Jump to content

Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Some comments

  • Moral therapy
If we can't really talk about psychiatry as a medical specialty until about the mid-19th century, it's not clear to my how relevant the section on moral therapy is or in what sense it functions as a precursor to anti-psychiatry. That some antipsychiatrists may have looked back to that era as a positive one compared to what followed is another issue (which may be worthy of article coverage). Histories of psychiatry generally see moral treatment, which was the foundation for the lunacy reform movement which led to the establishment of national systems of asylums, as the origin of the psychiatry. Kind of ironic if psychiatry and anti-psychiatry find their origins in the exact same movement and indeed adopt the same kind of narrative (barbarity of medical treatment prior to kinder, humane regimes instituted under moral treatment). FiachraByrne (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Foucault
I think someone like Foucault, who is a difficult and sometimes contradictory read, really needs to be treated as a primary source. Quote and cite him by all means, but the fundamental interpretation should be drawn from good scholarly secondary sources, of which there is no shortage. Also, and relating back to the previous section, it should be made explicit that a major part of Foucault's critique was of moral treatment. Foucault rather typically liked to turn accepted history on its head (sometimes with good justification); by characterising moral therapy as a more insidious form of behavioural control (exchanging external shackles for internal ones, etc) he attacked a significant part of psychiatry's historical self-understanding as an enlightened, benevolent and liberating discipline (exemplified in Pinel's semi-mythological unchaining of the lunatics at the Bicêtre. Also, Foucault is not reliable as a historian on empirical matters. I'm not sure this treatment really belongs in the precursor section at all. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Therapeutic communities 1950s
It might be appropriate to discuss the evolution of therapeutic communities in the 1950s and their adoption by antipsychiatrists in the 1960s.
See Fussinger, C. (2011). "'Therapeutic community', psychiatry's reformers and antipsychiatrists: Reconsidering changes in the field of psychiatry after World War II". History of Psychiatry. 22 (2): 146–142. doi:10.1177/0957154X11399201. (Contact me if you want a copy)
FiachraByrne (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Drapetomania, "mental hebitude" & "rascality"
In the Southern US, black slaves and Abolitionists encountered Drapetomania, a pseudo-scientific diagnosis for why slaves ran away from their masters.
This sentence (which in the article functions as a complete non-sequitor) is not relevant to this article and would be more usefully included in an article on psychiatry and race. Drapetomania would be relevant if it formed part of a major critique of psychiatry advanced by those identified (however, loosely) as antipsychiatrists. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, in no sense is drapetomania a "precursor" to antipsychiatry (a contemporary critique of it just might be).FiachraByrne (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A critique of psychiatry or an encyclopedia article on antipsychiatry?
The article often seems to divert from a description and analysis of antipsychiatry to a critique of psychiatry. The subject of this article should be antipsychiatry and not psychiatry and its real or imagined failings. Critiques of psychiatry are relevant insofar as they form part of the notable attacks on psychiatry as voiced by those deemed antipsychiatrists and should be presented as such (i.e. attributed). How is focal sepsis/Henry Cotton relevant to antipsychiatry? If it is to remain in the article it should be made explicit how this 1920s treatment relates to antipsychiatry. Likewise with the introductory paragraph to the "Political abuse"; all of that needs to be put into an antipsychiatry context otherwise its irrelevant. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Have removed the Henry Cotton paragraph. Johnfos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Antipsychiatry, definition of...
The article needs a definition of its topic. The lack of definition is leading to the inclusion of all sorts of extraneous material where any critique of psychiatry or any notably controversial psychiatric practice is seen as a potential precursor to antipsychiatry. Is antipsychiatry distinct from patient/ex-patient/survivor movements? Is it distinct from scientology? Is it properly understood as (largely) an internal psychiatric discourse? What distinguishes antipsychiatry from earlier critiques (defined in the article in fact through Crossley)? The definition should be in the lead and should organise the article. In its present state I'd be inclined to cut much of the precursor/historical material (some could be migrated to a background section). FiachraByrne (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook on Psychiatry has a short section on basic info about anti-psych, from page 20. The definition there is about "more harm than help", which we talk about in the opening to this article. Johnfos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The article should probably use Dain and Crossley to define it. They disagree with each other significantly. Crossley (more recent and confined to UK) has a more narrowly defined object (excludes Scientology); Dain, along with others, says its an extremely diffuse object characterised by criticism of psychiatry and a certain emotional investment. The history section should really follow Dain, who does look at the 19th century for the US (I'm not aware of anyone else doing this for any other country; mostly they begin in the 1950s or 60s), and move Foucault's historical treatment to a section of the article devoted to Foucault. Following Dain, does not mean including any and all criticism of psychiatry; you need a source linking it to this concept of antipsychiatry. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Overall response to comments: If you are saying that the article needs more focus, and needs to be tightened up, I agree. Johnfos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes.

