Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List

I think this list is pretty good and I find the list long enough for a general encyclopedia. However, it would better be organized a little bit. All these diseases may be classified as a.psychoses (organic, functional), b.neuroses or psychoneuroses, c.personality disorders, d.others (psychosexual disorders, disorders of childhood, disorders of impulse control etc.). But, I think organizing the whole list requires a psychiatrist rather than a neurologist. On the other hand, narcolepsy and Tourette's syndrome are definitely not psychiatric disorders. Their organic etiologies were identified ErdemTuzun.

OK. This is just a starting point.

Anyway do we have psychiatrists here ?

This page could be a short description with subpages.

One example would be :

Alphabetic list :

• Disorders starting with A
• Disorders starting with B
• etc

Nosological list :

• A
• B

Kpjas

I think we should also pay attention to the fact that not all of these illnesses, perhaps, are always spelled with capital letters--in which case, the articles about those illnesses shouldn't be so spelled either. Please see naming conventions. --LMS

Psychiatry vs Psychology

More information on the differences between psychiatry and psychology would also be welcome: I know psychiatry requires medical training but what else makes a psychologist or psychiatrist? --User:Axon

The article essentially says it: psychiatrist - studied medicine, then formal specialist trainig in psychiatry; psychologist - studied psychology, then may specialise (formally?) in various fields of which psychotherapy is only one. Kosebamse 09:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have to admit I'm still a little confused: why have the two seperate disciplines? --User:Axon

Note from Tim Nelson (not a Wikipedian, but happened to be here): Here's what I've picked up. Think of a biologist vs. a doctor. A Psychologist is like a biologist; more general, probably more academic, more prone to inventing Grand Unified Theories of Human Systems. A Psychiatrist is more like a doctor, focussed on illnesses and cures. There's a theoretical side here too, but similarly focussed. Then, in the physical field, you have a number of associated personnel; specialists in particular problems (dentists) or kinds of cures (myotherapists?, naturopaths?), or in *improved* health (personal trainers). I don't know what these are in the mental world, but I think the self-help movement (or whatever you call Tony Robbins, the NLP crowd, Win Wenger, the PhotoReading people, and all those) fit into this category.

Like I hope I implied, I'm just guessing here, but it's an educated guess. HTH

Note from B. Boyd: As a clinical psychologist, I can answer this question.

Historically speaking, the two fields emerged along parallel, but separate lines from different parent professions during the latter part of the 19th Century.

Psychiatry evolved out of the practice of medicine (neurology in particular)- physicians taking an interest in the treatment of mental illness. That is why psychiatrists attend medical school and predominately use prescription drugs as a means of treatment. Their doctoral degrees are applied medical degrees, typically an M.D. (Doctor of Medicine). It's a speciality in the same manner as surgery, internal medicine, pediatrics, etc. After a more general, comprehensive medical education at med school, a physician decides what area he or she wants to specialize in and then attends a residency program to be trained more fully in that area.

By contrast, psychology evolved out of the academic study of human thought and behavior. Most agree the first "psychologist" was Willehlm Whundt, a German professor of physiology who wanted to study the mind in an experimental, scientific way. Psychologists are trained at universities in the same manner as physicists, biologists, sociologists, etc. Their doctorate is an academic degeree, typically a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy). The field of psychology has become broad enough that there are specialites within. Just as there are botanists, zoologists, and microbiologists within the larger field of biology, there are psychologists who specialize in the study of memory, social behavior, child development, and so on.

In their studies, psychologists tend to develop ways to measure personality, intelligence, memory, and the like. They also take an interest in mental illness as part of the larger study of human psychology. When it became apparent that this knowledge was useful in diagnosisng and treating the mentally ill, many psychologists found work alongside psychiatrists in psychiatric hospitals and clinics, intilially as consultants, testing patients. Over time, they began to assume more clnical roles such as that of therapist. Eventually, these clinical psychologists emerged as a freestanding type of healthcare provider in addition to their initial role as scholars/scientists who study mental illness.

There are only a few places where psychologists recieve training in prescribing medication and are allowed to do so. Similarly, few psychiatrist today recuieve training in counselling and therapy. So generally speaking, psychologists treat though counselling and therapy while psychiatrists threat with medications.

