Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > I remember talking to a guy some years ago when the subject of > psychiatry > > came up. Of course, I was critical of the profession, and one of my > > criticisms > > was that people end up going to years of analysis with no benefit. > > Ken, > > Psycho-analysis is not psychiatry, though some ppl practice both. > Many psychiatrists hate psychoanalysis for the very reason you give. > It is possible to see an analyst fro years without receving a > psychiatric assesment that would dx a disoder like (say) bipolar > depression that would respond to drug treatment. Your criticism of > psychoanalysis is if anything more grounds for encouraging the > expansion of psychiatry as first-choice of treatment sought rather > than an attack on it. > > P. Pete, I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for work, but I do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond, although it may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally discredited in the public eye, did they begin the widespread use of drugs. Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to convince someone having problems in life that they originate with their desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward their father? Any quack can do that. Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer can only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some people don't benefit greatly from taking various drugs.) Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > I remember talking to a guy some years ago when the subject of > psychiatry > > came up. Of course, I was critical of the profession, and one of my > > criticisms > > was that people end up going to years of analysis with no benefit. > > Ken, > > Psycho-analysis is not psychiatry, though some ppl practice both. > Many psychiatrists hate psychoanalysis for the very reason you give. > It is possible to see an analyst fro years without receving a > psychiatric assesment that would dx a disoder like (say) bipolar > depression that would respond to drug treatment. Your criticism of > psychoanalysis is if anything more grounds for encouraging the > expansion of psychiatry as first-choice of treatment sought rather > than an attack on it. > > P. Pete, I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for work, but I do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond, although it may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally discredited in the public eye, did they begin the widespread use of drugs. Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to convince someone having problems in life that they originate with their desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward their father? Any quack can do that. Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer can only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some people don't benefit greatly from taking various drugs.) Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > On _this_ side of the pond, > >although it > > may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced > > psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally > >discredited in > > the public eye, did they > > begin the widespread use of drugs. > > This is a travesty Ken. While psychonanalysis might have been > principally *taken up* by psychiatrists, medical training has never > been required to practice it, which, as I said before, is one reason > why it is (rightly) criticised so heavily. Pete, According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to) practice the psychoanalysis. Psychologists used different methods. I know of _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was wrong because the practicioner didn't have a medical license. The arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long, drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the craziest of the crazies. If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what was commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of decades, I'd like to see it. > Psychoanalysis and > analtyical therapy is still very popular, especially in the US. Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical training could. > > Psychiatrsits have always udes drugs, the expansion of drug treatment > in modernt times is only because for the first time very effective > drug treatments have become available for serious disorders, in > particular, lithium, antipsychotics, and antidepressants. > You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always used drugs. Up until at least the end of the 1900s they used torture devices. A friend of mine who used to work in an old mental hospital told me of the old part of the hospital, now sealed off, of pre-drug days, where the patients would be chained to the wall. Then first used drugs so they wouldn't have to chain them, so rather than screaming and being a real nuisance, they would just sit and slobber, staring off into space. That is why drugs were brought in -- patient control. Of course, there was also benevolence on the part of the therapeutic authorities. It was much kinder to medicate these people, many of these people were really sick and dangerous and included masturbators, nymphomaniacs and homosexuals that to chain them up. Psychiatric history is _not_ a pretty sight, unless the psychiatrists write it themselves. But then, whose history is unless self-written? Ken > > P. > > > > > Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to > > convince someone having problems in life that they originate with > their > > desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward > their > > father? Any quack can do that. > > > > Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer > can > > only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some > people > > don't > > benefit greatly from taking various