Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 9

Disclaimer
Disclaimer:

''This page was written based on a fringe, opinionated understanding of mental health. The details were chosen to support previously drawn conclusion, and the misinformation is dangerous. The dedicated people in the mental health field who chose this career because they care. Nobody pursues this level of education to get rich working in counseling, therapy, or human services, unless you went to Med School and chose this field. The role of the Psychiatrists/Psychopharmacologists is to primary focus is on neurobiology, drug interactions, med management, and stabilization. These doctors are not primary treatment providers. They use the best of their knowledge to find the right meds, for which there is no magic want. The therapist's job is to collaborate with that provider to discus the progress of any med or mood changes, so they can try to rectify it. Since those choices can be life and death for patients, the number one critical step in the stabilization process is addressing any underlying organic mental illness. Therapy is bound to fail with out certain illness being leveled out by medication. That medical stabilization is crucial. It's not perfect, because there's far more to learn about the the human brain, Nay an easy task when every single person is their own complex story of biological illnesses, personal history, and way of viewing life, to name just a few. Despite all clinicians in credible hospitals and facilities having having a Master's degrees, at the minimum as well as state board licensing credentials, nobody gets rich in this field (and most had the option to go that follow the route if money was a deciding factor). While you raise a fe very valid concerns, who proceed to turn this page into and opinion piece, based on poor research, a majority of sources providing severely discredited dated from 50-60 years ago that has no relevance to some issues you raised, a complete incomprehension of how people are committed these days (typically through close family members, so they can be cared for over a 10-14 day while they become stabilized enough to return to their loving families, which I typically find family members prefer to attended their 21 year old daughter's funeral... real Draconian.....) Furthermore, quit with the ECT scare tactics. That involves family meetings, multiple conversations, informed consent, and it is used as the last line of defense of chronically suicidal people. It's painless. Some experience temporary memory loss the returns soon enough, and the results are indisputable for treatment resistant depressions. I could keep going on this irresponsible propaganda/left wing conspiracy theory (and I am pretty far to the left myself, but this is nonsense), but I doubt this will even pot. I just some how landed here, nd was shocked to find something I'd hear on some left wing Infowars site. Wikipedia is for info. Please, don't dumb the country down more than it has been already. Peek outside your own preconceived notions. Encourage your friends to do the same. T. Richard, PMHNP, MPH'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC79 (talk • contribs)
 * Moved from article, ping . I agree this page is horrible, but a long disclaimer is not the way we solve things on Wikipedia. Feel free to edit constructively instead. Constructive editing may mean removing lots of crap... Carl Fredrik  talk 14:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also this:

Correction to previous paragraph: Psychoanalysis began falling out of favor in the 1950's, which led Behaviorism to break onto the scene after 20 years of development. Using some principles of this theory, soon after behavioralism became mainstream, the next major step in psychology was the development of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), through the war of Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and John Stuart Mills. The downfall of psychoanalysis had 0 to do with discrediting the field. IT had to do with evolution. Understanding Jung and Freud, and bringing it more affective theories and practices. Not a downfall. A major advance. Not to mention, "The Myth of Mental Illness" has never been considered intellectual text among the vast majority of practitioners when it came out 50+ years ago. In 2017, it has lost all relevance among practicing clinicians. That book was was nonsense then, and has been forgotten by professionals long since.

After reading the rest: I will allow someone else to help pick apart this page of lies, misinformation, and conspiracy readings. Since Almost all source are 50-60 years old,pointing out all the misinformation piece by pice would be too time consuming. Not to mention delay boring aside form the the accessional caught this silliness samples on about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC79 (talk • contribs)

Marginalize ("fringe") anti-psychiatry? How dare you! Doesn't psychiatry marginalize way too many people as is!?Antipsych (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if this article needs clean, it doesn't mean that we should make Anti-psychiatry article be reserved version of pro-psychiatry article. We need to find realible source to prove what Anti-psychiatry is rather than how Anti-psychiatry be proven to wrong.Mariogoods (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia has the content disclaimer which said Wikipedia is not for medical advice. So such a disclaimer is unnesserary. (Honestly, I'm a supporter of anti-psychiatry, but don't mind that since we are here to improve this article)Mariogoods (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Types of insanity
There are/were several types of insanity in psychiatry. One was called masturbation insanity. As the page is locked I will add my reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) to a medical source here. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM183503250120703. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071473/Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Snippet from Antipsychology
The following content was removed from Antipsychology and may be useful to editors here. Some critics of psychology / psychiatry deny that mental illness exists at all, arguing that psychology / psychiatry aims to pathologise perfectly normal variations in human behaviour; whereas others accept the existence of mental illness but state that current mainstream psychological interventions are ineffective at best and unethical at worst.