--- The line "few psychiatrists today receive training in couselling and therapy" is simply not true. I'm a psychiatry resident in Canada and the Royal College requires all psychiatry trainees in Canada to have a very high number (I'm forgetting the exact number but I can add it another day) suprevised hours of Psychotherapy training (i.e. hours where a psychotherapy suprevisor, either from psychiatry or an allied field directly), half of which must be in psychodynamic psychotherapy (for those who don't know the psychotherapy taught by Freud). These hours of psychotherapy easily add up to almost as many as psychologists who end up devoting the majority of their Ph.D. years to research. I don't know the requirements in the U.S. but I can only suspect that they have a similar policy of some sort... I understand the urge to createeasy categorizations but these should not be based on false premises --- dj

--- I apologize for overgeneralizing. I was unaware that this was the case in Canada. From my experience here in the States, I still beleive what I said accurately reflects the way most psychiatrists are trained in the U.S. However, I would also disagree your assessment how psycologists are trained. By the time of licensure (which roughly corresponds to the time a psychiatrist is half-way through residency), clincical and counseling psychologists have typically completed 5000-6000+ hours of supervised psychotherapy experience over a period of at least six years. Again, this may reflect a difference in the U.S. and other countries. It depends on the trainig program, but at most, we spend half our training on research and the other half on developing clinical skills during the four years of graduate school. And everyone gets two years of full-time supervised training in clinical practice after that. Thanks for helping clarify things. I think the public at large is generally underinformed if not downright misinformed about both of our professions. We need to do more to make sure Tom Cruise isn't the one people go to for information about mental health. --- bjb

Anti-Psychiatry

Seen where? I have worked in psychiatry (in Finland) almost a decade an have not encountered this kind of movement.

jps 21:24, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)jps

See Anti-psychiatry. It would be great if you could add more to this article (Psychiatry not Anti... because as it stands the Anti has the longer article. I feel this one is rather short at the moment. --bodnotbod 00:38, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Somehow "politicized" movement opposes vague "practices" of psychiatry. It's vague POV. “Some”, overrepresented in the article, state that “selective financing by large multinational drug companies” and UFO riding space aliens (possibly the implied comparison in the article) “of high ranking professional psychiatrists, research and educational material has led psychiatry to be subversively, and in some cases inhumanely”, and supposedly, “misled”.

Look, anti-psychiatry is not politicized in the sense that it has a hidden political agenda. It is itself the politics. The article exaggerates a focus on (probably true) paranoid conspiracy theories. This, on the other hand, might be POV, but is at least neutral enough to be true to subject as much as any POV can be:

"Modern antipsychiatric views point to the:

1) inherent vague, untestable and thus pseudoscientific nature of psychiatry and psychology, including the definitions of key mental illnesses.

2) severity of involuntary commitment, especially considering the minor illnesses for which society is eager to involuntarily commit its members.

3) explicit inclusion in the diagnostic criteria, for involuntarily committable illnesses, a mere difference from what the psychiatrist subjectively believes is normal or appropriate on some inherently subjective topic like culture, philosophy, religion, or politics. (See Delusion, Psychopath, and Schizophrenia.)

4) subjectivity of the diagnosis of Schizophrenia.

5) involuntary commitment of those who have not been charged with any crime, those whom the court has vindicated as not guilty by reason of the insanity defense, and those who allegedly belong in a regular - and allegedly thus more humane – ‘prison’.

6) unconstitutionality of involuntary commitment.

7) far higher diagnosis of Schizophrenia for those in the USA and ‘second generation African Caribbeans living in the United Kingdom’ despite the commonly equivalent rate of Schizophrenia in a variety of cultures.

8) disproportionate prescription of high doses of "anti-psychotic" medication to young black males in the United States, and the disproportionate involuntary commitment of blacks.

In response, many diagnosed with a mental illness or illnesses, and their family members and close friends claim that antipsychiatric views are somehow contrary to their own experience with mental illness. They believe that mental illness produces real and terrible suffering which psychiatry and social treatment programs have been effective in relieving.

