Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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.

---

Additions of "Anti-psychiatry" content

This talk page is getting filled with stuff attacking psychiatry. Let’s remember this is a talk page discussing how to improve the article, not an alternative location for a soapbox.

Also, the recent edits to the article itself were rather speculative, POV, and used poor sources or used sources not backing up the comment. Even if something would be added to anti-psychiatry, it still has to be NPOV and sourced well. Chupper 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Such views would be more adequately placed, with good citations, etc, in the article which actually exists and is called "Anti Psychiatry". There could be links between the two. Surely this would be a better way of satisfying the perceived needs of all.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I am happy to provide evidence. Was concerned about my safety. Feel safer now! I am prepared to publish my research about their methods, and everything. I am ready to study both behavioral modification and neurology to prove my point. Science is about reason and study of things not about referring to authority. I am prepared to publish it in nature or if scientists won't accept a reasonable argument based on evidence on my own.

Drugged Monkey.

Also treatment of people should be better. If you suffer from depression and are locked up you are going to get worse. See blue-eyed a documentary about depression. See the experiment a german film and the stanford prison experiment about treatment. If someone hears voices isn't it better to tell them they are telepathic then they are crazy and should be locked up. Treat them properly. Give them a good diet, exercise and test what they are saying to see whether it is true. To all the psychiatrists out there come challenge me. Defend yourself and tell me if or where my reasoning is flawed.

Drugged Monkey.

Only reliable sources, No original research, please. El_C 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But Science Apologist said to have original research to quote on wikipedia. So what am I to do...it is called censorship. Let me publish my findings and let others explain why it is not possible or where I am wrong. I am ready to defend my research with experiments and scientific papers. Psychiatry is a cult. If they don't want to defend themselves with science and reason then you could also call psychics mainstream science too. However, as there is no evidence that people can read minds, I am prepared to study these things with science. Also depression can be fixed if declared as neurological disorder and behavioral disorder. Ask a psychiatrist to explain why anorexia nervosa has enlarged ventricles the same as schizophrenia...it is diet!

Drugged Monkey

Sorry, but that is scarcely intelligible. Wikipedia is not therapy. Please adhere to policy or you will not be permitted to edit here. Thanks. El_C 09:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay prove me wrong. Prove that enlarged ventricles are not diet. I'm not talking therapy or bullshit, I am talking about evidence based reasoning. If you want to criticize me use science and reason. Or don't you believe in the scientific method. Do you believe say in I don't know religious ideology. If I am wrong I will accept that but only if you prove it with evidence that can be verified by others. My methods CAN!

Drugged Monkey

I have no idea what any of that means. If you wish to add claims to Wikipedia entries, you need to cite reliable sources so that these claims can be verified not to be your original research. Also, you're in a conflict of interest so long as you continue advancing your theories. El_C 09:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Drugged Monkey, editors here are not required to prove anything to you. Stop using these talk pages and main article pages as a soapbox and method for you to talk about your "future" original research. I'm not sure whether to take what you are saying as a joke or if you are really serious.

Oh, crap! I just realized, his evidence is based on "REASONING"! Alright guys, let him through, let him post his own original research! "Enlarged ventricles" can all be cured by diet! And remember, he is ready to defend his position with experiments and scientific papers. Oh, boy, I'd love to see you get published Drugged Monkey, that would just make my day. Chupper 13:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition of {{otheruses4}} template on Psychiatry linking to Anti-psychiatry