drugs.) > > > > Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at > > least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to) > >practice > > the psychoanalysis. > > Ken, I acknowledged tha psychiatrists frequently *did* practice > psychoanalysis, however, I do not believe that psychoanalysis was ever > *restricted* to psychiatrists. Freud himself was a neurologist, not a > psychiatrist, though Jung was. I have even read psychoanalytic > material suggesting that doctors are often poor analysts because they > are used to being directive and cannot take the passive role usually > advocated in it! It is possible that some medical schools gave > training in psychoanalysis and restricted students to psychiatrists, > but right from the very beginning Freud, Jung, and the others > basically set up their own independent training schools. Pete, Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S. psychiatrists (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who practiced psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European psycho- analysts don't and never did need medical training. I never thought I'd ever get to say this, being American and usually (and quite often very appropriately) being at the other end. Not everyone does everything the way you do things in Europe. > > > > Psychologists used different methods. > > I am not too familiar with the origin of clinical psychology, but my > impression is that it is actually quite a recent development, only > becoming commonplace long after psychoanalysis has gone into decline. > I'm not sure if it is older here or simply " took hold " much earlier. > > > I know > >of > > _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was > > wrong because the practitioner didn't have a medical license. > > Not in its heyday, but nowadays this criticism is often made. > Iirc they include Hans Eysenck " The Decline and Fall of the Freudian > Empire " and Thornton " The Freudian Fallacy " , and a Britol University > Professor of Psychology whose name I dont remember! > > > The > > arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long, > >drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the > >craziest of the crazies. > > The first part of the above is still made of course, but the latter > will come from simple popular discourse. Again, though popular > culture confuses them and tars them both with the same brush, a > psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist are very different things, although > it is possible to be both. > They weren't such different things until thirty or so years ago in the U.S. As far as psychiatrists being " the craziest of the crazies, " how many have you met socially? <G> I think their high suicide rate speaks for itself. > > > If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what > >was > > commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of > >decades, I'd like to see it. > > Presumably you mean " Psychoanalysts who were not psychiatrists " . Or even just psychologists practicing psychoanalysis. Believe it or not, we have a different history here and different laws. > > Since you are the one who is claiming a restrictive condition - that > all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists - then I would suggest the > burden of prorden of proof is up to you to show that this restriction > existed, rather than for me to try to prove a universal negative. > Now there is a straw man. Who asked for a universal negative? I simply said what I've seen here over the last fifty years. You tell me about European analysts and cite that as proof I'm wrong about American ones. Now you are insisting I have an obligation to relieve you of the burden of a proving a universal negative, which is something you just picked out of nowhere. I can tell you that it is no longer the case that psychoanalysis is so tightly bound to medicine. " These candidates are either physicians who have completed a four-year residency program in psychiatry, psychologists or social workers who have completed a doctoral program in their fields . . . " [ http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/about.htm ] I can find no reference to the situation 30 years ago. > > > Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only > >the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The > >medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't > >tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a > >little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for > >sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical > >training could. > > Without the parodying of paychoanalytic theory, this is precisely the > argument used by Eysenck, Thornton, and the unmemorable Professor as > to why psychoanalysis alone is so dangerous - because *no* such > medical training is required, at least in the UK. The Prof himself > became a Professor of Psychology precisely as a result of seeing two > analysts, one well-meaning the other a menace, who failed to dx his > bipolar depression which subsequently responded to lithium. Now this > could be just the UK position, but again I ask that you to demonstrate > that medical training is required to practice psychoanalysis in the > US. > > > You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always > > used drugs. > > What might be described as " psychiatry " has a very long and complex > history that cannot be totally accurately summarised in a single > sentence with regard to this or any other issue, and yes, it isnt a > particularly pretty sight during much of that time. I am actually > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, but > they in fact do. And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold Rush as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms. > It is arguable that psychiatry, like all medicine, > only started to be put on a truly scientific basis by about this time. > This certainly corresponds