Their experience does not adress what modern antipsychiatric views point to, however." FET 10:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or, rather, "Their experience is an acceptable argument, just not a counter argument." And please keep the link to Anti-psychiatry. FET 10:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is a psychiatriast vs psychologist

Kay Redfield Jameson may be a professor of Psychiatry, affected by psychiatric illness and an expert on some aspects of psychiatry. However, she is not and has not been a psychiatrist. There are very specific training requirements to becoming a psychiatry, which only begin with attending a medical school.Why is she on the list? 16:24, Aug 09, 2004 (UTC)sof

I've made it clearer -- she's a prominent figure in psychiatry (indeed, a professor of psychiatry at a famous med school), but is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. -- The Anome 17:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud is included in the list of "Famous figures in psychiatry" but he was certainly no psychiatrist (he was a neurologist), and the field of psychoanalysis which he introduced was severely attacked by psychiatrists for decades. Are we sure that his name belongs on this list? (That's a real question; I'm of a mixed mind about it myself and should no doubt visit an analyst ...) DSatz 05:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

User:Irmgard removed the bolded text from the following paragraph:

• A few prominent critics of psychology and mental illness in general include Thomas Szasz, the author of "The Myth of Mental Illness", who founded One organization in 1969 together with the Church of Scientology the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), and Peter Breggin, the author of Prozac Backlash, as well as other books criticizing the use of psychiatric drugs.

As Irmgard left no explanation, this information will be restored.--AI 18:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Domain

...which is one of the things about Psyciatry I find particularly notable. As soon as a medically proven and remediable condition is found for an erstwhile "psychiatric" condition, the condition immediately becomes medical and no longer psychiatric - which leaves psychiatry with only those conditions which cannot be predicted, proved or cured. Hmmm...

Add "defined" to that list. For example, see Talk:Antisocial personality disorder, Delusion#Diagnostic_issues, and Schizophrenia#Diagnostic issues and controversies. A book on which the marginalization, imprisonment and mistreatment of so many people is based cannot accidentally have such logical errors.

-Anonymonster

"...becomes medical and no longer psychiatric...":  So far as I am aware, psychiatric conditions – when treated by psychiatrists – are medical conditions being treated by specialized medical doctors.

"defined":  It seems to me that psychiatric diagnosis is as much an art as a science, but, in experienced hands, I see this as a strength to be built on.

David Kernow 13:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Balance and Point of View

Let's see, the article on psychiatry has almost no coverage of modern psychiatry from the point of view of or as applied by the mainstream medical community, features a five paragraph long section on "anti-psychiatry" ahead of the three-line long section on "the practice of psychiatry", this isn't unbalanced or pov or anything... -- Ithacagorges, knowing response from Scientologists and "anti-psychiatrists"

With regard to your proposal to rebalance the psychiatry article, please be careful not to go overboard. Given the vast wealth, and the immense and dubious influence, of the drug industry over the prevailing paradigm in the field, it is essential to allow a robust examination of 'anti-psychiatry' in the main article. Scant attention is generally given to the hyperfocused, relatively discriminatory cognitive faculties of the medical establishment's leaders, a matter which may be indicative of their own mental health issues. There are plenty of reasons to believe that, as a group, practitioners of the art of psychiatry have fallen prey to groupthink, expert worship, and mindbending by the drug industry, especially during psychiatric training and internships; as a result, most Western practitioners tend to resort to a questionable reliance upon chemical interventions, rather than sound medical reasoning. While there are likely greater disparities in wealth, power, and cultural influences that may contribute to higher rates of mental illness (and greater stresses creating relatively severe cognitive dissonances) in certain Western cultures, data produced by the World Health Organization clearly indicate remission rates are much better in countries that do not routinely rely upon chemical interventions (with all their attendant side effects), than in countries over-run by Machiavellian drug companies plying their trade. Ombudsman 4 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to rebalance the article (and if I did, given most editors of this article, it would likely be reverted anyway so I won't waste my time), I was just making a comment. However, I would suggest as an exercise to examine an article on psychiatry from a traditional encyclopedia like Encyclopædia Britannica and compare that to this article. While one could possibly argue that major encyclopedias would be "biased" towards "mainstream" psychiatry, I believe the Wikipedia article goes way beyond call in tilting the other direction. -- Ithacagorges 4 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Ombudsman, that was a strawman. Psychiatry is not just a field controlled by the drug industry. Your response reveals some biases that have been part of the psychiatry skepticism for decades, but are largely unfounded.