I will be removing this otheruses4 template. The purpose of this template is to help a reader to find an article with a similar name, which may be confused with the article they have ended up at. For example, I've used similar templates at The Fordham, The Pinnacle, and Fordham Company. If someone was looking for the Fordham Brewing Company, but only knew "Fordham Company" and ended up at this Chicago real estate developer, right on the top they can get what they are looking for. I feel like someone looking for Anti-psychiatry won't be confused if they type in "Psychiatry" and arrive at "Psychiatry." If they are looking for Anti-psychiatry, that is what they will type in. I hope that makes sense. I feel like this template was used just to get an Anti-psychiatry link listed prominently in the article... (I may, of course, be wrong). Chupper 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about your feelings, which seem to suggest I did not act in good faith (see WP:AGF). My addition was done in good faith. It was done to attempt to deflect some of the over-emphasis that this article began to have with attacks upon psychiatry. If you knew of my professional history, you would see that, although I do have criticisms of psychiatry, because I worked in an academic department of psychiatry in a UK Medical school for over 17 years, and published many articles squarely within the subject of "psychiatry", my intentions were to attempt to allow psychiatry to have a fair representation in this article. I am not, however a psychiatrist, I am a research psychologist and a Mathematical Psychologist.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent my apologies to DDStretch. He acted in complete good faith, and like I thought I might have been, I was wrong about the motivation on his edit. My explanation as to why I actually changed it should have assumed good faith, though. If ddstrech or anyone else doesn't agree with that explanation, I'm not authoritative on the subject! In other words, feel free to change it back or discuss it here. Chupper 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Existence & linking to anti-psychiatry

I moved this to a new section. Anyfile's concerns seem to be with the existence of anti-psychiatry itself and linking to it in general, not the addition of the otheruses4 template. Chupper 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Please do not state that criticisms against psychiatry should go to Anti-psychiatry page. As in all subject, criticisms should go in the page of the argument itself. Of course a separate page could deal a specific subtopic (in this case the template:main is the notice most useful to the user): But this could not use an excuse to move out criticism from the general page of the topic. In this specific case it should be noted that the anti-psychiatry movement is just a part of the criticism against the psychiatry. For instance scientists (among them neuroscientists too) have to critic the lack of scientific rigour of the psychiatry, that instead declares itself to be scientific grounded. Legal experts have found many problems in understanding what psychiatry says (since it never gives a valid principle to base distinction between ill and not ill). This is not, of course, a problem for who wants to use the psychiatry to sustains not-proved alleged truth (as an Italian proverb says wolf do no eat wolf). So please do not move away criticisms and keep warnings and safety concerns is a high visible position! In a manual, the safety concerns are listed before the instruction. Before saying that psychiatry do for the well (but oddly not saying what it does means this "well"), please put an evident warning of possible danger of this practice, that give not proof (except self made) of its goodness. -- 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnyFile (talk • contribs).

In response to your comments.