with an expansion of drug treatment, but if > you are going to go back to before 1960, then drugs *were* often used > neverthless, but rightly not as much, because those available werent > anything like as good. One interesting feature of the early AA is > that medical admirers like Silkworth appear to have referred to it as > " moral therapy " . The term was already known in medical history; it > was used to describe the humane treatment of the mentally ill by > Quaker asylums in C18, who attempted to help them to take as much > responsibility for themselves as possible, such as working at whatever > they could manage, and encourag them to take a religious/spiritual > approach to their life and difficulties, rather than just locking them > up. It was in part (without the religion) the inspiration of modern > anti-psychiatry movements. My textbook of Abnormal Psychology has an > account of Moral Therapy; it points out that in addition to the > religion and workfare, the Quaker used drugs with their patients. > Among the list given are included alcohol and opium. The authors > conclude " Moral Therapy may not have been all it is cracked up to be " . > My own feeling is that rather than being a slur on it, it is actually > further evidence of the wisdom that these benevolent ppl brought to > the problem. They did the best with the tools they has to hand - and > were not afraid or too pious to use them. Long before modern > antipsychotics, Indian herbalists used rawulthia as an antipsychotic > for what is now termed schizophrenia. I believe it may have also been > used in the West, but is not used now as it produces problems with > high blood pressure, and hence is rendered obsolete by the modern > antipsychotics. > > Yes I know many things were once though mental illness that now are > not, and some dreadful things have been done in the name of medicine, > but exactly the same thing could be said of general medicine; > psychiatry has merely developed more slowly. We do not judge modern > medicine by the failures and excesses of previous centuries. Which might be a great mistake. For one thing, we have just started a new century. Should what happened two years ago not be relevant? <G> Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little children for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures? > > Advocates of largely useless alternative medicine and critics of > psychotropic medicines are often quick to quote Hippocrates' " First do > no Harm " . What they are usually unaware of is that even Hippocrates > thought that psychotic disorders now called schizophrenia and bipolar > depression were caused by a literal organic disease of the brain like > the familiar ones of the rest of the body that just could not be > directly observed. > And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have a brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger than normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates. Ken > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at > > least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to) > >practice > > the psychoanalysis. > > Ken, I acknowledged tha psychiatrists frequently *did* practice > psychoanalysis, however, I do not believe that psychoanalysis was ever > *restricted* to psychiatrists. Freud himself was a neurologist, not a > psychiatrist, though Jung was. I have even read psychoanalytic > material suggesting that doctors are often poor analysts because they > are used to being directive and cannot take the passive role usually > advocated in it! It is possible that some medical schools gave > training in psychoanalysis and restricted students to psychiatrists, > but right from the very beginning Freud, Jung, and the others > basically set up their own independent training schools. Pete, Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S. psychiatrists (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who practiced psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European psycho- analysts don't and never did need medical training. I never thought I'd ever get to say this, being American and usually (and quite often very appropriately) being at the other end. Not everyone does everything the way you do things in Europe. > > > > Psychologists used different methods. > > I am not too familiar with the origin of clinical psychology, but my > impression is that it is actually quite a recent development, only > becoming commonplace long after psychoanalysis has gone into decline. > I'm not sure if it is older here or simply " took hold " much earlier. > > > I know > >of > > _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was > > wrong because the practitioner didn't have a medical license. > > Not in its heyday, but nowadays this criticism is often made. > Iirc they include Hans Eysenck " The Decline and Fall of the Freudian > Empire " and Thornton " The Freudian Fallacy " , and a Britol University > Professor of Psychology whose name I dont remember! > > > The > > arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long, > >drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the > >craziest of the crazies. > > The first part of the above is still made of course, but the latter > will come from simple popular discourse. Again, though popular > culture confuses them and tars them both with the same brush, a > psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist are very different things, although > it is possible to be both. > They weren't such different things until thirty or so years ago in the U.S. As far as psychiatrists being " the craziest of the crazies, " how many have you met socially? <G> I think their high suicide rate speaks for itself. > > > If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what > >was > > commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of > >decades, I'd like to see it. > > Presumably you mean " Psychoanalysts who were