The Corruptions, Conspiracies, And Collapse Of Psychiatry And Psychology

Has anyone read The Corruptions, Conspiracies And Collapse Of Psychiatry And Psychology (2013)? It is available free of charge from www.freewiser.com. It might be worth including a section on it here.

Hi. I haven't read it but it looks to be self-published and therefore not, in Wikipedian terms, a reliable source. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fiachra, you have a point, the guidelines are there to prevent unscrupulous sources from being included hence the focus on 'reliable' sources published by reputable publishers. However being self published does not necessarily mean a source is without foundation or of low quality and so I noted that there are exceptions to the rule. The work does include a lot of high level references and extensively focuses on A.P.A. and W.H.O. publications (i.e. the highest quality national and international publications available) meaning that it does seem to be of a high quality. The difficulty in this case is that critical nature of the work is unlikely to be accepted by mainstream psychiatrists and publications hence the work might be an exception to the rule in this case, although I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witiman (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Further, the text is constantly being updated and is currently up to "2013.07A Edition". The latest edition is quite a forceful and high level attack on psychiatry and psychology and should definitely be looked into. Comment added by --Witiman (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph reads: "Instead of growing as true sciences designed to render a high level of care for the community, psychiatry and psychology consciously and overtly rejected objectivity and the scientific method in preference for subjectivity and pseudoscience, so that they could conspire together and forge a system of care for the mentally ill designed to generate unrestricted sadistic power over patients. They realised that they could do far more harm using physical rather than mental therapies and so they chose psychiatry and its physical therapies over psychology and its mental treatments. However, psychiatry then had to work out how to establish its physical therapies as the frontline approach for the treatment of mental illness. It decided on pseudoscience and began inventing fictional mental illnesses that contained illusory underlying physiological pathologies like the abnormal behaviour of the nerve tissue and head trauma. As mental treatments cannot remedy physical complaints it meant that the fictional psychiatric complaints could only be addressed by the application of physical therapies that psychiatrists used as instruments of torture. Psychiatry then established the psychiatric system and relegated psychology to a derivative field of endeavour. Psychology demonstrated its complicity by accepting and supporting the psychiatric system and by adopting and basing itself on the fictional illnesses contrived by psychiatry." Witiman (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Then there is the additional issue of the text being anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology, or, alternatively stated, anti-psyche sciences. Being anti-psychiatry doesn't necessarily equate to being anti-psychology and in this case the author is definitely not pro psychology.

As it does seem to be an exception to the self published rule, and I haven't read any higher level anti-psychiatry references, and if no one has any other objections I might start drafting an entry for it on the anti-psychiatry page. --Witiman (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Deprogramming

Any thoughts about adding a short section/paragraph on deprogramming in this article? Zambelo; talk 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The first 2 sources I checked had nothing to do with anti-psychiatry. I deleted those and I'll be working on checking the rest as well. Based on a quick skim, I'm worried this article might need some heavy editing. Let me know if anyone wants to share the load. I'll post a notice on WP:PSYCHOLOGY too. Also, if anyone knows of any RS on this topic that isn't already cited, please do share a link or the citation. I have access to the full text of most journals through work. Permstrump (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The lack of cohesiveness makes this article really difficult to follow. I didn't know much of anything about antipsychiatry yesterday when I first read the lede, but the blatant character attacks and POV pushing from different perspectives were red huge flags. That's what prompted me to start checking the sources and so far, the first 6 I've checked didn't mention antipsychiatry or support the statements attributed to them.
Below are the lists I started to keep track of which sources are relevant, but I'm thinking it might more sense to start this article from scratch instead of actually going through all of them since there are 127 sources in the reference list. I'm posting a request for help in all of the related WikiProjects. I stopped deleting NRS for now while I wait for feedback, but I might restart, because I'm procrastinating what I really need to be doing at work. :) Permstrump (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think starting from scratch should be done( some of the references are useful)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Current sources

Current reference list

1. Tom Burns (2006). Psychiatry: A very short introduction.Oxford University Press. pp. 93–99.

2. a b c d e f g Henry A. Nasrallah (December 2011). "The antipsychiatry movement: Who and why" (PDF). Current Psychiatry.

3. Mervat Nasser (1995). "The rise and fall of anti-psychiatry"(PDF). Psychiatric Bulletin.

4. a b c d e Dain, Norman (1994). "Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry in the United States". In Micale, Mark S.; Porter, Roy. Discovering the History of Psychiatry. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 415–444. ISBN 978-0-19-507739-1. Retrieved2014-01-12. ()

5. Foucault (1997), pp. 39-50

6. Foucault (1997), p. 42

7. a b c De la Folie. Chapter 5: Traitement de la folie, pp 132-133: in Foucault (1997), p. 43[clarification needed]

8. De la Folie, p 44.[clarification needed]

9. Crossley, Nick (2006). "Contextualizing contention". Contesting Psychiatry: Social movements in Mental Health. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-35417-X.