• Please do not state that criticisms against psychiatry should go to Anti-psychiatry page. As in all subject, criticisms should go in the page of the argument itself. Of course a separate page could deal a specific subtopic (in this case the template:main is the notice most useful to the user): But this could not use an excuse to move out criticism from the general page of the topic. & So please do not move away criticisms and keep warnings and safety concerns is a high visible position!
  • The anti-psychiatry article has existed at Wikipedia since 2002 and contains significant content. I don't think all that material should be moved into Psychiatry. Regarding the location of criticisms and "warnings" see the last bullet below.
• But this could not use an excuse to move out criticism from the general page of the topic. In this specific case it should be noted that the anti-psychiatry movement is just a part of the criticism against the psychiatry.
  • "Anti-psychiatry" implies a criticism, and that article touches on the many facets of criticisms of psychiatry. But, if there are additional points that are outside the scope of "anti-psychiatry" then add in or keep any points that are criticisms to the criticism section. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
• For instance scientists (among them neuroscientists too) have to critic the lack of scientific rigour of the psychiatry, that instead declares itself to be scientific grounded.
  • I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Psychiatry is a specialty of medicine. Medicine is a study (science) and practice (clinical) of the health sciences. Although medicine includes science & scientific research, psychiatrists are not scientists, they come into the clinical part of medicine. I don't think they try to come across as scientists and I don't think anyone who understands medicine & the mental health profession considers them scientists. They are clinicians, using methodologies researched by scientists. Be aware though that psychiatrists, will usually have a good deal of research experience. In the US in order to get into medical school a student must usually participate in research and usually do so alongside neuro and other biological and bio-medical scientists. For example, someone who wants to become a neurosurgeon will have similar (sometimes exactly the same) training as a psychiatrist all the way up until they specialize (at the very end of med school and for the remainder of their residency).
• Legal experts have found many problems in understanding what psychiatry says (since it never gives a valid principle to base distinction between ill and not ill).
  • Giving "a valid principle to base distinction between ill and not ill" (I assume you mean in the mental health context) has always been a grey area with all mental health professionals, not just psychiatrists. That's why this field is so exciting! We're learning more and more all the time. Much of this has to be decided. I think any mental health professional can tell you that. As a side note, this is one reason I don't understand "anti-psychiatry." I think a lot of people rather fight something than help make it better. If you don't like the way something is ending up, then become a part of it and help change it for the better!
• This is not, of course, a problem for who wants to use the psychiatry to sustains not-proved alleged truth (as an Italian proverb says wolf do no eat wolf).
  • OK, I just really don't understand what you are saying here at all. It makes no sense to me grammatically. Could you rephrase this?
• In a manual, the safety concerns are listed before the instruction. Before saying that psychiatry do for the well (but oddly not saying what it does means this "well"), please put an evident warning of possible danger of this practice, that give not proof (except self made) of its goodness.
  • Wikipedia is not a manual, it is an encyclopedia project. Criticisms of psychiatry are secondary to the main topic of psychiatry. They do not belong at the beginning. The "possible danger of this practice" has danger just like all the other medical specialties. If you want to add content, I recommend you do so at the anti-psychiatry article or "Criticism" section at Medicine.