not psychiatrists " . Or even just psychologists practicing psychoanalysis. Believe it or not, we have a different history here and different laws. > > Since you are the one who is claiming a restrictive condition - that > all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists - then I would suggest the > burden of prorden of proof is up to you to show that this restriction > existed, rather than for me to try to prove a universal negative. > Now there is a straw man. Who asked for a universal negative? I simply said what I've seen here over the last fifty years. You tell me about European analysts and cite that as proof I'm wrong about American ones. Now you are insisting I have an obligation to relieve you of the burden of a proving a universal negative, which is something you just picked out of nowhere. I can tell you that it is no longer the case that psychoanalysis is so tightly bound to medicine. " These candidates are either physicians who have completed a four-year residency program in psychiatry, psychologists or social workers who have completed a doctoral program in their fields . . . " [ http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/about.htm ] I can find no reference to the situation 30 years ago. > > > Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only > >the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The > >medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't > >tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a > >little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for > >sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical > >training could. > > Without the parodying of paychoanalytic theory, this is precisely the > argument used by Eysenck, Thornton, and the unmemorable Professor as > to why psychoanalysis alone is so dangerous - because *no* such > medical training is required, at least in the UK. The Prof himself > became a Professor of Psychology precisely as a result of seeing two > analysts, one well-meaning the other a menace, who failed to dx his > bipolar depression which subsequently responded to lithium. Now this > could be just the UK position, but again I ask that you to demonstrate > that medical training is required to practice psychoanalysis in the > US. > > > You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always > > used drugs. > > What might be described as " psychiatry " has a very long and complex > history that cannot be totally accurately summarised in a single > sentence with regard to this or any other issue, and yes, it isnt a > particularly pretty sight during much of that time. I am actually > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, but > they in fact do. And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold Rush as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms. > It is arguable that psychiatry, like all medicine, > only started to be put on a truly scientific basis by about this time. > This certainly corresponds with an expansion of drug treatment, but if > you are going to go back to before 1960, then drugs *were* often used > neverthless, but rightly not as much, because those available werent > anything like as good. One interesting feature of the early AA is > that medical admirers like Silkworth appear to have referred to it as > " moral therapy " . The term was already known in medical history; it > was used to describe the humane treatment of the mentally ill by > Quaker asylums in C18, who attempted to help them to take as much > responsibility for themselves as possible, such as working at whatever > they could manage, and encourag them to take a religious/spiritual > approach to their life and difficulties, rather than just locking them > up. It was in part (without the religion) the inspiration of modern > anti-psychiatry movements. My textbook of Abnormal Psychology has an > account of Moral Therapy; it points out that in addition to the > religion and workfare, the Quaker used drugs with their patients. > Among the list given are included alcohol and opium. The authors > conclude " Moral Therapy may not have been all it is cracked up to be " . > My own feeling is that rather than being a slur on it, it is actually > further evidence of the wisdom that these benevolent ppl brought to > the problem. They did the best with the tools they has to hand - and > were not afraid or too pious to use them. Long before modern > antipsychotics, Indian herbalists used rawulthia as an antipsychotic > for what is now termed schizophrenia. I believe it may have also been > used in the West, but is not used now as it produces problems with > high blood pressure, and hence is rendered obsolete by the modern > antipsychotics. > > Yes I know many things were once though mental illness that now are > not, and some dreadful things have been done in the name of medicine, > but exactly the same thing could be said of general medicine; > psychiatry has merely developed more slowly. We do not judge modern > medicine by the failures and excesses of previous centuries. Which might be a great mistake. For one thing, we have just started a new century. Should what happened two years ago not be relevant? <G> Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little children for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures? > > Advocates of largely useless alternative medicine and critics of > psychotropic medicines are often quick to quote Hippocrates' " First do > no Harm " . What they are usually unaware of is that even Hippocrates > thought that psychotic disorders now called schizophrenia and bipolar > depression were caused by a literal organic disease of the brain like > the familiar ones of the rest of the body that just could not be > directly observed. > And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have a brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger than normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates. Ken > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at > > least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to) > >practice > > the psychoanalysis. > > Ken, I acknowledged tha psychiatrists frequently *did* practice > psychoanalysis, however, I do not believe that psychoanalysis was ever > *restricted* to psychiatrists. Freud himself was a neurologist, not a > psychiatrist, though Jung was. I have even read psychoanalytic > material suggesting that doctors are often poor analysts because they > are used to being directive and cannot take the passive role usually > advocated in it! It is possible that some medical schools gave > training in psychoanalysis and restricted students to psychiatrists, > but right from the very beginning Freud, Jung, and the others > basically set up their own independent training schools. Pete, Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S. psychiatrists (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who practiced psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European psycho- analysts don't and never did need medical training. I never thought I'd ever get to say this, being American and usually (and quite often very appropriately) being at the other end. Not everyone does everything the way you do things in Europe. > > > > Psychologists used different methods. > > I am not too familiar with the origin of clinical psychology, but my > impression is that it is actually quite a recent development, only > becoming commonplace long after psychoanalysis has gone into decline. > I'm not sure if it is older here or simply " took hold " much earlier. > > > I know > >of > > _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was > > wrong because the practitioner didn't have a medical license. > > Not in its heyday, but nowadays this criticism is often made. > Iirc they include Hans Eysenck " The Decline and Fall of the Freudian > Empire " and Thornton " The Freudian Fallacy " , and a Britol University > Professor of Psychology whose name I dont remember! > > > The > > arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long, > >drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the > >craziest of the crazies. > > The first part of the above is still made of course, but the latter > will come from simple popular discourse. Again, though popular > culture confuses them and tars them both with the same brush, a > psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist are very different things, although > it is possible to be both. > They weren't such different things until thirty or so years ago in the U.S. As far as psychiatrists being " the craziest of the crazies, " how many have you met socially? <G> I think their high suicide rate speaks for itself. > > > If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what > >was > > commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of > >decades, I'd like to see it. > > Presumably you mean " Psychoanalysts who were not psychiatrists " . Or even just psychologists practicing psychoanalysis. Believe it or not, we have a different history here and different laws. > > Since you are the one who is claiming a restrictive condition - that > all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists - then I would suggest the > burden of prorden of proof is up to you to show that this restriction > existed, rather than for me to try to prove a universal negative. > Now there is a straw man. Who asked for a universal negative? I simply said what I've seen here over the last fifty years. You tell me about European analysts and cite that as proof I'm wrong about American ones. Now you are insisting I have an obligation to relieve you of the burden of a proving a universal negative, which is something you just picked out of nowhere. I can tell you that it is no longer the case that psychoanalysis is so tightly bound to medicine. " These candidates are either physicians who have completed a four-year residency program in psychiatry, psychologists or social workers who have completed a doctoral program in their fields . . . " [ http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/about.htm ] I can find no reference to the situation 30 years ago. > > > Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only > >the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The > >medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't > >tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a > >little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for > >sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical > >training could. > > Without the parodying of paychoanalytic theory, this is precisely the > argument used by Eysenck, Thornton, and the unmemorable Professor as > to why psychoanalysis alone is so dangerous - because *no* such > medical training is required, at least in the UK. The Prof himself > became a Professor of Psychology precisely as a result of seeing two > analysts, one well-meaning the other a menace, who failed to dx his > bipolar depression which subsequently responded to lithium. Now this > could be just the UK position, but again I ask that you to demonstrate > that medical training is required to practice psychoanalysis in the > US. > > > You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always > > used drugs. > > What might be described as " psychiatry " has a very long and complex > history that cannot be totally accurately summarised in a single > sentence with regard to this or any other issue, and yes, it isnt a > particularly pretty sight during much of that time. I am actually > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, but > they in fact do. And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold Rush as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms. > It is arguable that psychiatry, like all medicine, > only started to be put on a truly scientific basis by about