant.
-- Talpedia ( talk) 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology strongly opposes psychiatry. Through a self-described "humanitarian effort" the Church of Scientology created a museum in Los Angeles, CA (USA) which purports to show the evolution of the "evils" of psychiatry and psychology over time. A Scientology-related organization, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), is entirely devoted to criticism of psychiatry. Others have questioned the veracity of information the Church of Scientology provides to the public within the Industry of Death Museum exhibits. (citation numbers omitted)
"The Church of Scientology is critical of psychiatry, whereas others have questioned the veracity of information the Church of Scientology provides to the public.[130]"
Is this use of whereas standard in the US? I would use "though" here. I've only seen this "non-comparative" of whereas in constitutions and legal documents :).
-- Talpedia ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
whereas conjunction ... 3 a : when in fact : while on the contrary : the case being in truth that — used to introduce a statement in opposition or contrast to a preceding or sometimes following statement; b : although; c : at the same time that : while. [1]
References
I would actually like to put in the reference at the end of „criticism and controversy“ for the sentence „...the neutrality is questioned...“
Abbott, Alison (29 October 2019). "On the troubling trail of psychiatry's pseudopatients stunt". Nature. 574 (7780): 622–623. Bibcode:2019Natur.574..622A. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03268-y. “But some people in the department called him a bullshitter,” Kenneth Gergen says. And through her deeply researched study, Cahalan seems inclined to agree with them. ^
And
"Review: 'The Great Pretender,' by Susannah Cahalan". Star Tribune.
^ Cell.83 ( talk) 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is there a link featured in the article of „criticism and controversy“ to controversies about psychiatry? The page „controversies about psychiatry“ offers a lot of unscientific and wrong information. A potential reader could be convinced, that „psychiatry“ is not scientific and not a medical field... that is dangerous and this site should not be featured Cell.83 ( talk) 11:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
??? I am a medical student and you actually believe that psychiatry is more „damaging than beneficial“? If an admin is actually thinking that... psychiatry is a medical field. It has been improved a lot throughout the years. It’s a scientific, medical field. Simple statistics will show you the benefit of psychiatry. Did you ever visit a psychiatry? I did, as a student in medical school. Your opinion is heavily unscientific and just dumb. Please educate yourself on the topic Cell.83 ( talk) 12:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
... If you have not/ or are not studying medicine right now, your opinion is invalid and doesn’t matter. Why would psychiatrist, who are doctors and studied medicine and did a 6 years further training to become a specialist, only to damage people in the end? There are 1000 of studies, doctorates and books about the medical field of psychiatry. I doubt that you ever read on of these, ever visited a modern psychiatry or studied medicine. In other words, your opinion doesn’t have any medical value and if you claim „that you know more than 99% of people of Talpedia“, sorry but that is impossible. You are having an opinion, which is against every scientific and medical research, similar to anti vaccers... Cell.83 ( talk) 10:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I only edited out a subjective view and added a sentence, that the neutrality of the Rosenhan experiment is often questioned nowadays. That is also written in the original article and is quite important for the understanding of the reader. Cell.83 ( talk) 10:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite| blah blah blha}} </ref>in markup mode (perhaps by copying and pasting). I'd really encourage that you use the visual editor though. I used to use the markup editor (and I've written a lot of markup in my life), and my edits were rubbish. Talpedia ( talk) 13:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for your quick answer. However, I didn’t manage to put in the citation. I would be a pleasure, if you could maybe explain to me, how to put in a citation for a claim (I posted the source, which I wanna quote, earlier) :) Cell.83 ( talk) 13:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(→Criticism on psychiatric diagnostics: Added content: in the German Wikipedia, the change of the title already happened. It is more specific and explains to the reader, that psychiatry as an organisation is not criticised, but psychiatric diagnostics (by some people). Even if that is even unscientific and on a medical field easy to refute, that psychiatric diagnostics would be „not precise“.)
Hey, I reverted this, but this is a matter of consensus not my choice.
Talpedia ( talk) 23:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
As a medical student, I can confirm that this criticism is unscientific and medically disproven. No other medical field on Wikipedia actually features a „controversy and criticism“ section. Why should psychiatry feature irrelevant and unscientific criticism, which is completely unproven and actually might fear people to take therapy. I am seeing a lot of danger because of this and the link to the unscientific article „controversies around psychiatry“ is highly dangerous. Cell.83 ( talk) 13:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between data/ information that has been researched, improved and developed by doctors for years and made up non sense of average people. But featuring both impressions on one article might occur the impression that both „theses“ would have the same scientific value. Cell.83 ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The disambiguation page Alienism states that alienism is an obsolete term for psychiatry, which is supported by sources such as this one. The Psychiatry article, however, doesn't mention this term, and neither does History of psychiatry. It would be helpful if they did. I don't feel confident adding it in myself, though, as I don't know exactly how and where to add it, but I hope that someone reading this is willing to do so. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
We seem to be having quite a few reverts going on. So to avoid too much edit warring I thought I'd open this section. I do think it's relevant that involuntary treatment goes on in psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatric interventions are voluntary, so we should probably address involuntary treatment in a separate paragraph. Maybe something like:
"In some situations situations psychiatric treatment may be involuntary, sometimes on the basis of lack of capacity. Examples of disorders that are treated involuntary include psychotic disorders such as Schizophrenia or Bipolar disorder; Eating disorders such as Anorexia nervosa; or certain forms of suicidal ideation. Involuntary treatment is governed by Mental health law and in some countries requires a courts approval"
with appropriate cites added.
Talpedia ( talk) 18:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
What everyone is actually wondering, Talpedia, is why you used an anonymous address to make yesterday's spate of repugnant edits to this article, and indeed the thought crosses one's own mind. It is highly disconcerting that you and now Megaman en m seem to be advocating improving this article's neutrality by shifting its perspective in the direction of the general civilian populace.
To quote Megaman en m, it is misrepresenting reality to propose such a thing as psychiatric treatment being either voluntary or involuntary (while I don't have a source for it, to my own knowledge psychiatry is all either voluntary or about-to-be). Also, exactly like a recently-archived comment (18 December 2020 under "Criticism") said, why would a person procure a position of privilege for themselves and then use this position to exploit other people? It simply beggars belief.