I hope I addressed all issues & questions. Chupper 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can not share your optimism about psychiatry, so I can not think it is a good way to present psychiatry only from on side and consider critics as an extra. The main point I would say is that the psychiatry should be described in what it do and what it is. There is no point in distinguish between what it is said from a psychiatrist (or better the mainstream psychiatry) and from a person that is sceptical, a scientist or just an objective person. The main difference that I can see between these two groups is that the one is in conflicts of interest.

I am going to answer here to your point, not to destroy the format of the test above.

• my point about science is that psychiatrists claim that their theory are scientific proved, the therapy ground on scientific evidences and gone under scientific test before being employed. Alas if someone ask for more informations about these test is looked very bad (a sceptical person, who is just acting in a scientific manner, is looked at as a very dangerous person by the psychiatry). After a lot of insistences and making research by my own, I have found that is not uncommon the alleged research were not be done, or were done not by psychiatrists or were done in a completely different way than what stated. As an example psychiatrists have said so much that everybody has listen so much that he believes it as true that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin and that this have been scientifically proved. However no such scientific test have been done, and no neuoroscientist can assert the previous statement to be true. Moreover is that would be true than the definition of depression should be changed (not by a ballot, but because if it were really done an experiment finding this to be true, than this would be just the true reality). The definition of depression should not be the list of symptoms in book (a thing that lack of any references to cause and to possible therapy), but the definition should be, at this point, the lack of serotonin. However I have never seen a psychiatrists to make such test before diagnoses depression or before prescribing a treatment (two things that usually require no more than 3 to 5 minutes and so the test would be required to be very fast, as well to exist, so that psychiatrists could use it without reducing the amount of their businesses, pardon visits.
• I could not think that it is exciting that the psychiatry can not find a way to make distinction among ill and not ill. I can agree that when somebody do research the idea (or the aim) of discovering something unknown is very exciting. However psychiatrists are not doing research, nor they are claiming that their hypothesis are not proved, but still under test and so not yet used in practice on patients. If they were do that way I would agreed with their job and I would agree that it is exciting. But psychiatrists instead are saying that they know all the need to know and that they are sure of what they are saying and prescribing (I actually do not know if this came form some specific power obtain from studies or from some special magical power obtained when entering into the association of the psychiatry). However this power should not work very well, since very often psychiatrists prescribe drugs with severe effects and with not-well-described alleged benefit.
• A psychiatrists who I have the disgrace to know told me that it was proud that there were no test in psychiatry "We have invented it well! In this way nobody could ever prove that a diagnose is incorrect".
• Sorry for the non understandable part of my previous message ("This is not, of course, a problem for who wants to use the psychiatry to ..."). English is not my first language, so it is not so easy to explain myself and at the same time trying not to say something too much offending. What I was trying to say is that the fact that psychiatry is a difficult field where no proofs can be shown can be used in forensic case. When a lawyer (or someone else) need to prove something that can not be proved he can ask a psychiatry to say that it is true. I have not understand the reason, but a psychiatrists is not asked to prove what he say. The lack of prove (and of any possible prove) should lead to not take into consideration of what was said by the psychiatrists. Instead this leads to consider anything said by psychiatrists as true and to confuse the opinion of a psychiatrist with the reality of facts (in philosophic terms the problem is the one of the passage from the logic plane to the ontological plane, see on this point the confutation made by Kant of the demonstration of the existence of God made by Saint Anslemo)
• You have said "Criticisms of psychiatry are secondary to the main topic of psychiatry." The problem is the criticism is a fundamental part of the psychiatry and that the rise of critic is a common thing when psychiatry is practiced, since it leads to serious problems in the people treated while benefits can be see only by the psychiatrists (mainly in their own wallets). Putting the critics in other page and presenting criticism as a bad thing lead the reader to believe that the psychiatric system is acting for the goodness of the patients and that the critics are just opposing for not understandable reason. Since there is only one psychiatry it should be painted in all of its details in one place. If the psychiatry leads people into trouble and lead them to believe that there is something wrong in the psychiatric methodology, then this should be well stated, so that people can know it as a serious side effect (not that the last should be consider as an illness, despite the fact the psychiatrists often consider any statements against psychiatry as a proof of illness even when the statements are perfectly true).