Psychiatrists are professionals and they have a systematic approach to mental illness, which should be covered. DSM IVR distinguishes between axis I and axis II disorders, someting that definitely needs mention. Multidisciplinary working between psychiatrists, occupational therapists, social workers, community support nurses etc certainly needs mention. In contrast, "mind versus brain" is not a day-to-day consideration. I think Ithacagorges is quite right in his criticism, and I think someone (preferably a psychiatrist) should come to tell us more about how psychiatrists work.

Ranting at the drug industry is not helpful. Without drugs, the mentally ill would still be chained to their beds in filthy madhouses. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

• I will also point out that editors of articles related to "alternative psychiatry" or "anti-psychiatry" often delete or drastically reduce criticisms or discussions of mainstream medical or scientific opinion, arguing the article should be primarily descriptive and giving supportive arguments, that the "alternative" perspective needs to be defended and presented, and that criticism should be limited. By analogous reasoning, what should the emphasis of this article be on? -- Ithacagorges 4 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

JFW, you wrote "Psychiatry is not just a field controlled by the drug industry." Where are you from? Over 50% of the FDA's funding comes directly from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Outfits such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are similarly funded by the drug companies. Drug companies purposely publish misleading propaganda and the public is encouraged to believe it. Drug trials are corrupted by financial interests. "Ranting" at the drug industry is indeed helpful. As a result of such "ranting," some policies have changed, for instance, drug reps are no longer allowed to sit in on doctor/patient appointments -- a small step, but an important one. Some people do indeed feel that they've been helped by psychiatric drugs and nobody should be allowed to prevent them access to them. However, for many others, their lives have been destroyed by psychotropic medication and, in many cases, these drugs were administered without patient consent. The drug companies' involvement in the practice of psychiatry has led to the pathologization (and resulting medication) for psychiatric "disorders" that have very questionable status. Think about social anxiety disorder or oppositional disorder or ADHD or any other bogus contrivance that psychiatry comes up with. There are 5,000 infants -- infants -- on powerful and dangerous antipsychotic medication in the USA. You bet we're going to be watching the drug companies carefully. Somebody has to. JFW also wrote "Psychiatrists are professionals and they have a systematic approach to mental illness." Well, psychiatry does call itself a profession and certainly the educational requirements would suggest that. However, to jump from there to calling psychiatric diagnosis a "systematic approach" just doesn't follow. The only thing "systematic" about psychiatry is that it absurdly clings to the DSM IV as the bible of all undesirable human behaviours. There is simply nothing about psychiatric diagnosis that is objective or in the least scientific. And Ithacagorges, you're the last person in the world who should be complaining about unwarranted editing. You sneer at what you don't understand.Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone supposed to respond to this? Or was it just a manifesto? You seem to be mistaking the American situation for that in the whole Western world. Psychiatrists do not "absurdly cling to DSM". Who says so? JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you were the one wanting to know why psychiatry is accused of being driven by the drug industry. I do apologize for my North American slant, however. So what book do they use in Europe to diagnose their troublemakers? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, ICD-10 and DSM are accepted diagnostic guidelines, but all the psychiatrists I've worked with have strayed from DSM rigidity for the sake of diagnostic conviction. What is the support for your assertion that adherence to DSM is excessive? JFW | T@lk 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the DSM has become a quasi-legal document and a psychiatric label from it carried profound legal and ethical implications. As well, health insurance often depends upon a DSM diagnosis. I have never come across a mental patient that wasn't given one or more such diagnoses but I'm happy to hear that psychiatrists you know "think outside the box" a little bit. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone care to cite some of the "some believe"'s or "other critics"? That's just poorly written.

I agree. We should be avoid weasel terms, especially if there is no WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do some of this during my last edit. We need citations though. Semiconscious • talk 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Something substantial

After all the bickering above I finally wrote a small outline of the work of psychiatrists. Having worked for 6 weeks in an acute secure unit I cannot claim any familiarity with psychiatry, but I do know a little bit which I have reflected over here. I have attempted to leave out controversy: this is how psychiatry is overwhelmingly practiced in the Western world.

Hopefully this balances out the long section on "anti-psychiatry", which is really fringe compared to mainstream psychiatry. Psychiatrists tend to be modernisers in medical care, and (in many areas in the world) have introduced changes long before colleages in other fields did the same.