So while it's perfectly fine if the right decisions have now been arrived at through overly-cautiousness or laziness (as long as they don't get changed once more attention is paid), the tone of these edits seems to be lambasting the reader for his or her cowardice in letting psychiatry continue to develop the way that it has been - and this kind of open criticism of psychiatry simply does not belong on Wikipedia or anywhere. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 09:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I directly support Megaman en m's logic that the question of consent is so important to psychiatry that on balance it is best given little mention. By way of allegory, one perhaps wouldn't necessarily include casualty numbers of Uyhgurs when describing Chino-Uyhgur relations because while such information may be at times accurate, objective, salient and what the typical reader would consider of great interest, the CCP has been adamant that it considers Uyghur lives important. With regards to psychiatry, I think Markworthen summed it up perfectly in the comment to the initial rollback: consent is an unnecessary consideration. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
In many countries, for some psychiatric diagnoses patients can be detained without consent and treated involuntarily. Such detention is governed by Mental health law and there are judicial appeal processes. [1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I've removed the below which followed a paragraph on involuntary treatment. It may be the case that this information belongs elsewhere in the article. FiachraByrne ( talk) 15:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Mental health issues such as mood disorders and schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders were the most common principle diagnoses for Medicaid non-elderly super-utilizers in the United States in 2012.
[1]
References
I think in this article psychiatry is coming off far too much like a religion. The way it is presented almost makes it sound as medicine has taken advantage of modern dismissiveness towards religion to institute its own religion clothed as science. It also makes it sound as though medicine has been introducing a new, self-serving morality (don't be selfish, don't be suspicious, don't be a contrarian, etc.) and using thought-policing and its exclusive control over the drug supply to grow increasingly more powerful and wealthy.
I would like to echo some of the earlier comments on this article, namely:
(1) people should not be provided accurate information merely because it may prevent them from being exploited when it comes to medicine,
(2) information alone can be dangerous, because people may accept information uncritically which is a bad thing unless the information is coming from government-sanctioned sources,
(3) what information people receive should be decided upon by government-sanctioned individuals, who should have the right to decide what harm is and is not likely to occur in the future.
To illustrate the point, the article talks about mental diseases that across Wikipedia are described as typically having no objective criteria. Meanwhile, psychiatric therapies are known to have very real, objective negative consequences. This would seem to insinuate that the only actual reliable/objective finding of most psychiatric experiments is how much damage the therapeutic is causing, and whether it is quick and painful or slow and painful. In turn, this suggests that doctors practicing involuntary psychiatry are simply modern-day torture-masters who have grown increasingly adept at using expensive procedures to subdue and exploit vulnerable individuals for their personal and collective gain.
However, I'm sure that most psychiatrists would agree that the fact that most of psychiatry's modern and historic treatments resemble torture is purely coincidental (the fact that the UN has labelled them as such obviously notwithstanding). To suggest that surgically removing or using medications that shrink a person's brain matter, restraining a person's movement, isolating them from friends and family and restricting their access to nature, exercise, sunlight, healthy produce and sex is as bad for a person's health who has been involuntarily diagnosed with a mental disease as it would be for someone who hasn't is pure fancy.
I do like the fact that this article doesn't make mention of the sexual assault that has been documented to run rampant throughout psychiatric medicine, particularly by the psychiatrists themselves, as that may dissuade people from relying on them. Similarly, it's also probably best that there continues to be no reference of the recent and publicly published studies of patients that had metal electroshock wires inserted into their brains, some of whom were sexually stimulated in this fashion, while being studied, as many of these subjects are involuntary (under the doctrine of third-party consent as opposed to consent in the older sense).
However, besides that, it seems like the article could do with a lot of work. I'm not quite sure how to start fixing it but maybe it could be opened it by emphasizing that involuntary medicine is real and that a medical education gives a psychiatrist the power to see into people's minds with sufficient accuracy to diagnose the person with a permanent illness. I've personally benefited greatly from the powers of psychiatry but perhaps some more of the psychiatric fraternity could chime in as I'm sure they will give us their even-handed, professional opinion. 91.129.101.175 ( talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It almost goes without saying that even if, by coincidence, modern psychiatric illnesses correlate with historical negative Jewish stereotypes - sociopathy with being selfish, anxiety disorder with being neurotic, schizophrenia with putting one's faith in myths, etc. - the Bible is not factual and so is to be disregarded: the allusions to it are meaningless. Mental illnesses may not have any objective criteria and there may not be any empirical proof that the mind outright exists *per sé* but psychiatry is nevertheless a real and legitimate science.
While the objective of treatment is to make a patient less neurotic and less fraught with delusions, without suffering from side effects of the therapeutics - with the hope that the person may be assistive in turn of how such a state of ongoing health may be achieved by others - involuntarily producing in a societal outcast such a charismatic, obsequious, physically-supreme "symbol" is a far cry from ritual sacrifice as psychiatrists are good people - who are simply following what the science dictates.
Simply put, psychiatry works. Yes, Buddhism may have recorded the world's happiest people. However, it is not practical to simply let Buddhist philosophy guide how society treats aberrant behavior or for how people with unsettled minds may gain control. For one thing, Buddhism precludes the ingestion of mind-altering substances (never mind their forcible administration), and such a level of tolerance for idiosyncratic behavior would likely leave the law alone to be responsible for deciding who may or may not grace our streets.
Whatever religion it is one considers (including a worship for ICCPR Articles 18 & 19, "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, "no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to ... adopt a ... belief of his choice" and so on), the church must be kept separate from the state and academia's scientific evidence has consistently shown that psychiatry - psychoactive chemicals, electroshock and psychosurgery along with therapy sessions and/or the restriction of freedoms - is effective.
Perhaps we could add a note somewhere like this:
The goal of psychiatric medicine, and involuntary medicine in particular, is to address the symptoms of mental illness such as to provide a subject with persistent and stable health. However, while force may be involved (and at such times death may even occur), this should not be considered a blood ritual, to which it is distinct. 46.131.38.206 ( talk) 08:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ 176.46.113.248: is proposing addition of this footnote to the article:
The goal of psychiatric medicine, and involuntary medicine in particular, is to address the symptoms of mental illness such as to provide a subject with persistent and stable health. However, while force may be involved (and at such times death may even occur), this should not be considered a blood ritual, to which it is distinct.