AnyFile 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-psychiatry page is not a POV fork, but simply a sub-page of this article that grew too large to keep on a single page. There already is a summary subsection here, and a direction to the main article in that section. This is standard practice and is no reflection on the importance, or the relative merits, of the discipline or its critics. Your position is widely discussed on the Anti-psychiatry page and I would recommend you use your experise to improve the content there. Rockpocket 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyfile, thanks for your responses. This may be the last time I can respond to your comments as this is rather time consuming, so a lack of another response doesn't signify me "giving up." I'd like to note that this page is for the discussion of improving this article on Wikipedia, and not discussing the subject at hand. I'd love to debate with you the relevance of Psychiatry, but this just isn't the place to do it. Although I do hope my comments serve useful to you and other editors. OK, here we go...

• I can not share your optimism about psychiatry, so I can not think it is a good way to present psychiatry only from on side and consider critics as an extra.
  • You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion.
• The main point I would say is that the psychiatry should be described in what it do and what it is. There is no point in distinguish between what it is said from a psychiatrist (or better the mainstream psychiatry) and from a person that is sceptical, a scientist or just an objective person. The main difference that I can see between these two groups is that the one is in conflicts of interest. & my point about science is that psychiatrists claim that their theory are scientific proved, the therapy ground on scientific evidences and gone under scientific test before being employed. Alas if someone ask for more informations about these test is looked very bad (a sceptical person, who is just acting in a scientific manner, is looked at as a very dangerous person by the psychiatry). After a lot of insistences and making research by my own, I have found that is not uncommon the alleged research were not be done, or were done not by psychiatrists or were done in a completely different way than what stated.
  • I don't consider neuroscientists and psychiatrists at the end of two different spectrums. I see them working with eachother. You keep stating that there is some type of rift between scientists and psychiatrists. I don't think that really exists. Psychiatrists, or at least good psychiatrists, use what they learned in medical school and new research to diagnose & treat their patients. Principles in medical school and new research is based off of findings by scientists. Psychiatrists are not in their own little world. I don't think psychiatrists claim their theories are scientifically "proved." I do think they claim their theories are scientifically supported. There is no doubt in my mind that there are psychiatrists out there not following medical & scientific guidelines. But I doubt as a speciality there is a significant difference between psychiatry and other medical specialities regarding the number of physicians not adhering to scientific principles. No one is stopping patients from discussing research with their doctors, or even letting them look it up on their own. A good patient will ask questions regarding the validity of a diagnosis and request scientific evidence (aka previous studies of there conditions). A good psychiatrist can quote research to the patient and explain their logic.
• As an example psychiatrists have said so much that everybody has listen so much that he believes it as true that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin and that this have been scientifically proved. However no such scientific test have been done, and no neuoroscientist can assert the previous statement to be true.
  • I'm not sure where you are looking but I did a simple search using SSCI, which searches scientific journals. It alone counted 4,043 papers discussing positive correlation between lower serotonin levels with those suffering from clinical depression. You are assuming psychiatrists think the lack of serotonin "causes" depression. I don't think that's the case. I do think they attribute low levels of serotonin with depression, but it doesn't mean they think it's the cause.
• The definition of depression should not be the list of symptoms in book (a thing that lack of any references to cause and to possible therapy), but the definition should be, at this point, the lack of serotonin. However I have never seen a psychiatrists to make such test before diagnoses depression or before prescribing a treatment (two things that usually require no more than 3 to 5 minutes and so the test would be required to be very fast, as well to exist, so that psychiatrists could use it without reducing the amount of their businesses, pardon visits.
  • I'm not a psychiatrist (yet). So I can't really respond to this. I do know psychiatrists use different methods to diagnose, but since I'm not one I cannot give you any personal experience. My question to you would be though, how many psychiatrists have you observed giving a diagnosis? 1? 5? 100? 1,000? My guess is there would be varying methods used for varying reasons.
• I could not think that it is exciting that the psychiatry can not find a way to make distinction among ill and not ill. I can agree that when somebody do research the idea (or the aim) of discovering something unknown is very exciting. However psychiatrists are not doing research, nor they are claiming that their hypothesis are not proved, but still under test and so not yet used in practice on patients. If they were do that way I would agreed with their job and I would agree that it is exciting. But psychiatrists instead are saying that they know all the need to know and that they are sure of what they are saying and prescribing (I actually do not know if this came form some specific power obtain from studies or from some special magical power obtained when entering into the association of the psychiatry). However this power should not work very well, since very often psychiatrists prescribe drugs with severe effects and with not-well-described alleged benefit.