this time. > This certainly corresponds with an expansion of drug treatment, but if > you are going to go back to before 1960, then drugs *were* often used > neverthless, but rightly not as much, because those available werent > anything like as good. One interesting feature of the early AA is > that medical admirers like Silkworth appear to have referred to it as > " moral therapy " . The term was already known in medical history; it > was used to describe the humane treatment of the mentally ill by > Quaker asylums in C18, who attempted to help them to take as much > responsibility for themselves as possible, such as working at whatever > they could manage, and encourag them to take a religious/spiritual > approach to their life and difficulties, rather than just locking them > up. It was in part (without the religion) the inspiration of modern > anti-psychiatry movements. My textbook of Abnormal Psychology has an > account of Moral Therapy; it points out that in addition to the > religion and workfare, the Quaker used drugs with their patients. > Among the list given are included alcohol and opium. The authors > conclude " Moral Therapy may not have been all it is cracked up to be " . > My own feeling is that rather than being a slur on it, it is actually > further evidence of the wisdom that these benevolent ppl brought to > the problem. They did the best with the tools they has to hand - and > were not afraid or too pious to use them. Long before modern > antipsychotics, Indian herbalists used rawulthia as an antipsychotic > for what is now termed schizophrenia. I believe it may have also been > used in the West, but is not used now as it produces problems with > high blood pressure, and hence is rendered obsolete by the modern > antipsychotics. > > Yes I know many things were once though mental illness that now are > not, and some dreadful things have been done in the name of medicine, > but exactly the same thing could be said of general medicine; > psychiatry has merely developed more slowly. We do not judge modern > medicine by the failures and excesses of previous centuries. Which might be a great mistake. For one thing, we have just started a new century. Should what happened two years ago not be relevant? <G> Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little children for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures? > > Advocates of largely useless alternative medicine and critics of > psychotropic medicines are often quick to quote Hippocrates' " First do > no Harm " . What they are usually unaware of is that even Hippocrates > thought that psychotic disorders now called schizophrenia and bipolar > depression were caused by a literal organic disease of the brain like > the familiar ones of the rest of the body that just could not be > directly observed. > And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have a brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger than normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates. Ken > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > I am actually > > > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, > > >but they in fact do. > > KR: And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold > > Rush > > as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms. > > Actually then they are similar; British psychiatry also celebrates its > chequered histroy too, as I indicated I am surprised to find out. > however, one hears very strange things about Rush. Do American > shrinks *really* admire this man? > Whether the individuals who make up American psychiatry admire him, I haven't a clue. I don't even know if most of them know who he is except from the glowing reports expressed in self-serving psychiatric history pieces written by psychiatrists. > > > Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little > >children > > for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures? > > I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for ADD/ADHD. > While it may be less likely to be a problem in other cultures, that > doesnt mean it *cant* exist. The point is, extraordinary effort is made to get perfectly fine square pegs into round holes. It is like, " but these very nice gloves only have place for three fingers and a thumb. The finger is a problem. The problem must be treated. " > I myself have expressed concern over > this issue. Yes, and I've noticed it. > however, the fact that this may be done excessively in > the US does not mean tat the actual condition does not exist. If a > medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say, this > fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. No, it doesn't. But removing appendices is often very unnecessary. I'm not arguing " whether there are appendices. " I'm arguing _treating_ " normalness. " > The issue is to > only remove them when necessary, not whether to remove them at all. > In the same way, it is perfectly possible that ADD/ADHD exists but > overdiagnosed and overtreated. As I keep having to point out when > these problems are brought up, this is an argument for *good* > psychiatry, not *no* psychiatry. > As I've commented on elsewhere, Dean Edell, a very popular radio doctor, said he was a _very_ talkative child, talking all the time. If he was put in a position as a small child to either remain silent where his " compulsive talking " would become self-evident, would being treated for the " disease " of being a four-year-old relentless chatterbox, would _anyone_ be better off? > > > And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have > >a > > brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger > >than > > normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates. > > Ken, I hope you can do better than being so damn facile. This is like > saying that the " Elephant Man " wasnt disabled because a man with > unusually large feet won an Olympic medal. Mental illness