This has been reverted by two editors now in what is an edit war, but one that clearly shows there is opposition to the addition, and I also do not see the relevance of this footnote. 176 you argue that consensus has been established from a talk page discussion - in the most recent archive there is only a single entry of "blood ritual" here. Just to be clear, even though no-one challenged the proposed addition at the time this does not establish consensus as it has not been in the article before as far as I can see. You have tried adding it now, which is a reasonable WP:BOLD move, but it appears consensus is against it. If you want to continue to propose it, now is the time for discussion not further reversion. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 09:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Spaully, would you mind rephrasing the existing discussion under this topic section now so we can archive the second one as well? Use nice language though if you want a response this time; the earlier comments came off as a bit Assume Good Faith.
Also, very bizarre and great and frankly concerning Shibbolethink, shall we remind you that this talk page is NOT a place to attack psychiatry? You're comment is well on its way to being deleted. More importantly, your suggestion that psychiatry and blood rituals are somehow related is, not to mince words, insane ( Personal attack removed). 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 17:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
this footnote is bizarre and appears to be related to a WP:POLEMIC-style opinion about psychiatry, which is not supported by either sources or scholarly consensus. As a medical professional myself, I have no interest in "attacking psychiatry" I don't think we should mention blood rituals at all, since they are entirely unrelated to this topic and thus WP:UNDUE. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
176.46.113.248 ( talk) 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia user (Talpedia-Spaully-MrOllie-Shibbolethink-Acterion) that's having some fun with this Wikipedia entry as described; I'm remiss to get in the way of that fun but I also wonder if it's ultimately worth sacrificing page quality for - so we'd be interested in gathering some more opinions.
With regards to the original topic, I naturally have no horse in the race myself, so I'm inclined to go with the consensus that was reached. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 20:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I like that we've now got a consensus going on the "Psychiatry as a religion" discussion but honing in on one point mentioned there, namely: how psychiatric inpatients are raped at an extremely high incidence - and if I recall correctly there was also a UK study where a large percentage of psychiatrists admitted to raping patients explicitly for the patients' perceived benefit. By rape, I'm specifically referring to genital rape as opposed to brain rape (i.e. invasively stimulating the nerves higher up in the nerve pathway, or attempting to invasively exert coercion over another person's brain generally), which the UK study I believe did not bother enquiring about.
While I know we're dodging a bullet by avoiding including it in the article, is there a way to make the omission less striking? We haven't gone into conservateeship here in the Criticism section either but maybe we can give it a mention instead without explicitly going into the Thirteenth Amendment implications.
Again, I'm not saying we upset the careful line we're treading but if we want to keep not mentioning (a) gender dysphoria, gender affirming care, detrans & the separation of children from anti-trans parents, (b) (progressively increasing) rates of suicide amongst those being subjected to modern psychiatric treatments, (c) schools which taze special needs students, (d) failures of drug studies to be "conducted on the same timeframe to which they are recommended to be prescribed" (i.e. lack of follow-up studies) and various other "hallmarks of pseudoscience" ("failure to provide controls using spurious reasoning," "gathering results that are inherently subjective but are in this case subjective explicitly on the part of the person who is supposed to be impartially running the study"), (e) the insane and selfish geopolitical critiques about psychiatry as being a parallel hegemonic one-world government that gave the Marxist East a foothold in each country in the otherwise democratic West which was then leveraged as "wokeness" to bring the West to the heel in the space of a few short years, (f) the so-called "addictive" nature of pharmaceuticals and they're "common failure" to produce any result other than symptoms of mental disease (leading to that old fallacy that mental illness doesn't actually have a biological root in hormone imbalances), (g) the failure of psychiatry after many decades and billions of dollars invested to "find any objective markers of most mental diseases whatsoever" (i.e. diagnoses continuing to be unfalsifiable by those subjected to them despite, as the article rightly points out, psychiatry trying very hard to make their diagnoses falsifiable - even if they haven't necessarily made any visible progress in the last half-century or whatever), (h) the incompatibility of psychiatry with almost every other major religion (and involuntary psychiatry especially), (i) the (probably coincidental) ideological similarities and common motifs shared between modern psychiatry and what a Jew would explicitly describe as Satanism, (j) involuntary deaths frequently caused by forced psychiatric therapies and professional liability insurance and laws protecting from recourse against it amounting to a "license to kill," (k) the difficulty of a person generally to seek legal recourse once they have been targeted by it, getting put on treatment before an appeal, having one's body controlled by the people one is suing, indefinite limits on incarceration, bla bla, (l) discrimination by psychiatry on racial, gender, age but, most particularly, class grounds, (m) the use of "This person is encouraging others not to take their meds!" as a dog-whistle and quirky silencing tactic illegalizing so-called legitimate concerns raised about psychiatry, especially on harms experienced by people taking their meds, (etc.) to name a few, including in the Criticism article itself, we should probably throw a bone to the critics, just making sure it's not a big one IMO.
In short, I don't think we're doing a good enough job drawing away from the framing of psychiatry in constitutional, human rights, political, criminal, legal, religious or (conventional) health grounds, and so my thought is if we're going to include the Criticism section at all we throw in another sentence or two that keeps the same tone but really paints one or two standard objections in the proper light. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 07:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion of scientologists in anti-psychiatry can often be a little distracting. They do appear to have been *historically* relevant to the movement. See for example: /info/en/?search=Thomas_Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights, but I guess history isn't so relevant in this article. Also I don't know how much work the Citizens Commission on Human Rights does... Talpedia ( talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
too influenced by ideas from medicine causing it to misunderstand the nature of mental distress
@Talpedia It is a speciality of medicine, you meant by other specialities? Most critics I've read are the opposite: that it lacks what all other specialities of medicine have: diagnoses are subjective, biochemical explications for mental disorders lacks replicability and that diagnosis criterias are mostly empirical and arbitrary, in short that is not EBM; (or that it is justification for social control). I think this goes against most critics (I also did not find something similar from my glance at your cite but you may have reformulate).
its use of drugs is in part due to lobbying by drug companies resulting in distortion of research
Your quote from the source does not says that it distorts research. Hploter ( talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Your quote from the source does not saysthis may well be a bad summary. I'm open to a suggestion of better wording - and would look into making one now, but am doing other things. In general this sort of distortion works by changing *what* is researched rather than the outcomes, so for example people might be more inclined to look for drug based interventions than social ones. To be clear, I have not seen good evidence that proves or disproves this, rather the source asserts that people make these criticisms.
lacks what all other specialities of medicine havemy thoughts on this are it *wants* well-defined diagnoses with biological causes that can be addressed with general interventions. It doesn't necessarily want complicated psychological models that are difficult to test with multiple specific interventions. In trying to fit its interventions into this framing it at time fails (e.g. misdiagnoses, people moving between diagnoses, receiving multiple medications. But... I think the source sort of says "ignores psychological and social explanations bececause they don't find into the model". Basically if it didn't pretend that it had diagnosis and treatments all the time it might have better interventions.