  • Are psychiatrists saying "that they know all the[y] need to know and that they are sure of what they are saying and prescribing"? NO WAY!!! I'm not sure where you get this idea from! If you're finding a psychiatrist who thinks they know everything, you've come across a very bad egg. You need to be careful here. I have personal experience knowing families with members who have suffered from depression and other mental illnesses. In a few instances the psychiatrists prescribed medication to the patient (of whom I was personally aquainted). In two situations the patients later committed suicide. There are two critical issues here. The first deals with survival. If this medication has saved 10,000 lives but played a part in 1 death, should the medication still be prescribed? In my opinion (and opinions of other family members with deceased patients) the answer is yes. The second question is did the medication actually cause the person to commit suicide, or was it simply that the medication didn't counter the depression enough and the person committed suicide anyway? I don't think anyone can answer this question, yet. I do agree that psychopharmacology is a tender field which causes changes in behavior. I just feel, at present that these medications help more than they hurt, and help enough for their continued use. There are people who disagree with my opinion, and trust me, I totally respect that. However you state the psychiatrists feel a "specific power." Pardon my french, but that's "BS." I really think psychiatrists, and most doctors do what they do to help people, not to obtain "power". Also, I didn't say I find it exciting that we the line between mentally ill and not is grey. I did say I find it exciting that the field is changing and so much is being learned. I find it interesting because I'm an open guy. I'm interested in new research. I'm interested in new studies. I think that makes psychiatry & neuroscience a profession where people can really make an impact. Do psychiatrists need to have 100% truth before they try to help people? No. Do any doctors need to have 100% truth before they try to help people? No. As a human race we do the best we can with the tools we have. I don't think most people believe that doctors have all the answers.
• A psychiatrists who I have the disgrace to know told me that it was proud that there were no test in psychiatry "We have invented it well! In this way nobody could ever prove that a diagnose is incorrect".
  • Sorry to say your psychiatrist friend's beliefs are not in tandem with those psychiatrists I have spoken with. The ones I know don't feel "they have invented it well." The ones I know do understand they make mistakes and will have different opinions. The ones I know also feel like the field of psychiatry still has an infinite number of developments to make. In other words, they feel like we are far from the end.
• Sorry for the non understandable part of my previous message ("This is not, of course, a problem for who wants to use the psychiatry to ..."). English is not my first language, so it is not so easy to explain myself and at the same time trying not to say something too much offending. What I was trying to say is that the fact that psychiatry is a difficult field where no proofs can be shown can be used in forensic case. When a lawyer (or someone else) need to prove something that can not be proved he can ask a psychiatry to say that it is true. I have not understand the reason, but a psychiatrists is not asked to prove what he say. The lack of prove (and of any possible prove) should lead to not take into consideration of what was said by the psychiatrists. Instead this leads to consider anything said by psychiatrists as true and to confuse the opinion of a psychiatrist with the reality of facts (in philosophic terms the problem is the one of the passage from the logic plane to the ontological plane, see on this point the confutation made by Kant of the demonstration of the existence of God made by Saint Anslemo)
  • Thanks for making that more clear! Well, you've stepped into a different world here. Law. I'm not sure lawyers consider psychiatrists as the ultimate truth, but I do actually agree with you that they do trust them more than they sometimes should. However is this a problem with psychiatry or a problem with the legal system? My opinion is the latter.
• You have said "Criticisms of psychiatry are secondary to the main topic of psychiatry." The problem is the criticism is a fundamental part of the psychiatry and that the rise of critic is a common thing when psychiatry is practiced, since it leads to serious problems in the people treated while benefits can be see only by the psychiatrists (mainly in their own wallets). Putting the critics in other page and presenting criticism as a bad thing lead the reader to believe that the psychiatric system is acting for the goodness of the patients and that the critics are just opposing for not understandable reason. Since there is only one psychiatry it should be painted in all of its details in one place. If the psychiatry leads people into trouble and lead them to believe that there is something wrong in the psychiatric methodology, then this should be well stated, so that people can know it as a serious side effect (not that the last should be consider as an illness, despite the fact the psychiatrists often consider any statements against psychiatry as a proof of illness even when the statements are perfectly true).
  • Remember, Wikipedia isn't here to warn people about anything. I feel Rockpocket's comments were right in line here though... The Anti-psychiatry page is not a POV fork, but simply a sub-page of this article that grew too large to keep on a single page. There already is a summary subsection here, and a direction to the main article in that section. This is standard practice and is no reflection on the importance, or the relative merits, of the discipline or its critics. Your position is widely discussed on the Anti-psychiatry page and I would recommend you use your experise to improve the content there. Rockpocket 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyfile it seems like you are talking to power hungry psychiatrists with closed minds. All the ones I've met here in the US are eager to help people, cautious with their theories, and always willing to hear a differing opinion. Again, I'd love to continue to discuss this, but with class loads, my own research, and work I just don't have the time. This is probably all the time I can dedicate to responses on this topic. If you do have further comments, Anyfile, feel free to put them down and maybe someone else can answer them. But for now, that's all.