is not > based solely on statistical abnormality, but on a variety of > concepts, including impairment and distress. First anti-psychiatry > folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them some, > they say there's no such thing as being normal! Would you use the > " taxi driver " argument to dismiss the neurological pathology of > Alzheimer's and CJD? I would ask you, how often are glossy reprints of brain scans used to prove that what someone is doing that others don't want them to is a disease? Do you doubt for a second that a similar finding for anything in the DSM wouldn't be presented as proof? If the social climate should change dramatically (_very_ dramatically<G>) and cab driving be something that is the object of total scorn, don't you think that those differences would be seen as proof of disease in those who insisted on continuing to drive taxis? If not, then you are rather naive. > > > A view is scientific only if it is falsifiable. The view that mental > illness is a myth is only scientifically defensible if there is at > least a possible piece of evidence that if found, would falsify it. No evidence can be found to convince anyone who believes in the biblical creation myth that it isn't true. For those people, the Genesis account can not be scientifically falsified. > If > no such evidence can be at least imagined, the view is not scientific. So is the core of human behavior different from socially accepted norms the result of brain disease? Did the creators of Original Sin have it right? That God made us all wrong and we must look to outside authority in a desperate attemt to deal with our wrongness? > > So Ken, what is the evidence, that if found, would show that there > *is* such a thing as mental illness? > One thing that science demands is a precise definition of terms. First, you would need to say what you mean by " mental illness. " What Szasz took issue with was the defining of socially unacceptable behavior as brain disease. Ken > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > I am actually > > > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, > > >but they in fact do. > > KR: And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold > > Rush > > as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms. > > Actually then they are similar; British psychiatry also celebrates its > chequered histroy too, as I indicated I am surprised to find out. > however, one hears very strange things about Rush. Do American > shrinks *really* admire this man? > Whether the individuals who make up American psychiatry admire him, I haven't a clue. I don't even know if most of them know who he is except from the glowing reports expressed in self-serving psychiatric history pieces written by psychiatrists. > > > Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little > >children > > for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures? > > I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for ADD/ADHD. > While it may be less likely to be a problem in other cultures, that > doesnt mean it *cant* exist. The point is, extraordinary effort is made to get perfectly fine square pegs into round holes. It is like, " but these very nice gloves only have place for three fingers and a thumb. The finger is a problem. The problem must be treated. " > I myself have expressed concern over > this issue. Yes, and I've noticed it. > however, the fact that this may be done excessively in > the US does not mean tat the actual condition does not exist. If a > medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say, this > fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. No, it doesn't. But removing appendices is often very unnecessary. I'm not arguing " whether there are appendices. " I'm arguing _treating_ " normalness. " > The issue is to > only remove them when necessary, not whether to remove them at all. > In the same way, it is perfectly possible that ADD/ADHD exists but > overdiagnosed and overtreated. As I keep having to point out when > these problems are brought up, this is an argument for *good* > psychiatry, not *no* psychiatry. > As I've commented on elsewhere, Dean Edell, a very popular radio doctor, said he was a _very_ talkative child, talking all the time. If he was put in a position as a small child to either remain silent where his " compulsive talking " would become self-evident, would being treated for the " disease " of being a four-year-old relentless chatterbox, would _anyone_ be better off? > > > And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have > >a > > brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger > >than > > normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates. > > Ken, I hope you can do better than being so damn facile. This is like > saying that the " Elephant Man " wasnt disabled because a man with > unusually large feet won an Olympic medal. Mental illness is not > based solely on statistical abnormality, but on a variety of > concepts, including impairment and distress. First anti-psychiatry > folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them some, > they say there's no such thing as being normal! Would you use the > " taxi driver " argument to dismiss the neurological pathology of > Alzheimer's and CJD? I would ask you, how often are glossy reprints of brain scans used to prove that what someone is doing that others don't want them to is a disease? Do you doubt for a second that a similar finding for anything in the DSM wouldn't be presented as proof? If the social climate should change dramatically (_very_ dramatically<G>) and cab driving be something that is the object of total scorn, don't you think that those differences would be seen as proof of disease in those who insisted on continuing to drive taxis? If not, then you are rather naive. > > > A view is scientific only if it is falsifiable. The view that mental > illness is a myth is only