Talpedia ( talk) 22:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The assertion would be that the best way to understand the brain's function might be through social and psychological constructs (and potentially those of the patient) rather than neurological ones
But Psychiatry already do thatI agree that there has been some acceptance of psychosocial interventions within psychiatry, especially with the rise of multidisciplinary teams. I still suspect more psychologists would view psychiatry as "overly biomedical" and for certain diagnoses (e.g. psychosis) the diagnosis is still entirely biomedical (though psychology doesn't really have any tested interventions...). Perhaps some of this critique is out of date. I know that psychiatry differs between countries in terms of how much psychology gets pulled into psychiatry.
It has been argued that psychiatry confuses disorders of the mind with disorders of the brain that can be treated with drugs
Double argues that most critical psychiatry is anti-reductionist
pseudo-scientificI mean... it's a contextualised quote from the british journal of psychiatry that is anti-critical-psychiatry and adds your argument that psychiatry has already internalised the critiques of critical psychiatry. We are getting a little niche here... so I wouldn't necessarily expect systematic reviews. I don't think it's pseudo-scientific or dualist, arguing that social constructs exists is not so say that mind exists separately from the brain. Do you like the second sentence, and do you think we should include response to the critiques of psychiatry?
for certain diagnoses (e.g. psychosis) the diagnosis is still entirely biomedical
doesn't belong at firstI've reordered the clauses in the sentence so that it appears last. I have no particular preferene for the order. My take is that if it's in a section on controversies and the end of the article and people are still arguing it at the moment then it probably belongs - but I've added contextualization to anti-reductionist critiques to the section. Talpedia ( talk) 18:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
In the history section I would like to place the former diagnosis of drapetomania , “masturbational insanity” http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/pdf_extract/108/452/1 , epilepsy and homosexuality. The dates of the "discovery" as a disease and the removal from psychiatry.-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 12:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Citizens Commission on Human Rights is a Scientology front group and their website is NOT a WP:RS at all. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I am curious as to where the CCHR reference was used in the article? You need to be specific Harizoth. -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 13:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think some of this section falls under WP:UNDUE, especially the "Mental illness myth". How important for instance is Thomas Szasz? Is he a fringe figure? The section seems to give too much credence to his position.
and gay rights activists criticised the APA's listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
This simply does not belong in the section at all, as it is not about claiming mental illness is a myth.
A widely-publicised study by Rosenhan in Science was viewed as an attack on the efficacy of psychiatric diagnosis.[130]
This seems to be over stating it a bit. This should be covered but
Similarly there's a quote by Stuart A. Kirk. Who is he? Is he a WP:RS? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of starting the article. Anyone know where we can find a good image? There are a few at the commonscat link at the right. Any thoughts on sources? Google books is blocked here in China, so I am having trouble in that regard. Also, is it notable? There is Sigmund's famous couch, the presence in cartoons, an interesting history, the similarity to the chaise longue, pop culture, term "the couch", etc. I thought of making it a section in Couch, but it is not really a couch. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is currently at least 20% negative regarding the profession of psychiatry. The page's "Controversy" section consumes over 20% of the page, and is replete with non-stop negativity regarding the profession. This seems to me to be contrary to both the current WP:Due policy and the current WP:Undue policy which requires that sources should always represent, and be "weighted towards" the majority view, and should not unduly represent minority views. According to current WP:Due/ Undue policy, each of the criticisms ought to be logically and specifically "balanced" against the majority-view on each of these points, so that the article might not mistakenly mislead the public into misunderstanding the "majority view" on any of these points. Otherwise the controversial points should be removed all-together. I propose that this article be generally reverted back to a time prior to its current violation of WP:Due and WP:Undue. Scott P. ( talk) 18:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following chunk of ref tags that were disrupting the flow of the article as can be seen when comparing diffs. These had been integrated as part of the subsection on "outpatient treatment." They should be integrated as refs in such a way to appear under the proper section (whether references, notes, further reading, etc) without disturbing or disrupting the rest of the article:
Laval ( talk) 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scottperry has suggested reverting the article Psychiatry to a revision of 28 June 2012. The editor argues that this is necessary to address issues of WP:UNDUE in the controversy section of the current version of the article. They also argue that the article has experienced a general degradation of wording and phrasing compared to the 28 June 2012 revision. Regardless of whether the proposed reversion is justified, in the interests of article stability, it might be worthwhile to solicit a wider spectrum of opinion before applying such wide-ranging changes. A more detailed presentation of the arguments for this change can be found in the section above or in the following diffs [2] [3] [4]. Thank you. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Starting in the 1990's, the field of psychiatry has increasingly pushed towards becoming more objective in its diagnosis and treatment, as evidenced by the increasing proportion of research funding aimed at finding biomarkers for mental illnesses. Neuroimaging and genetic biomarkers, though mostly still used only in research, have begun to be used clinically. The hope of the National Institute of Mental Health and other entities is that large syndromic diagnoses, as are contained in the DSM, will gradually yield to more specific, biologically-based diagnoses. The process of identifying biomarkers for mental illness has been slower than expected due to difficulty in finding a marker of one disease from groups of patients sorted into DSM diagnostic categories which are thought to include many different specific diseases. The Research Domain Criteria is an alternative classification manual to the DSM, which aims to be more biologically-based. Genetics are now thought by prominent researchers to play a large role in mental illness. [1] Using advanced genetic techniques, researchers have been able to identify that 90% of the cause of schizophrenia lies in genetic networks and were able to parse out that the syndrome of schizophrenia is actually dozens of different diseases on the molecular level. [2] The genetic and heritable proportion of the cause of five major psychiatric disorders found in family and twin studies is 81% for schizophrenia, 80% for autism spectrum disorder, 75% for bipolar disorder, 75% for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and 37% for major depressive disorder. [3] The discovery of the biological causes of mental illness may lead to more targeted and specific diagnostic categories and treatments, as happened in other fields of medicine. |
Which biomarkers are being used clinical? Also we should be using high quality secondary sources not primary research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I edited the last paragraph of the lead (diff) and wanted to further explain reasons for the edits, and invite comments or suggestions.