Please expand at will. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is very good. I added some comments about inpatient and outpatient care, some examples of Axis I and Axis II disorders, added a couple qualifications to the anti-psychiatry section that I thought in fairness were needed, and added a section on criticisms of psychiatry as practiced today (not from the perspective that disputes psychiatry as a whole, and perhaps more relevant to the average reader). --Ithacagorges 05:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me as weird that it took over four years for someone to write something substantial about psychiatry on Wikipedia while the anti-stuff kept on piling up. Perhaps the field of psychiatry has an image problem? JFW | T@lk 09:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I see the "anti-psychiatry" slime is starting to build up again. I moved the anti-psychiatry sections back so they are beneath the full description of psychiatry. (Heck, if the anti people are going to bash things left and right (e.g. DSM), shouldn't you explain what they are first before you go into attack mode? I know that's less fun.) I strongly question the added detailed description of a single drug case in the main psychiatry article; this can be found in the prozac article, and the main anti article, and seems like filler to make the "anti" section longer. Furthermore, the new "psychiatric crime" section seems like ranting nonsense. Even if the figure is correct (814 "psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric worker" criminals), although a bit difficult to figure since three groups are lumped together, this appears to be well under 1% (120,000 psychiatrists and psychologists nationwide and probably a larger number still of "pscyhiatric workers') and very likely less than the crime rate for the population as a whole. -- Ithacagorges 04:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Just remove whatever you see fit, and state clearly that there is a seperate article on anti-psychiatry. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the size disbalance of psychiatry vs. anti-psychiatry is really outstanding, it would be like if the anti-evolution sub-section of the evolution category took up more than half the total space. It's extremely inappropriate and surprising contrast from the 'mental illness' article which actually has more relevant material pertaining to psychiatry than this section. E.g., the section outlining different psychiatric diagnoses... oh well, I guess the scientologists have more time on their hands... ---dj

DJ, there are two solutions: making the Scientology section shorter or making the "substantial" section longer. As a resident you are eminently qualified to talk about the field, practice models, care schemes and everything else. I've been very cautious in my wording to avoid chaos when I wrote that section. I wasn't aware that there was mental illness in Canada :-) JFW | T@lk 17:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I will add a short section discussing the different treatment modalites in psychiatry (medication, psychotherapy, other) and I will also trim the anti-psychiatry section... those long quotes seem somewhat unneccesary but I'll have to read them carefully to ensure that the message is not lost as a result P.S. HOw did you know I was from Canada? djheart 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You both are really being offensive. Scientologists are not the only people who question psychiatry. Most anti-psychiatry activists are people who have been harmed by psychiatry and have nothing whatsoever to do with Scientology. Your attitude shows here and it's all too familiar from my interaction with sneering psychiatrists in the past. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatric Crime

The whole section "psychiatric crime" should be removed. Does anyone object? It sounds like LRH-inspired malicious fiction. JFW | T@lk 16:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Have any of you looked at the main source given for this information? Boston Magazine appears to be a social column about shopping, restaurants and general stuff to do in Boston. Is that really a solid enough source to make such viscious accusations? If they can't give a better source than this I think the whole section should be removed (along with the seperate Psychiatric Crime page if I had my way) TastyCakes 18:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

K, I've looked at it enough to really annoy me now, I'm deleting it. TastyCakes 20:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You were right to do so. It was libelous nonsense, most likely coming from or inspired by the scientologists. As for the article on psychitric crime (and anti-psychiatry for tht matter)... well, I won't go there.--Ithacagorges 21:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone read the scathing commentary in this week's J Clin Invest? Rather to the point. JFW | T@lk 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the link for the above: "Tom Cruise is dangerous and irresponsible". J Clin Invest 2005 115: 1964-1965. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I added the link on Tom Cruise's article. TastyCakes 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see Ithacagorges still slandering the anti-psychiatry movement. Repeat after me: anti-psychiatry does not equal scientology. Ithacagorges refers to "anti-psychiatry slime." How nice. I'm guessing he works in the field. He certainly exhibits all the characteristics. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell from the history page what happened to the psychiatric crime reference, nor do I know how that term is being used here. If the reference is to psychiatric assault, then it belongs here. Psychiatric assault is a serious human rights issue. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It was not. It was about some fairly thin assertions that psychiatrists are more likely to be convicted felons. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I agree it doesn't belong in the article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

part about psychiatric in history repetitely removed

I inserted the follwing piece <quote> Historically one of the main aim of the early psychiatry was to allied that criminal was acting devil for being sickness in order to avoid that their acts due to socila condictions or misgoverments. Since psychiatrists give no proof when they declare a person ill or mad (and they proudly adfirm that what they said can not be prove as true or false and that the only thing that is worth is their own experience and judgment), psychiatry has been used many time in history to imprison political opponent without a fair process declaring them mental ill. </quote>