Just one more thing. I've noticed this article & talk page getting "attacked" a lot recently by people who don't agree with psychiatry. Trust me, I respect these people. I understand where you are coming from. Psychiatry, in some cases, has many problems. This is one reason I was motivated to go into this field. To do my part to help make it better. Please assume good faith with both other editors AND the field itself. Remember to keep a NPOV when adding content to the articles. Remember to make contributions that are representative enough of our world to be mentioned. Remember to use good sources. That's all for now. (By the way, sorry for any typos, I typed all this really fast) Chupper 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry and the Holocaust

Masson has published a book with the title Psychiatry & the Holocaust as I have found out right now, it is from 2000, edited by HarperCollins Trade (5. November 2000) ISBN-10: 0006375839 ISBN-13: 978-0006375838

Austerlitz -- 88.72.15.248 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Split of "Psychiatry" & "Psychiatrist"

I propose splitting the professional practice section into a new article titled "Psychiatrist".

I've noticed that this is already split at "Psychology" and "Psychologist". Thoughts? Chupper 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

• Support - as the proposer. Chupper 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Qualified Support - So long as the globalisation issues are addressed, such that other countries' training, etc is included. Additionally, so lomg as more inline citations and references accompany the new article as soon as possible, as we are supposed to be doing.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Split

So everyone is aware the articles have been split. Chupper 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• See Psychiatrist

International Psychiatric Provision

I would like to draw attention to the lack of psychiatric provision in developing countries. As shown by WHO statistics there is often only one or two psychiatrists for an entire country (e.g. Lao PDR, with two, or Malawi with one), and psychiatrists available in public health systems are often nowhere near adequate to meet the demand that is faced (e.g. Ghana with three psychiatrists in its public health system). Is this a worthy topic to be included and can some one give me advice as to how to edit the page? Thanks Andrew.robinson101 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good add. A lot could probably be written on this topic dealing with all the different mental health professionals. I would say this information could be added to either:

• Mental health professional or
• Psychiatrist

Feel free to be bold and edit. If you have any questions or would like me to review any edits, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Take care, and welcome to Wikipedia! Chupper 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Psychiatry

This was moved from the talk page of Mihai cartoaje by Mihai cartoaje. It was made in response to this question left on my talk page. Chupper 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"That is a long policy page. What part of it does not allow the link?--Mihai cartoaje 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)".

From WP:EL, What should be included:

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Chupper 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article you added a link to does not directly represent the field of psychiatry. It is a link talking about something relating to psychiatry. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If we allowed such links we would have hundreds of thousands of articles linked to on Wikipedia.

It is an interesting article, but it would be my recommendation to use it as a reference, specifically an inline citation, for new content to an article. If you were to add such content it seems as if Pharmaceutical company, mental health, or anti-psychiatry would be better fit for such content. Chupper 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ALTERNATIVE, ACADEMICALLY EQUALLY SOUND PSYCHIATRY DEFINITION

Psychiatry includes no scientific, ethical or other reliable bases. It exploits vulnerable children overwhelmingly including the aged; women; the poor; racial minority groups and others to support itself and the international pharmaceutical industry.

Despite conventional claims to the contrary no cause-effect relationship has ever been shown between mental/emotional distress and physical changes seen in body or brain, and no benefit is proven for any psychotropic medication other than largely unnecessary sedation whilst natural recovery occurs

Psychiatry knowingly denies 16 of 30 Articles comprising the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to which America, Britain and most other countries are signatory.

Psychiatrists Psuedo-doctors identified by delusions of grandeur; irresponsibility; lack of self-awareness and compassion; failure to differentiate between brain and mind; ignorance of human rights and decency.

Their existence depends on immorality of regulatory authorities such as the General Medical Council; Governments and others including medicines and health care bodies.

This is no 'attack on psychiatry'. Should this alternative, academically sound (Laing; Szasz; Williams et al) definition be deleted we see that conventional psychiatry fears questioning - thus proving the point.

85.210.166.237 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)dixie dean (prof) zenminky@clara.co.uk85.210.166.237 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 16th April 2007

Perhaps you should read the "Existence & linking to anti-psychiatry" section above and view the anti-psychiatry page. Your use of Wikipedia as a soapbox will not be tolerated. Chupper 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Doctors believe that they are god. That they can heal the soul. What is point of religion when you have psychiatrists. They can cure sin. Just declare sin a mental illness and bingo psychiatrists can cure it. As an athiest I believe in science and the scientific method.I read acts and saw they are all just mental illnesses. Stick up for your beliefs whatever you believe. If you believe in god then why do you let healers of spirit heal your followers. If you are a doctor and you believe in science as I do then prove your methods work with scientific articles and not appeals to authority. Allow independent study of the research and tell everyone about the research. Put up or shut up! Drugged Monkey

Drugged Monkey, this is not a place to discuss religiosity vs. science. Most people, including myself, are religious and also believe in science, medicine and psychiatry.

The APA pubished this nifty little book called "Handbook of Psychotherapy and Religious Diversity". You just might want to read it and see how mental health professionals, even if they are not religious, must deal with religion in their profession. After looking at such references you'll realize such positions can easily coexist. Chupper 13:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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.