> Question: I am so used to using "e.g.," that it is second nature, but should we avoid it in articles? I am sure there is an answer to this question somewhere in the Style Guide, but I had trouble finding it after searching for a bit.
Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 05:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel that the article should cite a source showing how frequently, and to what extent, Psychiatrists make use of Objective Medical techniques (such as Neuroimaging or Neurophysiological techniques) to inform the diagnosis process. I am afraid that common sense (the expense of such techniques being one common sensical factor) indicates to me that these techniques are woefully underused.
ASavantDude ( talk) 23:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I said "IP editor" here, but that was a mistake and I can't fix it (I don't think). Just clarifying. —PermStrump (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I made some edits, mainly to correct grammatical errors or improve clarity of expression in the Subspecialities section. But I noticed that while the section mentions ABPN certification, the subspecialty lists do not differentiate between those where ABPN certification is required and those where it is not (based on the ABPN website).
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk)
16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Similar to how psychology page is improved by linking with the Psychology Portal, Psychiatry need to be connected to it's respective portal. I will be attempting such a move — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadha1998 ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I found that the restriction is specially target to the view which opposes psychiatry. I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox, but only mentioning the fobidding about opposing psychiatry is not comprehensive enough for such a article, since the talk page requires that talk page is not fourm. Just removing discussion about opposing psychiatry is somewhat unfair, even if Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Please consider this and please give a response. I think even that state cannot be changed, a FAQ of explaination is still good for us. Thank you! 2409:8930:FFC0:2774:9F74:93EB:7077:ABDE ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The article at present mostly relates to the practice of psychiatry in the United States, except for the history section which has perforce to cover Western Europe: but the sidebar relating to the education of psychiatrists lists several qualifications which turn out to be for Barefoot Doctors in Kenya, though the main article says nothing about how they practice. I see no value in having it there at all. NRPanikker ( talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Someone needs to work on their perceptions and/or racist tendencies ("Barefoot doctors??"), and no - clinical officers are not "other kinds of mental health professionals." Their primary qualification is clinical medicine and surgery with the option of a second qualification in psychiatry. Clinical Officers Council. Ronns ( talk) 18:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
A added a carefully referenced sentence to the Inpatient treatment section ( diff), which had been removed on 9 Oct 2019 ( diff), perhaps by mistake. Please discuss here before removing this sentence a second time. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've reworked the criticism and controversy section:
This section seems controversial:
It feels like there might be a bit of POV-funnelling going on here (everything critical belongs in anti-psychiatry - e.g. so that we can suppress criticism on this page) and controversy was being characterised as undue influence. So we'll see what happens :)
(edit: grammar)
This text was added and reverted from the lead on the grounds of being large change that requires some discussion.
"This medical specialty differs from other medical specialties as it is the only one to diagnosis disorders based upon common symptoms as opposed to cellular pathology (e.g., neuroscience). [4]"
My 2 cents:
-- Talpedia ( talk) 19:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I agree that excessive weight on the scientologists is unnecessary (I wrote the initial paragraph on "mainstream" anti-psychaitry) - much of the material is covered in other articles. I am unsure how noteworthy scientologists are - they are a well-known group with prominent members. I do think that the fact that they founded an organization with Ssasz is significant, so a couple of sentences linking to other material seems relevant.
-- Talpedia ( talk) 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology strongly opposes psychiatry. Through a self-described "humanitarian effort" the Church of Scientology created a museum in Los Angeles, CA (USA) which purports to show the evolution of the "evils" of psychiatry and psychology over time. A Scientology-related organization, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), is entirely devoted to criticism of psychiatry. Others have questioned the veracity of information the Church of Scientology provides to the public within the Industry of Death Museum exhibits. (citation numbers omitted)
"The Church of Scientology is critical of psychiatry, whereas others have questioned the veracity of information the Church of Scientology provides to the public.[130]"
Is this use of whereas standard in the US? I would use "though" here. I've only seen this "non-comparative" of whereas in constitutions and legal documents :).
-- Talpedia ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
whereas conjunction ... 3 a : when in fact : while on the contrary : the case being in truth that — used to introduce a statement in opposition or contrast to a preceding or sometimes following statement; b : although; c : at the same time that : while. [1]
References
I would actually like to put in the reference at the end of „criticism and controversy“ for the sentence „...the neutrality is questioned...“
Abbott, Alison (29 October 2019). "On the troubling trail of psychiatry's pseudopatients stunt". Nature. 574 (7780): 622–623. Bibcode:2019Natur.574..622A. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03268-y. “But some people in the department called him a bullshitter,” Kenneth Gergen says. And through her deeply researched study, Cahalan seems inclined to agree with them. ^
And
"Review: 'The Great Pretender,' by Susannah Cahalan". Star Tribune.