It was remuve two time asserting that it was bad written and POV. Unluckly my English is not perfect, but anyone can correct it. About the POV: how can be this POV? It is how think really went. Phereps it is just that you can not belive it. About the first part look at the works of Lombroso, the first Italian psychiatrist. About the second part you can even found a very partial list of person put to death in this way during the German Nazism (very saddly the number of the deaths is much longer than the one of the name that was possible to register in the list) at [1] (click on the links on the first column of the table to see the list of the table in the selected range). What it is POV is to hide some historical event. AnyFile 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyfile, let me try to parse your paragraph: "Psychiatry has been used in certain circumstances to stigmatise policital dissidents and have them committed to institutions without due process; examples of this approach can be found in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the 20th century, although many other earlier examples are known."

Is this what you meant? In that case, you are completely right. You are, however, making some statements that could be seen as a value judgment and would fall under NPOV (e.g. "proudly"). What, in your view, constitutes "evidence" in psychiatry? JFW | T@lk 21:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is psychiatrists that should explain their method, and it should use a method that it is scientific accettable. What was saying is that they just say :"This person is ill" or "This person is to be confined", but they do not saying anything in support of it and if asked they answered that they only thing that iti importat is that they have decided so. I am looking for some document about the second half of XIX century's psychiatry. Criminal (also common criminal such as thieves) were considered mental ill to avoid to admitt bad goverment. They same thing was done som years before by looking at the shape of the head or something like that.

Proudly' is not a comment of mine, it is a comment and habit of them!AnyFile 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You inserted it as a criticism of psychiatry. Most if not all the comments have little if any relevence to modern psychiatry. If you want to find or make an article about historical psychiatry and its problems, go ahead. Furthermore, it wasn't just "bad grammer", parts of your entry were more or less unintelligible. People can't correct your english if they don't know what you're trying to say. TastyCakes 22:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please look at WP:NPOV. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS

I want to explain why I removed the AIDS refence. If nobody has a problem with it, this subject may be removed.

I removed the reference to AIDS possibly being discovered while treating a patient. Hormonal diagnoses as discovered due to looking into psychological issues makes sense; finding AIDS due to such issues doesn't. The only way I'm aware of AIDS affecting a person psychologically is because a person knows they have it.

-- nklatt

I don't understand your concern. If a patient has a history of many unsafe contacts, intravenous drug use, a suspicion of AIDS-related dementia or simply unfounded anxiety about carrying AIDS, it would be professionally negligent of the psychiatrist not to offer an AIDS test. I do agree the example is more far-fetched than thyroid disorders and diabetes, but I'm sure if I agree with the arguments for your removal. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Psychiatry nurse practioner

What's up with teh HUMANGEOUS nurse practioner section, wow is that overblown, there's around 10 lines of their different titles... I'm going to have to to a mega-edit djheart 03:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC) In Reading it over more carefully I really don't see the usefullness of keeping any of what was simply copy and pasted from another source into this section. If the editor wishes to write a short sysnpsis (approximately equal to the size of the psychiatry vs. psychology section) than it would be a usefull addition but in it's present state it's a large bloated, hard-to-read mess. djheart 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My deletion of the nurse practioner section was reverted with the explanation that there was no explanation which simply isn't true (see above)... but if a more in depth explanation is needed here I go:

-An article about psychiatry should not be >50% of the time discussing the role of a psychiatric nurse practioner... in fact it seems to now be almost 2/3 talking about them... especially since it makes the entire psychiatry entry way too long -The nurse practioner section is clearly just an virtually unformatted, unedited cut and past from some other again I point your attention to the extremeley long list of various psychaitric nurse practioner designations - The encylopedia is supposed to be international in scope and discussing at length a psychiatric nurse practioners who do not exist worldwide (I know for a fact they do not exist in Canada (or more specifically in Ontario or Quebec where I have practiced), and I'm fairly confident that they do not exist in the majority of countries worldwide) to the detriment of psychiatrists who do exist worldwide is clearly a disbalance - There probably should some discussion of nurse practioners, but that would be best discussed either in seperate entry and/or in a small 1 paragraph summary in similar length to the comparison to psychology. I would do it myself, but unfortunately, I have never had exposure to this profession even though I am a psychiatry resident.

