Much of psychiatry is a scam. Other than organic/structural/chemical brain damage, there may be no such thing as mental illness, as Thomas Szasz strongly argues in his book, The Myth of Mental Illness. Nevertheless, governments in many countries, especially ours, have latched onto the idea of mental illness as a way to control behavior. The height of psychiatric idiocy is the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition), a list of psychiatric disorders. Many of these so-called disorders are behaviors that some shrink or psychologist does not approve of, and therefore gives those behaviors nasty sounding names that beg for treatment; e.g., Oppositional Defiant Disorder, a situation where a child objects strongly to some parental or parental figure’s commands. In other words, a highly spirited, non-conforming child. In many cases, children showing strongly independent behavior are not only classifed as having a mental disorder, they are then drugged into "appropriate" behavior. Public schools make money by diagnosing kids as mentally ill; they get funds from the federal government for every kid diagnosed and treated.
Psychiatric treatment no longer is mainly verbal and discussive. The transference reaction now is literally transferring some chemicals from a bottle or a syringe into the patient’s blood stream. The relationship between the doctor and patient has turned into the relationship between the drug manufacturer, its psychiatrists and their victims, us and our children. In large part, the focus on diagnosing young children and treating them with anti-psychotic drugs formerly restricted to adults comes from the Harvard Psychiatry Dept. and particularly from Dr. Joseph Biederman in that department. Now it turns out that Biederman and several colleagues took large amounts of money (millions of dollars) from the drug companies that manufacture anti-psychotics pushed by Biederman et al. onto our kids. In my view, the situation is immoral and horrible. We are making inappropriate wrong diagnoses based on inadequate criteria and then labeling our kids as mentally ill and forcing drugs upon them. Parents without MD degrees think the doctors must be right and cannot rationally argue with them. But even if the doctors were right, how does that justify browbeating parents into accepting the forcing of drugs into their children’s bodies when no one knows what the long term effects of the drugs are and many people question whether psychiatric diagnoses of young children mean anything at all? If any class of people should be treated very conservatively it is children. So many developmental processes are going on in them that any outside agents like powerful anti-psychotic drugs should not be given to them for fear of damaging physical or mental development. But money rules in academia. Those with the government grants or private outside support get to be the big shots and influence everyone else’s academic behavior. Usually the victims of academia are other academics. In this case, the victims are at least one generation of our children and the ignorant adults who should be protecting them from people like Biederman and the bureaucrats who want to drug our kids into obeying them.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
#1 by Ted on June 11th, 2008
| Quote
Agreed. But why, may I ask, do you think that libertarians are so often wrong on this issue?
Ted.
#2 by Libertarian on June 11th, 2008
| Quote
My younger brother is a psychiatrist, and he’s nuttier than a fruitcake. I think guys and gals choose psychiatry in after med school to try and figure themselves out. They ain’t playin’ with a full deck!
#3 by Mark on June 11th, 2008
| Quote
Ted,
Can you be a little clearer? Which libertarians (specific names not necessary) are you talking about and in what way are they wrong? Thanks.
#4 by Mark on June 11th, 2008
| Quote
I agree, based on my experience in med school, that many of the med students who went into psychiatry did so because they wanted “to figure themselves out”. But there’s nothing wrong with that. The dogma used to be that you couldn’t really be a good shrink unless you understood yourself first. I don’t know what the dogma is now (or even if one exists) but, if it does exist, it probably relates to (1) how well you know the DSM-IV and can squeeze people into some kind of diagnosis, (2) how good you are at handing out pills, and (3) how good you are at giving injections. Actually, you will delegate the last 2 responsibilities to Nurse Ratched.
#5 by Amy Philo on June 11th, 2008
| Quote
You know what is sicker than pushing bipolar meds on children? Pushing antipsychotic meds on pregnant women, nursing mothers, etc. And this is exactly what is going on right now in our government, with GRANTS being potentially given out to nonprofits and others if they will enforce the screening, drugging, hospitalization, and “case management” and “ensuring the safety of the child” for women considered AT RISK FOR depression or psychosis during and after pregnancy. And who likes to participate in putting women on antipsychotics? Mothering Magazine and Dr. Thomas Hale, Postpartum Support International, The ACOG, etc. etc. etc. Google The MOTHERS Act or go to http://www.uniteforlife.org
These drugs kill babies in the womb and after.
#6 by Bobby Newman on June 12th, 2008
| Quote
:clap: I agree with what Mark and Amy have to say 1000 percent. I am a former college athlete,(full ride scholarship football player) who wanted a degree in coaching, was exposed to three semesters of psychology and realized it was a scam.I later became addicted to drugs (not a result of the psychology) but when looking for treatment would not conform to the traditional forms of psychological treatment because I knew it was bogus. Since graduating the Narconon program 8 years ago and since having lectured to over 130,000 kids in 6 states about drugs, it is very difficult because of all the false information kids are receiving from “professionals”. Kids hear, “take these drugs,they are good (amphetamines-Adderall/Ritalin) and but those are bad”, and kids are confused. Adderall is now the number one abused drug in Universities across the country, then you have direct to consumer advertising and people tell their doctors what drug is needed for what ailment. For more information you can also go to http://www.drugawareness.org, http://www.breggin.com and http://www.mindfreedom.org.
#7 by R G Sullivan, MS, MD on June 12th, 2008
| Quote
I agree with many of the observations so far noted. it is always interesting to read the reasons people dislike psychiatry and psychiatric treatments. I agree that psychiatric diagnoses and medications are frequently misused, However they can be remarkably effective when used in a judicious manner. The key to this is TIME and the development of a reasonable collaborative connection between the doctor and the patient (and family). Unfortunately, the current “business” of medicine does not facilitate this kind of medical care.
#8 by Ted on June 16th, 2008
| Quote
Mark,
In Faith in Freedom, Szasz shows that Mill, Rand, Mises, Hayek and Nozick make the same basic mistake, while Rothbard reaches the right conclusion by way of a different route.
Ted.
#9 by Mark on June 16th, 2008
| Quote
Ted,
Thanks. I’ve just ordered a copy of “Faith in Freedom”.
#10 by Ted on June 16th, 2008
| Quote
Mark,
Great! A wonderful book. If you were not aware of the following, see also the review by David Gordon (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=265), a pre-2004 short essay by Szasz on Rothbard’s criticisms (http://www.szasz.com/rothbardonszasz.html), and Rothbard’s kinder speech from 1980 (http://mises.org/story/2330). At present I cannot locate Rothbard’s original review of The Myth of Mental Illness, but it is there somewhere.
Ted.