The Illusions of Psychiatry

The Illusions of Psychiatry

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 25th, 2011, 4:06 am #1

An interesting, insightful, and maddening read.

The Illusions of Psychiatry

One of the leaders of modern psychiatry, Leon Eisenberg, a professor at Johns Hopkins and then Harvard Medical School, who was among the first to study the effects of stimulants on attention deficit disorder in children, wrote that American psychiatry in the late twentieth century moved from a state of "brainlessness" to one of "mindlessness."2 By that he meant that before psychoactive drugs (drugs that affect the mental state) were introduced, the profession had little interest in neurotransmitters or any other aspect of the physical brain. Instead, it subscribed to the Freudian view that mental illness had its roots in unconscious conflicts, usually originating in childhood, that affected the mind as though it were separate from the brain.

But with the introduction of psychoactive drugs in the 1950s, and sharply accelerating in the 1980s, the focus shifted to the brain. Psychiatrists began to refer to themselves as psychopharmacologists, and they had less and less interest in exploring the life stories of their patients. Their main concern was to eliminate or reduce symptoms by treating sufferers with drugs that would alter brain function. An early advocate of this biological model of mental illness, Eisenberg in his later years became an outspoken critic of what he saw as the indiscriminate use of psychoactive drugs, driven largely by the machinations of the pharmaceutical industry.

When psychoactive drugs were first introduced, there was a brief period of optimism in the psychiatric profession, but by the 1970s, optimism gave way to a sense of threat. Serious side effects of the drugs were becoming apparent, and an antipsychiatry movement had taken root, as exemplified by the writings of Thomas Szasz and the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. There was also growing competition for patients from psychologists and social workers. In addition, psychiatrists were plagued by internal divisions: some embraced the new biological model, some still clung to the Freudian model, and a few saw mental illness as an essentially sane response to an insane world. Moreover, within the larger medical profession, psychiatrists were regarded as something like poor relations; even with their new drugs, they were seen as less scientific than other specialists, and their income was generally lower.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

June 25th, 2011, 4:51 am #2

I don't really believe in psychiatry except in severe cases where death or illusions are immanent.

I think psychologist's are much more appropriate.
And besides your brain physically changes according to what you practice doing and thinking. Most people don't need drugs to change their thought patters, they just need to know the truth, and learn how to apply it to their lives. And that is the job of a psychologist. We could even say Jesus was a psychologist. And Buddha and the writings of Confucius.

Here is a report from the Harvard Medical School on how the brain physically changes.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 38,00.html

Bro Tim
Quote
Share

Joined: March 8th, 2007, 6:53 am

June 25th, 2011, 6:01 am #3

never mind...
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 25th, 2011, 7:58 am #4


 

.... what I was thinking.......
<p align="center"><a rel="nofollow"><img border="0" alt="" src="http://images.bravenet.com/common/image ... n.gif"></a>

 


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

June 25th, 2011, 1:42 pm #5

An interesting, insightful, and maddening read.

The Illusions of Psychiatry

One of the leaders of modern psychiatry, Leon Eisenberg, a professor at Johns Hopkins and then Harvard Medical School, who was among the first to study the effects of stimulants on attention deficit disorder in children, wrote that American psychiatry in the late twentieth century moved from a state of "brainlessness" to one of "mindlessness."2 By that he meant that before psychoactive drugs (drugs that affect the mental state) were introduced, the profession had little interest in neurotransmitters or any other aspect of the physical brain. Instead, it subscribed to the Freudian view that mental illness had its roots in unconscious conflicts, usually originating in childhood, that affected the mind as though it were separate from the brain.

But with the introduction of psychoactive drugs in the 1950s, and sharply accelerating in the 1980s, the focus shifted to the brain. Psychiatrists began to refer to themselves as psychopharmacologists, and they had less and less interest in exploring the life stories of their patients. Their main concern was to eliminate or reduce symptoms by treating sufferers with drugs that would alter brain function. An early advocate of this biological model of mental illness, Eisenberg in his later years became an outspoken critic of what he saw as the indiscriminate use of psychoactive drugs, driven largely by the machinations of the pharmaceutical industry.

When psychoactive drugs were first introduced, there was a brief period of optimism in the psychiatric profession, but by the 1970s, optimism gave way to a sense of threat. Serious side effects of the drugs were becoming apparent, and an antipsychiatry movement had taken root, as exemplified by the writings of Thomas Szasz and the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. There was also growing competition for patients from psychologists and social workers. In addition, psychiatrists were plagued by internal divisions: some embraced the new biological model, some still clung to the Freudian model, and a few saw mental illness as an essentially sane response to an insane world. Moreover, within the larger medical profession, psychiatrists were regarded as something like poor relations; even with their new drugs, they were seen as less scientific than other specialists, and their income was generally lower.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
I'm at odds with some of the current conclusions that have been made. I'm not at odds with the pursuit of research and learning, however.

2 of my kids have a similar "ADD temperament" that I have/had. Their experiences of growing up are vastly different than mine however, and as such their results are quite different. How much of that difference is due to nature vs. nurture? How much of that is cultural and social pressures? Do the psychoactive drugs really help an individual, or are they simply a mechanism to force conformity?

I've developed my own opinions on the subject and I'm curious to see the results of ongoing research.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 25th, 2011, 2:04 pm #6

I believe drugs are over prescribed. It seems that drugs are sometimes invented, and then a "problem" as well for the drug to treat. For example some people are shy. This is now known as "social anxiety disorder", and you can get meds for it. Along with a host of different "disorders". It seems the goal is to make us all more similar. Some people seem to be overly outgoing, no drugs for them?