^ Cell.83 ( talk) 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is there a link featured in the article of „criticism and controversy“ to controversies about psychiatry? The page „controversies about psychiatry“ offers a lot of unscientific and wrong information. A potential reader could be convinced, that „psychiatry“ is not scientific and not a medical field... that is dangerous and this site should not be featured Cell.83 ( talk) 11:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
??? I am a medical student and you actually believe that psychiatry is more „damaging than beneficial“? If an admin is actually thinking that... psychiatry is a medical field. It has been improved a lot throughout the years. It’s a scientific, medical field. Simple statistics will show you the benefit of psychiatry. Did you ever visit a psychiatry? I did, as a student in medical school. Your opinion is heavily unscientific and just dumb. Please educate yourself on the topic Cell.83 ( talk) 12:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
... If you have not/ or are not studying medicine right now, your opinion is invalid and doesn’t matter. Why would psychiatrist, who are doctors and studied medicine and did a 6 years further training to become a specialist, only to damage people in the end? There are 1000 of studies, doctorates and books about the medical field of psychiatry. I doubt that you ever read on of these, ever visited a modern psychiatry or studied medicine. In other words, your opinion doesn’t have any medical value and if you claim „that you know more than 99% of people of Talpedia“, sorry but that is impossible. You are having an opinion, which is against every scientific and medical research, similar to anti vaccers... Cell.83 ( talk) 10:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I only edited out a subjective view and added a sentence, that the neutrality of the Rosenhan experiment is often questioned nowadays. That is also written in the original article and is quite important for the understanding of the reader. Cell.83 ( talk) 10:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite| blah blah blha}} </ref>in markup mode (perhaps by copying and pasting). I'd really encourage that you use the visual editor though. I used to use the markup editor (and I've written a lot of markup in my life), and my edits were rubbish. Talpedia ( talk) 13:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for your quick answer. However, I didn’t manage to put in the citation. I would be a pleasure, if you could maybe explain to me, how to put in a citation for a claim (I posted the source, which I wanna quote, earlier) :) Cell.83 ( talk) 13:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(→Criticism on psychiatric diagnostics: Added content: in the German Wikipedia, the change of the title already happened. It is more specific and explains to the reader, that psychiatry as an organisation is not criticised, but psychiatric diagnostics (by some people). Even if that is even unscientific and on a medical field easy to refute, that psychiatric diagnostics would be „not precise“.)
Hey, I reverted this, but this is a matter of consensus not my choice.
Talpedia ( talk) 23:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
As a medical student, I can confirm that this criticism is unscientific and medically disproven. No other medical field on Wikipedia actually features a „controversy and criticism“ section. Why should psychiatry feature irrelevant and unscientific criticism, which is completely unproven and actually might fear people to take therapy. I am seeing a lot of danger because of this and the link to the unscientific article „controversies around psychiatry“ is highly dangerous. Cell.83 ( talk) 13:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between data/ information that has been researched, improved and developed by doctors for years and made up non sense of average people. But featuring both impressions on one article might occur the impression that both „theses“ would have the same scientific value. Cell.83 ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The disambiguation page Alienism states that alienism is an obsolete term for psychiatry, which is supported by sources such as this one. The Psychiatry article, however, doesn't mention this term, and neither does History of psychiatry. It would be helpful if they did. I don't feel confident adding it in myself, though, as I don't know exactly how and where to add it, but I hope that someone reading this is willing to do so. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
We seem to be having quite a few reverts going on. So to avoid too much edit warring I thought I'd open this section. I do think it's relevant that involuntary treatment goes on in psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatric interventions are voluntary, so we should probably address involuntary treatment in a separate paragraph. Maybe something like:
"In some situations situations psychiatric treatment may be involuntary, sometimes on the basis of lack of capacity. Examples of disorders that are treated involuntary include psychotic disorders such as Schizophrenia or Bipolar disorder; Eating disorders such as Anorexia nervosa; or certain forms of suicidal ideation. Involuntary treatment is governed by Mental health law and in some countries requires a courts approval"
with appropriate cites added.
Talpedia ( talk) 18:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
What everyone is actually wondering, Talpedia, is why you used an anonymous address to make yesterday's spate of repugnant edits to this article, and indeed the thought crosses one's own mind. It is highly disconcerting that you and now Megaman en m seem to be advocating improving this article's neutrality by shifting its perspective in the direction of the general civilian populace.
To quote Megaman en m, it is misrepresenting reality to propose such a thing as psychiatric treatment being either voluntary or involuntary (while I don't have a source for it, to my own knowledge psychiatry is all either voluntary or about-to-be). Also, exactly like a recently-archived comment (18 December 2020 under "Criticism") said, why would a person procure a position of privilege for themselves and then use this position to exploit other people? It simply beggars belief.
So while it's perfectly fine if the right decisions have now been arrived at through overly-cautiousness or laziness (as long as they don't get changed once more attention is paid), the tone of these edits seems to be lambasting the reader for his or her cowardice in letting psychiatry continue to develop the way that it has been - and this kind of open criticism of psychiatry simply does not belong on Wikipedia or anywhere. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 09:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I directly support Megaman en m's logic that the question of consent is so important to psychiatry that on balance it is best given little mention. By way of allegory, one perhaps wouldn't necessarily include casualty numbers of Uyhgurs when describing Chino-Uyhgur relations because while such information may be at times accurate, objective, salient and what the typical reader would consider of great interest, the CCP has been adamant that it considers Uyghur lives important. With regards to psychiatry, I think Markworthen summed it up perfectly in the comment to the initial rollback: consent is an unnecessary consideration. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
In many countries, for some psychiatric diagnoses patients can be detained without consent and treated involuntarily. Such detention is governed by Mental health law and there are judicial appeal processes. [1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I've removed the below which followed a paragraph on involuntary treatment. It may be the case that this information belongs elsewhere in the article. FiachraByrne ( talk) 15:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Mental health issues such as mood disorders and schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders were the most common principle diagnoses for Medicaid non-elderly super-utilizers in the United States in 2012.
[1]
References
I think in this article psychiatry is coming off far too much like a religion. The way it is presented almost makes it sound as medicine has taken advantage of modern dismissiveness towards religion to institute its own religion clothed as science. It also makes it sound as though medicine has been introducing a new, self-serving morality (don't be selfish, don't be suspicious, don't be a contrarian, etc.) and using thought-policing and its exclusive control over the drug supply to grow increasingly more powerful and wealthy.
I would like to echo some of the earlier comments on this article, namely:
(1) people should not be provided accurate information merely because it may prevent them from being exploited when it comes to medicine,
(2) information alone can be dangerous, because people may accept information uncritically which is a bad thing unless the information is coming from government-sanctioned sources,
(3) what information people receive should be decided upon by government-sanctioned individuals, who should have the right to decide what harm is and is not likely to occur in the future.
To illustrate the point, the article talks about mental diseases that across Wikipedia are described as typically having no objective criteria. Meanwhile, psychiatric therapies are known to have very real, objective negative consequences. This would seem to insinuate that the only actual reliable/objective finding of most psychiatric experiments is how much damage the therapeutic is causing, and whether it is quick and painful or slow and painful. In turn, this suggests that doctors practicing involuntary psychiatry are simply modern-day torture-masters who have grown increasingly adept at using expensive procedures to subdue and exploit vulnerable individuals for their personal and collective gain.