Evolution research
This section cites numerous sources, but a quick glance at them suggests it is pure synthesis: not a single one refers to a complete argument; all of them are used to invoke basic things like "psychiatric treatment is expensive" and "swarms behave in this manner, mathematically speaking" and the rest is cobbled together from there. Eventually we reach a portion about what advocates of this evolutionary antipsychiatry believe (plus some weird coatracking about scientology), but it cannot name a single individual, group, or document that actually advocates this position. If someone can actually dig up a source for this then I suppose I'll eat crow, but until that happens I suggest that the whole section be deleted. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard? Necessary?
It seems to discredit the idea to mention L Ron Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.54.173.32 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz IS NOT an antipshychiatrist
He's writing about it in the Introduction to the Harper Perennial edition of his "The Myth of Mental Illness:" "In 1967, my efforts to undermine the moral legitimacy of the alliance of psychiatry and the state suffered a serious blow: the creation of the antipsychiatry movement by David Cooper (1931–1986) and Ronald D. Laing (1927–1989). Instead of advocating the abolition of Institutional Psychiatry, they sought to replace it with their own brand of psychiatry, which they called Anti-Psychiatry." "Antipsychiatry is a type of psychiatry: the psychiatrist qua health-care professional is a fraud, and so too is the antipsychiatrist." He's very clear about it: "My writings form no part of either psychiatry or antipsychiatry and belong to neither." That's why I'm for deleting everything connected to his name in this article -- Propodail ([[User talk:Propodail
 * talk]]) 20:34, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Szasz on homosexuality
This following is attributed to Szasz, but the original source is not provided as it should be. What's the source? "Szasz had written in 1965 that: 'I believe it is very likely that homosexuality is, indeed, a disease in the second sense [expression of psychosexual immaturity] and perhaps sometimes even in the stricter sense [a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies perhaps caused by genetic error or endocrine imbalance. Nevertheless, if we believe that by categorising homosexuality as a disease we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgement, we are in error.'"

In addition, the quote has two bracketed inclusions which are excessive to attribute to Szasz, and the second bracket is not closed, and so makes Szasz's actual words anyone's guess. It should be fixed with original source provided and no added words, or removed. Surely the secondary source provided makes reference to the exact place where Szasz supposedly wrote those words. If not, the secondary source is worthless. This is important because the quote contradicts everything else that Szasz did say and write about homosexuality. Nicmart (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down the attribution, and more than half of the quote is in brackets, which is absurd. It should definitely be sourced directly to Szasz without brackets or removed. Nicmart (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I find it, this is the entire second portion in brackets, and therefore apparently not Szasz's words! If they are his written words, why are they bracketed?"[a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies perhaps caused by genetic error or endocrine imbalance. Nevertheless, if we believe that by categorising homosexuality as a disease we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgement, we are in error.]'"

Tutorial activity
Just changed the spelling of two words. BWeaver2007 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Article request for criticism of psychiatry and psychology practices.
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. 04:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the question of how psychiatric and psychological practice has changed over time and why this happens would be interesting. I think history of psychiatry of history of psychology would partly cover this, though more broadly than "how has criticism of psych affected the field". The problem you are going to get is attributing causality to these things is fairly difficult, which is a general problem in history. This sort of content will also turn up on specific content. For example, on Psychoanalysis I added some content on how it started to be displaced by CBT and why, and on Psychosurgery or Lobotomy... I can't remember which .. I added some content on why the practice fell out of use.
 * I fear it might be difficult to find sources that specifically address your question "How critique has influenced the evolution of psychiatry over time". I do think history of psychiatry might be the best fit for this sort of content and this sort of question (perhaps in a separate section discussing the forces at play). When I was looking into the history of psychoanalysis I found some interesting books that tracked the intellectual history of these ideas if you are interested. I didn't get around to adding all of this to the article, but if you look in the talk page there will be some sources. Perhaps we can find something applicable to more recent practices. Talpedia (talk)

Edits to lede
There were some edits on the leads on the grounds of simplicity (I believe). Simplicity is definitely a win, but I'm aware that anti-psychiatry is a controversial topic and there can be some strawmanning going on and some of the "needless words" (to quote Skunk and White) might actually be necessary to navigate the straits of disagreement.


 * *broad* anti-psychiatry often gets conflated with the actions of scientologists. There are others critics (including philosophy, some psychiatrists and psychologists)
 * *more harmful* vs *often more harmful* "Antipsychiatry is obviously wrong because some people find psychiatry useful."

Talpedia (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)