![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe movie Quills presents us with a fictional perspective on the state of the psychiatric profession under the reign of Emperor Napoleon. Michael Caine plays a criminally insane alienist (the old word for psychiatrist) who takes over an asylum run by clerics. He proceeds to convert the asylum into a modern "scientific" madhouse. In his efforts to "treat" a popular pornographer, he drives the man further into the depths of depravity.
The movie is a darkly comic caricature of the psychiatric profession, but it contains a kernel of truth. Mental asylums were places of both voluntary retreat and involuntary incarceration. The latter role too frequently served the interests of members of the landed gentry who desired to rid themselves of bothersome spouses. A woman who grew belligerent over her husband's philandering could find herself confined in such a facility.
The casual observer might say, "But things are so much different today. The excesses of the past no longer occur." That is right. The formerly "hysterical" spouse is now seen as suffering from a "medical" condition that must be treated "humanely" and with sympathy. It is not her husband's philandering that caused her outburst but a "chemical imbalance." Once she has agreed to a strict regimen of sedatives she can see her children again. In the mean time her husband has legally separated her from her share of the family assets. Things are far better today than they were back in the dark ages of the back ward and the dunking chair. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have even figured our how to reduce the more obvious symptoms of brain damage caused by their crippling sedatives. Oh, the miracles of modern science!
Neural scientists have studied the effects of stress on the biochemistry of the nervous system to the point that they recognize distinct biochemical changes in the nervous system that take a significant amount of time to wear off. The psychiatric manual, DSM IV, mentions stressors as possible causes for certain mental conditions. Despite these understandings psychiatrists insist on "stabilizing" a stressed out patient with addictive drugs that are known to permanently modify the patient's nervous system in a deleterious way. Rather than informing the patient that their condition will dissipate naturally after stress reduction, psychiatrists treat the patient in a way that can be quite stressful until the patient either agrees to drugs or is so stressed out that she can be declared legally incompetent and forced into drug addiction.
It is a simple machine and it works quite well to the profit of some at the expense of others.
Do you see this as a humane way to "treat" people when they go through a difficult transition? Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate for a spouse to defraud his or her children of their rights to contact with their other parent using the practice of psychiatry? Would a rational public health policy have a place for a reformed psychiatry, or will the profession go the way of the dodo bird?
Links: Trailer for the movie Quills. Francisco Mora, et al, on the physiology of stress. Robert Whitaker on Psychiatric history in the US. Erving Goffman on the state of psychiatry before the Szasz reforms. Christoph Correll, et al, on the reduced risk of overt brain damage symptoms with newer psyche drugs.
The movie is a darkly comic caricature of the psychiatric profession, but it contains a kernel of truth. Mental asylums were places of both voluntary retreat and involuntary incarceration. The latter role too frequently served the interests of members of the landed gentry who desired to rid themselves of bothersome spouses. A woman who grew belligerent over her husband's philandering could find herself confined in such a facility.
The casual observer might say, "But things are so much different today. The excesses of the past no longer occur." That is right. The formerly "hysterical" spouse is now seen as suffering from a "medical" condition that must be treated "humanely" and with sympathy. It is not her husband's philandering that caused her outburst but a "chemical imbalance." Once she has agreed to a strict regimen of sedatives she can see her children again. In the mean time her husband has legally separated her from her share of the family assets. Things are far better today than they were back in the dark ages of the back ward and the dunking chair. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have even figured our how to reduce the more obvious symptoms of brain damage caused by their crippling sedatives. Oh, the miracles of modern science!
Neural scientists have studied the effects of stress on the biochemistry of the nervous system to the point that they recognize distinct biochemical changes in the nervous system that take a significant amount of time to wear off. The psychiatric manual, DSM IV, mentions stressors as possible causes for certain mental conditions. Despite these understandings psychiatrists insist on "stabilizing" a stressed out patient with addictive drugs that are known to permanently modify the patient's nervous system in a deleterious way. Rather than informing the patient that their condition will dissipate naturally after stress reduction, psychiatrists treat the patient in a way that can be quite stressful until the patient either agrees to drugs or is so stressed out that she can be declared legally incompetent and forced into drug addiction.
It is a simple machine and it works quite well to the profit of some at the expense of others.
Do you see this as a humane way to "treat" people when they go through a difficult transition? Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate for a spouse to defraud his or her children of their rights to contact with their other parent using the practice of psychiatry? Would a rational public health policy have a place for a reformed psychiatry, or will the profession go the way of the dodo bird?
Links: Trailer for the movie Quills. Francisco Mora, et al, on the physiology of stress. Robert Whitaker on Psychiatric history in the US. Erving Goffman on the state of psychiatry before the Szasz reforms. Christoph Correll, et al, on the reduced risk of overt brain damage symptoms with newer psyche drugs.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 15:54 (UTC)1 hour for amendments as usual, then the post goes down the drain.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 16:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 16:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 16:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 16:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 17:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 18:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 16:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 18:48 (UTC)Oh, it's another anti-scientific rant by a conspiracy theorist.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 18:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 09:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 15:14 (UTC)Have you seen The Madness of King George (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/?ref_=sr_1)?"
BTW, Thomas Szasz has some interesting observations on American psychiatric criticism of the Soviet use of psychiatry to incarcerate dissidents.
(no subject)
Date: 25/6/13 19:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 15:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 15:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/13 20:48 (UTC)Mwahahaha!
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/13 16:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/13 03:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/13 15:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 03:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/13 15:15 (UTC)