scientifically defensible if there is at > least a possible piece of evidence that if found, would falsify it. No evidence can be found to convince anyone who believes in the biblical creation myth that it isn't true. For those people, the Genesis account can not be scientifically falsified. > If > no such evidence can be at least imagined, the view is not scientific. So is the core of human behavior different from socially accepted norms the result of brain disease? Did the creators of Original Sin have it right? That God made us all wrong and we must look to outside authority in a desperate attemt to deal with our wrongness? > > So Ken, what is the evidence, that if found, would show that there > *is* such a thing as mental illness? > One thing that science demands is a precise definition of terms. First, you would need to say what you mean by " mental illness. " What Szasz took issue with was the defining of socially unacceptable behavior as brain disease. Ken > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > I am actually > > > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, > > >but they in fact do. > > KR: And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold > > Rush > > as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms. > > Actually then they are similar; British psychiatry also celebrates its > chequered histroy too, as I indicated I am surprised to find out. > however, one hears very strange things about Rush. Do American > shrinks *really* admire this man? > Whether the individuals who make up American psychiatry admire him, I haven't a clue. I don't even know if most of them know who he is except from the glowing reports expressed in self-serving psychiatric history pieces written by psychiatrists. > > > Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little > >children > > for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures? > > I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for ADD/ADHD. > While it may be less likely to be a problem in other cultures, that > doesnt mean it *cant* exist. The point is, extraordinary effort is made to get perfectly fine square pegs into round holes. It is like, " but these very nice gloves only have place for three fingers and a thumb. The finger is a problem. The problem must be treated. " > I myself have expressed concern over > this issue. Yes, and I've noticed it. > however, the fact that this may be done excessively in > the US does not mean tat the actual condition does not exist. If a > medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say, this > fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. No, it doesn't. But removing appendices is often very unnecessary. I'm not arguing " whether there are appendices. " I'm arguing _treating_ " normalness. " > The issue is to > only remove them when necessary, not whether to remove them at all. > In the same way, it is perfectly possible that ADD/ADHD exists but > overdiagnosed and overtreated. As I keep having to point out when > these problems are brought up, this is an argument for *good* > psychiatry, not *no* psychiatry. > As I've commented on elsewhere, Dean Edell, a very popular radio doctor, said he was a _very_ talkative child, talking all the time. If he was put in a position as a small child to either remain silent where his " compulsive talking " would become self-evident, would being treated for the " disease " of being a four-year-old relentless chatterbox, would _anyone_ be better off? > > > And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have > >a > > brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger > >than > > normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates. > > Ken, I hope you can do better than being so damn facile. This is like > saying that the " Elephant Man " wasnt disabled because a man with > unusually large feet won an Olympic medal. Mental illness is not > based solely on statistical abnormality, but on a variety of > concepts, including impairment and distress. First anti-psychiatry > folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them some, > they say there's no such thing as being normal! Would you use the > " taxi driver " argument to dismiss the neurological pathology of > Alzheimer's and CJD? I would ask you, how often are glossy reprints of brain scans used to prove that what someone is doing that others don't want them to is a disease? Do you doubt for a second that a similar finding for anything in the DSM wouldn't be presented as proof? If the social climate should change dramatically (_very_ dramatically<G>) and cab driving be something that is the object of total scorn, don't you think that those differences would be seen as proof of disease in those who insisted on continuing to drive taxis? If not, then you are rather naive. > > > A view is scientific only if it is falsifiable. The view that mental > illness is a myth is only scientifically defensible if there is at > least a possible piece of evidence that if found, would falsify it. No evidence can be found to convince anyone who believes in the biblical creation myth that it isn't true. For those people, the Genesis account can not be scientifically falsified. > If > no such evidence can be at least imagined, the view is not scientific. So is the core of human behavior different from socially accepted norms the result of brain disease? Did the creators of Original Sin have it right? That God made us all wrong and we must look to outside authority in a desperate attemt to deal with our wrongness? > > So Ken, what is the evidence, that if found, would show that there > *is* such a thing as mental illness? > One thing that science demands is a precise definition of terms. First, you would need to say what you mean by " mental illness. " What Szasz took issue with was the defining of socially unacceptable behavior as brain disease. Ken > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.