That said it is true that I didn't discuss outside of the history summary my reason for deleting the insurance company. I deleted it because completely POV with not even a slightest attempt to be balanced, it also adds nothing to the discussion of pscyhiatry. Hence why I deleted it and why I will now delete it again.

djheart 04:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted again, as the field of psychiatry remains a medical field, with APNs taking over some medical roles in some countries. This is no reason to fill the article with equalized language to reflect that APNs are actually doctors (quod non). JFW | T@lk 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

what's the point of having a section dedicated to psychiatrists in fiction?

I looked under the surgery section, only to find that there wasn't a section for surgeons in fiction. Perhaps someone has a list of fictional surgeons they would like to contribute.

anyone interested in an anti-neurology page?

Since there is so much attention paid to anti-psychiatry within this article, I thought I'd propose an anti-neurology section.

Possible topics for exploration could include the influence of large corporations like General Electric on the use of questionable data from MRI scans produced by multi-million dollar devices that are forced on clinics and research centers by political lobbyists.

Attention could also be drawn to the health risks of intense magnetic fields as these instruments are used more an more in "diagnosis" of mental illness.

Another issue for exploration is ethics of using those with brain injuries to draw conclusions about locations of functional behavior in the brain.

I've never heard of an anti-neurology movement. It personally doesn't concern me because neurologists don't inflict their services on unwilling patients. Psychiatry is the only branch of medicine that authorizes practitioners to treat people against their will and that's ironic considering it's the least medical field of all of medicine. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 22:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It uses the same principles as somatic medicine, but doesn't have the luxury of scans and blood tests in the majority of conditions. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good grief! Psychiatry is as relevant to somatic medicine as astrology is. The "majority of conditions"??? How about you show me ONE psychiatric disorder that can be diagnosed via scan or blood test? And, in somatic medicine, I don't believe you'll find provision for incarceration and forced drugging. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Many diseases and syndroms can be easily identified by scans: Korsakoff's syndrome, Epilepsy, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Minamata disease, etc. can all be diagnosed through scanning (EEG, MRI) or testing for chemical agents in the body. It's undeniable that the introduction of certain detectabel chemicals can induce psychotic symptoms into people: psylocibin, phencyclidine, dextromethorphan, etc. Semiconscious • talk 08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

reversion re electroshock

I put the following back in

"and that each treatment lasts only about four weeks, or about the same amount of time the brain requires to heal from a mild closed head injury"

because it is neither subjective nor irrelevant, as the editor claimed. The brain does indeed mostly heal within four weeks from the injury of electroshock and that's why many psychiatrists promote "maintenance" electroshock, i.e. shocking the brain at monthly intervals indefinitely. This is evidence that whatever the short term results are do not last for any substantial length of time. This has to be factored in to the whole risk v. benefit equation when deciding whether to proceed with this very controversial treatment. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But what does it have to do with traumatic brain damage? It is certainly not relevant on this general page, and not without a source. The whole comparison with trauma in unduly alarmist. JFW | T@lk 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It has *everything* to do with traumatic brain damage, as that is the method by which electroshock "works." And, no, it's not particularly relevant to the psychiatry page but then neither is electroshock itself. However, if the portion on electroshock remains, then the controversy portion shall also remain in the article. And, far from being unduly alarmist, it's actually completely accurate and it would be negligent to mention electroshock without talking about what it actually is -- a closed head injury. The link to Breggin's paper would be suitable here. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