However, I'm sure that most psychiatrists would agree that the fact that most of psychiatry's modern and historic treatments resemble torture is purely coincidental (the fact that the UN has labelled them as such obviously notwithstanding). To suggest that surgically removing or using medications that shrink a person's brain matter, restraining a person's movement, isolating them from friends and family and restricting their access to nature, exercise, sunlight, healthy produce and sex is as bad for a person's health who has been involuntarily diagnosed with a mental disease as it would be for someone who hasn't is pure fancy.
I do like the fact that this article doesn't make mention of the sexual assault that has been documented to run rampant throughout psychiatric medicine, particularly by the psychiatrists themselves, as that may dissuade people from relying on them. Similarly, it's also probably best that there continues to be no reference of the recent and publicly published studies of patients that had metal electroshock wires inserted into their brains, some of whom were sexually stimulated in this fashion, while being studied, as many of these subjects are involuntary (under the doctrine of third-party consent as opposed to consent in the older sense).
However, besides that, it seems like the article could do with a lot of work. I'm not quite sure how to start fixing it but maybe it could be opened it by emphasizing that involuntary medicine is real and that a medical education gives a psychiatrist the power to see into people's minds with sufficient accuracy to diagnose the person with a permanent illness. I've personally benefited greatly from the powers of psychiatry but perhaps some more of the psychiatric fraternity could chime in as I'm sure they will give us their even-handed, professional opinion. 91.129.101.175 ( talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It almost goes without saying that even if, by coincidence, modern psychiatric illnesses correlate with historical negative Jewish stereotypes - sociopathy with being selfish, anxiety disorder with being neurotic, schizophrenia with putting one's faith in myths, etc. - the Bible is not factual and so is to be disregarded: the allusions to it are meaningless. Mental illnesses may not have any objective criteria and there may not be any empirical proof that the mind outright exists *per sé* but psychiatry is nevertheless a real and legitimate science.
While the objective of treatment is to make a patient less neurotic and less fraught with delusions, without suffering from side effects of the therapeutics - with the hope that the person may be assistive in turn of how such a state of ongoing health may be achieved by others - involuntarily producing in a societal outcast such a charismatic, obsequious, physically-supreme "symbol" is a far cry from ritual sacrifice as psychiatrists are good people - who are simply following what the science dictates.
Simply put, psychiatry works. Yes, Buddhism may have recorded the world's happiest people. However, it is not practical to simply let Buddhist philosophy guide how society treats aberrant behavior or for how people with unsettled minds may gain control. For one thing, Buddhism precludes the ingestion of mind-altering substances (never mind their forcible administration), and such a level of tolerance for idiosyncratic behavior would likely leave the law alone to be responsible for deciding who may or may not grace our streets.
Whatever religion it is one considers (including a worship for ICCPR Articles 18 & 19, "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, "no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to ... adopt a ... belief of his choice" and so on), the church must be kept separate from the state and academia's scientific evidence has consistently shown that psychiatry - psychoactive chemicals, electroshock and psychosurgery along with therapy sessions and/or the restriction of freedoms - is effective.
Perhaps we could add a note somewhere like this:
The goal of psychiatric medicine, and involuntary medicine in particular, is to address the symptoms of mental illness such as to provide a subject with persistent and stable health. However, while force may be involved (and at such times death may even occur), this should not be considered a blood ritual, to which it is distinct. 46.131.38.206 ( talk) 08:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ 176.46.113.248: is proposing addition of this footnote to the article:
The goal of psychiatric medicine, and involuntary medicine in particular, is to address the symptoms of mental illness such as to provide a subject with persistent and stable health. However, while force may be involved (and at such times death may even occur), this should not be considered a blood ritual, to which it is distinct.
This has been reverted by two editors now in what is an edit war, but one that clearly shows there is opposition to the addition, and I also do not see the relevance of this footnote. 176 you argue that consensus has been established from a talk page discussion - in the most recent archive there is only a single entry of "blood ritual" here. Just to be clear, even though no-one challenged the proposed addition at the time this does not establish consensus as it has not been in the article before as far as I can see. You have tried adding it now, which is a reasonable WP:BOLD move, but it appears consensus is against it. If you want to continue to propose it, now is the time for discussion not further reversion. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 09:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Spaully, would you mind rephrasing the existing discussion under this topic section now so we can archive the second one as well? Use nice language though if you want a response this time; the earlier comments came off as a bit Assume Good Faith.
Also, very bizarre and great and frankly concerning Shibbolethink, shall we remind you that this talk page is NOT a place to attack psychiatry? You're comment is well on its way to being deleted. More importantly, your suggestion that psychiatry and blood rituals are somehow related is, not to mince words, insane ( Personal attack removed). 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 17:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
this footnote is bizarre and appears to be related to a WP:POLEMIC-style opinion about psychiatry, which is not supported by either sources or scholarly consensus. As a medical professional myself, I have no interest in "attacking psychiatry" I don't think we should mention blood rituals at all, since they are entirely unrelated to this topic and thus WP:UNDUE. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
176.46.113.248 ( talk) 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia user (Talpedia-Spaully-MrOllie-Shibbolethink-Acterion) that's having some fun with this Wikipedia entry as described; I'm remiss to get in the way of that fun but I also wonder if it's ultimately worth sacrificing page quality for - so we'd be interested in gathering some more opinions.
With regards to the original topic, I naturally have no horse in the race myself, so I'm inclined to go with the consensus that was reached. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 20:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I like that we've now got a consensus going on the "Psychiatry as a religion" discussion but honing in on one point mentioned there, namely: how psychiatric inpatients are raped at an extremely high incidence - and if I recall correctly there was also a UK study where a large percentage of psychiatrists admitted to raping patients explicitly for the patients' perceived benefit. By rape, I'm specifically referring to genital rape as opposed to brain rape (i.e. invasively stimulating the nerves higher up in the nerve pathway, or attempting to invasively exert coercion over another person's brain generally), which the UK study I believe did not bother enquiring about.
