Questioning Psychiatry: A Critical Examination

636 Words2 Pages

I’ve been reading Everything You Know Is Wrong from Disinformation, and it’s… intriguing. There is a mixture of bizarre claims and sensible advice, and some articles about which I don’t know enough to decide. For example, there’s an article on psychiatry that I’ve summarized here: Mental Illness: Psychiatry’s Phlogiston by Thomas Szasz, M.D. Summary: “In physics, we use the same laws to explain why airplanes fly and why they crash. In psychiatry, we use one set of laws to explain sane behavior, which we attribute to reasons (choices), and another set of laws to explain insane behavior, which we attribute to causes (diseases). … Establishing psychiatry as a science of the nature of human behavior requires the recognition of the nonexistence …show more content…

Convulsions — involuntary actions — are uncoordinated contractions of muscles. Violence is a voluntary action, a coordinated act. “Oxidation, a real process, explains combustion better than does phlogiston, a nonexistent substance. Attributing all human actions to choice, the basic building block of our social existence, explains human behavior better than attributing certain (disapproved) actions to mental illness, a nonexistent disease.” “Even seemingly irrational acts are committed by people with reasons. People with brain diseases — amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonism, glioblastoma — are persons whose actions continue to be governed by their desires or motives. The illness limits their freedom of action, but not their status as moral agents.” “Holding a person responsible for his act is not the same as blaming or praising him for it… Conversely, holding a person not responsible for his act by reason of mental illness means that we do not regard him as a (full-fledged) actor or moral …show more content…

In my view, such a person kills his victim because that is what he wants to do, but he disavows his intention; instead of acknowledging his motive, he defines himself as a helpless slave obeying orders.” “…the old, prescientific-religious explanation of human behavior is more faithful to the facts than the modern, scientific-psychiatric explanation of it.” “Erroneous explanations of the material world lead to physical catastrophes, and false explanations of the human condition, to moral catastrophes.” All of this hangs together well and seems like common sense, but it all rests on a claim about which I know nothing. While I wouldn’t expect a psychiatrist to phrase a description of his or her own profession in the same way a critic would, I’m curious about how much truth or falsity a psychiatrist, or someone more familiar with psychiatry than I am, would find in the claim that psychiatry uses essentially two sets of rules to deal with two different

Open Document