ECT induces a seizure. Whether it damages cerebral parenchyma is disputed. To state this as a fact is a violation of NPOV. "Negligence" is not applicable to an encyclopedia. There is already a link to the Breggin paper, by the way. JFW | T@lk 01:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The sensible thing was to remove the "anti-psychiatry" paragraph altogether apart from the basics. The relevant information should be in anti-psychiatry anyway. JFW | T@lk 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is also disputed. So to claim it as a fact is therefore also a violation of NPOV, right? Good. I'd hate to think the rules only applied to some subjects. The cause and effect relationship with electroshock and brain damage is about as clear as the cigarette cancer link. All that being said, I agree with removing the paragraph altogether. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is undisputed in current medical literature. The idea that ECT causes brain damage is at the very least extremely controversial, but more accurately just an remote idea from a vocal small minority and not really even discussed in the mainstream medical literature. djheart 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The truth about electroshock is indeed a minority view in the scientific literature. However, the experts on the effects of electroshock are the people who have had it inflicted upon them. Survivor testimonies are disregarded by psychiatrists. The fact that something is pushed in the mainstream medical literature does not make it good. Let's not forget that insulin shock was also peer-reviewed and approved of by the vast majority of psychiatrists. The survivor testimony against electroshock is overwhelming. That a branch of medicine chooses to ignore it is merely sad and indicative of how little regard psychiatrists have for their patients. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are depicting psychiatrists as malicious. All clinical trials on ECT meticulously document "survivor" experience, side-effects (qualitatively and quantitatively with formal testing) and possible confounders. If you think there are misrepresentations in these large and generally well-designed studies, you will have to explain why the investigators did not report certain experiences by their clients. We have all heart about isolated cases of scientific fraud, but it would be rather odd if all studies came to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?

I am not suggesting there are no side-effects, but I'm wondering whether those whose ECT experience was less than perfect aren't just particularly vocal (supported by Breggin and other ECT critics). Of course every medical treatment has side-effects; people die from organ transplants and even routine surgery. What proportion of ECT patients do you think report those harrowing experiences? JFW | T@lk 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the Breggin article as it answers your questions far more effectively than I could ever hope to. Breggin effectively slices and dices those "meticulous" electroshock trials. I don't believe psychiatrists as a group of people are malicious, although there are certainly sadists in that field but fortunately they are not too common. However, I do think psychiatry as a field is uncommonly arrogant and ignorant, which is a dangerous combination. "Less than perfect" is somewhat of a euphemism to describe the electroshock experience for many of us. Some of us were dragged out of seclusion cells kicking and screaming to the shock room. I wouldn't even be able to guess what proportion of electroshock patients report their experiences. Certainly the patients who were killed outright by electroshock did not report. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, deaths related to ECT are reported in the literature but they are extremely rare (far less than most procedures or medications) and almost always related to the use of anesthetics agents during the procedure and not the ECT itself. Second, standards of evidence are much higher in all fields of medicine since the advent of evidence-based medicine so many ideas that were accepted the past (e.g. insulin shock therapy's usefulness, that stress caused ulcers, that the medication Colace is useful for constipation etc. etc.) have been proven to be incorrect. Third, 'survivor' testinomony on anti-psychiatry websites may be overwhelming but certainly do not represent the overall patient experience. Forth, patients only receive ECT if they (or alternate decision maker if they are incapacitated) sign a consent form authorizing it's use.

Most importantly though, none of what you have written supports the contention that there is a widespread consensus in the scientific community that ECT causes brain damage so anything alluding to this idea is POV and has no place in a wikipedia article. djheart 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong on just about all your points. Deaths following electroshock are relatively common, possibly as high as 1 in 1,000. "Evidence-based" medicine is something of a misnomer. Basically, it means ignoring individual experience. Survivor needs no quotation marks. And I wasn't suggesting that everybody had a bad electroshock experience. And your fourth point IS OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG!!! In Canada and the USA and many countries in Europe, consent is simply not required. I never said there was widespread consensus within the medical community about the damaging effects of electroshock. But I did say that there is overwhelming evidence of same. NPOV doesn't just mean majority vote, you know. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How about continuing this discussion on talk:Electroconvulsive therapy, which seems to be the subject of this thread? JFW | T@lk 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

PIAGET was not a psychiatrist hence deleted

I think I need some guidance.Piaget and Overland are not psychiatrists but psychologists.Do we have to include them in the list of famous figures in psychiatry?Jk 1st Dec 2005

Both had a significant influence on psychiatry. JFW | T@lk 08:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree.But I thought this column was only for qualified psychiatrists.That was the reason Kay Redfierld Jamieson was moved to another section.Otherwise we shall have to include Anna Freud,William James,Wolpe and a whole lot of others.I think we need some clarification.It would perfectly be in order to have another column for non psychiatrists who influenced psychiatry but I have a feeling this column should be left for qualified psychiatrists.JK 2nd Dec

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.