While I know we're dodging a bullet by avoiding including it in the article, is there a way to make the omission less striking? We haven't gone into conservateeship here in the Criticism section either but maybe we can give it a mention instead without explicitly going into the Thirteenth Amendment implications.
Again, I'm not saying we upset the careful line we're treading but if we want to keep not mentioning (a) gender dysphoria, gender affirming care, detrans & the separation of children from anti-trans parents, (b) (progressively increasing) rates of suicide amongst those being subjected to modern psychiatric treatments, (c) schools which taze special needs students, (d) failures of drug studies to be "conducted on the same timeframe to which they are recommended to be prescribed" (i.e. lack of follow-up studies) and various other "hallmarks of pseudoscience" ("failure to provide controls using spurious reasoning," "gathering results that are inherently subjective but are in this case subjective explicitly on the part of the person who is supposed to be impartially running the study"), (e) the insane and selfish geopolitical critiques about psychiatry as being a parallel hegemonic one-world government that gave the Marxist East a foothold in each country in the otherwise democratic West which was then leveraged as "wokeness" to bring the West to the heel in the space of a few short years, (f) the so-called "addictive" nature of pharmaceuticals and they're "common failure" to produce any result other than symptoms of mental disease (leading to that old fallacy that mental illness doesn't actually have a biological root in hormone imbalances), (g) the failure of psychiatry after many decades and billions of dollars invested to "find any objective markers of most mental diseases whatsoever" (i.e. diagnoses continuing to be unfalsifiable by those subjected to them despite, as the article rightly points out, psychiatry trying very hard to make their diagnoses falsifiable - even if they haven't necessarily made any visible progress in the last half-century or whatever), (h) the incompatibility of psychiatry with almost every other major religion (and involuntary psychiatry especially), (i) the (probably coincidental) ideological similarities and common motifs shared between modern psychiatry and what a Jew would explicitly describe as Satanism, (j) involuntary deaths frequently caused by forced psychiatric therapies and professional liability insurance and laws protecting from recourse against it amounting to a "license to kill," (k) the difficulty of a person generally to seek legal recourse once they have been targeted by it, getting put on treatment before an appeal, having one's body controlled by the people one is suing, indefinite limits on incarceration, bla bla, (l) discrimination by psychiatry on racial, gender, age but, most particularly, class grounds, (m) the use of "This person is encouraging others not to take their meds!" as a dog-whistle and quirky silencing tactic illegalizing so-called legitimate concerns raised about psychiatry, especially on harms experienced by people taking their meds, (etc.) to name a few, including in the Criticism article itself, we should probably throw a bone to the critics, just making sure it's not a big one IMO.
In short, I don't think we're doing a good enough job drawing away from the framing of psychiatry in constitutional, human rights, political, criminal, legal, religious or (conventional) health grounds, and so my thought is if we're going to include the Criticism section at all we throw in another sentence or two that keeps the same tone but really paints one or two standard objections in the proper light. 176.46.113.248 ( talk) 07:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion of scientologists in anti-psychiatry can often be a little distracting. They do appear to have been *historically* relevant to the movement. See for example: /info/en/?search=Thomas_Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights, but I guess history isn't so relevant in this article. Also I don't know how much work the Citizens Commission on Human Rights does... Talpedia ( talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
too influenced by ideas from medicine causing it to misunderstand the nature of mental distress
@Talpedia It is a speciality of medicine, you meant by other specialities? Most critics I've read are the opposite: that it lacks what all other specialities of medicine have: diagnoses are subjective, biochemical explications for mental disorders lacks replicability and that diagnosis criterias are mostly empirical and arbitrary, in short that is not EBM; (or that it is justification for social control). I think this goes against most critics (I also did not find something similar from my glance at your cite but you may have reformulate).
its use of drugs is in part due to lobbying by drug companies resulting in distortion of research
Your quote from the source does not says that it distorts research. Hploter ( talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Your quote from the source does not saysthis may well be a bad summary. I'm open to a suggestion of better wording - and would look into making one now, but am doing other things. In general this sort of distortion works by changing *what* is researched rather than the outcomes, so for example people might be more inclined to look for drug based interventions than social ones. To be clear, I have not seen good evidence that proves or disproves this, rather the source asserts that people make these criticisms.
lacks what all other specialities of medicine havemy thoughts on this are it *wants* well-defined diagnoses with biological causes that can be addressed with general interventions. It doesn't necessarily want complicated psychological models that are difficult to test with multiple specific interventions. In trying to fit its interventions into this framing it at time fails (e.g. misdiagnoses, people moving between diagnoses, receiving multiple medications. But... I think the source sort of says "ignores psychological and social explanations bececause they don't find into the model". Basically if it didn't pretend that it had diagnosis and treatments all the time it might have better interventions.
Talpedia ( talk) 22:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The assertion would be that the best way to understand the brain's function might be through social and psychological constructs (and potentially those of the patient) rather than neurological ones
But Psychiatry already do thatI agree that there has been some acceptance of psychosocial interventions within psychiatry, especially with the rise of multidisciplinary teams. I still suspect more psychologists would view psychiatry as "overly biomedical" and for certain diagnoses (e.g. psychosis) the diagnosis is still entirely biomedical (though psychology doesn't really have any tested interventions...). Perhaps some of this critique is out of date. I know that psychiatry differs between countries in terms of how much psychology gets pulled into psychiatry.
It has been argued that psychiatry confuses disorders of the mind with disorders of the brain that can be treated with drugs
Double argues that most critical psychiatry is anti-reductionist
pseudo-scientificI mean... it's a contextualised quote from the british journal of psychiatry that is anti-critical-psychiatry and adds your argument that psychiatry has already internalised the critiques of critical psychiatry. We are getting a little niche here... so I wouldn't necessarily expect systematic reviews. I don't think it's pseudo-scientific or dualist, arguing that social constructs exists is not so say that mind exists separately from the brain. Do you like the second sentence, and do you think we should include response to the critiques of psychiatry?
for certain diagnoses (e.g. psychosis) the diagnosis is still entirely biomedical
doesn't belong at firstI've reordered the clauses in the sentence so that it appears last. I have no particular preferene for the order. My take is that if it's in a section on controversies and the end of the article and people are still arguing it at the moment then it probably belongs - but I've added contextualization to anti-reductionist critiques to the section. Talpedia ( talk) 18:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)