I do lend some credence to society being sick, and wonder if perhaps the well adjusted ones aren't somehow abnormal. And yeah, at this point in my life I would be considered well adjusted.

Quote
Like
Share

Iceman
Iceman

June 25th, 2011, 2:58 pm #7

The entire medical industry has become drug oriented. While great strides have been made in medical technology through invasive and physical therapies, the drug companies have made medicine a symptom hiding industry. Doctors have become no more than drug pushers. It's to their economic advantage to prescribe rather than to actually treat the illness. Less than twenty minutes and a slip of paper and the patient is gone with a two hundred dollar gain.

And really: Does anyone think a drug company gives a rats about disease or illness - this is corporate America. It's all about money.

Lastly: In the USA it takes about twelve years before a person working to be a M.D. can practice. In the rest of the world it's half that - five to six years. Why? The AMA wants few doctors to keep salary's and fees high.
Germany has a population of about eighty million. It has 80,000 students in medical school. The USA has a population of 360 million and 60,000 students in medical school.

Malpractice insurance is owned and run by the AMA, not regular insurance companies. More people are killed in the USA each year by hospitals and doctors than by auto accidents and guns combined. Yet, there are very few mal-practice cases.

And health care in the USA is unaffordable - DUH!

Health care in the USA isn't about health at all. The FDA is one of the most corrupt agencies in the world. They make the Cosa Nostra look benevolent. Most drug trials and research are fraudulent.

Sarah Palin was right about death panels. One does exist in government and it's the FDA - Federal Death Administrators.
Quote
Share

Seoc Colla
Seoc Colla

June 25th, 2011, 5:18 pm #8

Much the same applies here now, although there are some medical people with an ethic greater than money.
In the field of 'research' the system produces what was sought, in that it has to have a commercial pay-off (usually chemical) before acceptance.

If research produced a fullproof cancer prevention blueprint detailing and promoting natural lifestyles and practices, they wouldn't get paid for it and probably find it outlawed.

Such is democratic altruism.
On the other hand, folk seem want to live stressful lives absorbing recreational poisons, but want science get them off from facing the repercussions and consequences.

When it doesn't work they are offered even more costly 'research'.
It does seem that governments are fine-tuning popular poisons to avoid paying ou on pensions for more than a few months. A rebate scheme would terrify their accountants.
Quote
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 25th, 2011, 8:43 pm #9

I'm at odds with some of the current conclusions that have been made. I'm not at odds with the pursuit of research and learning, however.

2 of my kids have a similar "ADD temperament" that I have/had. Their experiences of growing up are vastly different than mine however, and as such their results are quite different. How much of that difference is due to nature vs. nurture? How much of that is cultural and social pressures? Do the psychoactive drugs really help an individual, or are they simply a mechanism to force conformity?

I've developed my own opinions on the subject and I'm curious to see the results of ongoing research.
We were taught "heredity and environment" as being the two major factors of our development. It wasn't totally clear though, just WHERE the lines could be drawn definitively between the two.

And it still can't. I'd say there's a third factor ... which is spiritual. That's an influence which comes from outside of the brain but not from people, the environment or our own reasoning. It comes from an awareness of connection between everything.

You can call the spiritual factor "God" or you can call it something else but the question is ... is it for real?

Medicine says no. It's ALL brain and brain alone. It attempts to correct unacceptable brain function with DRUGS. But if you really stop and analyze the effect of drugs to the brain .... do drugs ever produce a "healing" of defects ... or do they simply SUPPRESS brain function so that the recipient is unable to be his full self?

And then there are the "spiritual" drugs ...

Do THESE actually contribute to the over-all better development of human beings?

I figure we're a lot like computers. There are numerous factors of operation which can affect the outcome, such as ... electrical voltage, static, circuit integrity, temperature, electromagnetic radiations and hardware design ...but ultimately ... the BIGGEST influence is programming.

-Vince

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 25th, 2011, 9:20 pm #10

I'm at odds with some of the current conclusions that have been made. I'm not at odds with the pursuit of research and learning, however.

2 of my kids have a similar "ADD temperament" that I have/had. Their experiences of growing up are vastly different than mine however, and as such their results are quite different. How much of that difference is due to nature vs. nurture? How much of that is cultural and social pressures? Do the psychoactive drugs really help an individual, or are they simply a mechanism to force conformity?

I've developed my own opinions on the subject and I'm curious to see the results of ongoing research.
a little "harangue" on TV in the background as I was writing the previous post. A medical "expert" was being asked about the wisdom of taking health supplements.

Well, we've all heard these dissertations from health experts a thousand times and they're usually much the same: the DANGER of taking too many vitamins and supplements and ... always ask your DOCTOR before going ahead and doing something stupid on your own. (How much do doctors actually know about nutrition? How much training do they get on nutrition throughout their entire training regimen? I've heard that it amounts to about one hour max.!~)

Hear the tone of their voice; it's URGENT and hyped in order to emphasize the DANGER.

Well, I suppose you hear the same thing if/when you listen to health supplement infomercials!~

Well, rule of thumb is that ... if anyone ever has anything truly intelligent and reasonable to say about anything ... he/she will say it without added emotion. They'll explain and answer questions matter-of-factly so that the recipient can follow the reasoning behind what they're explaining.

When you hear the hype and whipped emotion and talking so fast you can't even catch all the words ... you can usually dismiss it as being quite a bit of guff. (Think about televangelists in this regard as well).

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share