10. a b Crossley, Nick (1 October 1998). "R. D. Laing and the British anti-psychiatry movement: a socio–historical analysis". Social Science & Medicine 47 (7): 877–889. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00147-6.

11. Defoe, Daniel (1697). An Essay upon Projects. London: Cockerill

12. Defoe, Daniel (1728). Augusta Triumphans: Or, The Way To Make London The Most Flourishing City In The Universe.

13. Defoe, Daniel (1740) quoted in Somasundaram, O. (2008). Private psychiatric care in the past: With special reference to Chennai. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(1): 67–69. PMCID=PMC2745864

14. Faulkner, B. (1789). Observation on the General and Improper Treatment of Insanity. London

15. Hervey N (July 1986). "Advocacy or folly: the Alleged Lunatics' Friend Society, 1845–63". Med Hist. 30 (3): 245–275.doi:10.1017/S0025727300045701. PMC 1139650.PMID 3523075.

16. a b c d e Dain, N. (1989). "Critics and dissenters: Reflections on anti-psychiatry in the United States". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 25 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198901)25:1<3::AID-JHBS2300250102>3.0.CO;2-G.PMID 2647837.

17. Kleinman, Arthur (1988). Rethinking Psychiatry: From Cultural Category to Personal Experience. Collier Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-917442-2.[page needed]

18. "Question of the Month – Jim Crow Museum at Ferris State University". Not about antipsychiatry.

19. Beers, Clifford (1981). A Mind That Found Itself. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 0-8229-5324-2.

20. Fennell, Phil (1996). Treatment Without Consent: Law, Psychiatry and the Treatment of Mentally Disordered People Since 1845. Routledge. p. 108. ISBN 0-415-07787-7.

21. Grant-Smith, Rachel (1922). The Experiences of an Asylum Patient. John P. McGovern Historical Collections and Research Center.

22. Reaume, G (July 2002). "Lunatic to patient to person: nomenclature in psychiatric history and the influence of patients' activism in North America". Int J Law Psychiatry 25 (4): 405–26.doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(02)00130-9. PMID 12613052.

23. a b c d Whitaker, Robert (2004). Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Basic Books. ISBN 0-7382-0799-3.

24. Lapon, Lenny (1986). Mass Murderers in White Coats : Psychiatric Genocide in Nazi Germany and the United States. Psychiatric Genocide Research Inst. ISBN 0-9614961-9-3.

25. "The Psychiatric Holocaust – excerpts".

26. a b Strous, Rael (2007). "Psychiatry during the Nazi era: ethical lessons for the modern professional". Annals of General Psychiatry 6 (8): 8. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-6-8. PMC 1828151.PMID 17326822.

27. a b Nasser, Mervat (1995). "The rise and fall of anti-psychiatry".Psychiatric Bulletin 19 (12): 743–746. doi:10.1192/pb.19.12.743.

28. Levine, B. (10 September 2008). "Thinking Critically About Scientology, Psychiatry, and Their Feud". Huffington Post.

29. a b c d Micale, Mark S.; Porter, Roy (1994). Discovering the History of Psychiatry. Oxford: University Press US. ISBN 0-19-507739-3.[page needed]

30. Calton, T; Ferriter, M; Huband, N; Spandler, H (Jan 2008). "A systematic review of the Soteria paradigm for the treatment of people diagnosed with schizophrenia". Schizophrenia Bullutin 34(1): 181–92. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbm047. PMC 2632384.PMID 17573357.

31. Szasz, T. (1960). "The Myth of Mental Illness". American Psychologist 15 (2): 113–118. doi:10.1037/h0046535.

32. D Summerfield (March 2001). "Does psychiatry stigmatize?"(PDF). J R Soc Med 94 (3): 148–149. PMC 1297937.PMID 11285802.

33. "AAAS – AAAS News Release". American Association for the Advancement of Science.

34. Douglas A. Smith (December 19, 1999). "Why Outpatient Commitment Laws Change (Almost) Nothing".Antipsychiatry.org.[unreliable source?]

35. Adolf Grünbaum's The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. Berkeley (University of California Press, 1984); Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis: A Study in the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis. (International Universities Press, 1993).

36. Kotowicz, Zbigniew (1997). R.D. Laing and the Paths of Anti-Psychiatry. Routledge. p. 90. ISBN 0-415-11611-2.

37. Wright, RH; Cummings, NA, eds. (2005). Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-intentioned Path to Harm. Routledge. p. 67.ISBN 0-415-95086-4.

38. "DACIA MARAINI INTERVIEW GEORGE ANTONUCCI" (in Italian). Retrieved 2014-01-13.

39. Smail, David John (2005). Power Interest and Psychology. Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books. ISBN 1-898059-71-3.

40. a b c d "Bruce E. Levine's columns". at AlterNet

41. Fadul, Jose, ed. (2014). "Anti-psychiatry". Encyclopedia of Theory & Practice in Psychotherapy & Counseling. Lulu Press Inc.ISBN 978-1-312-07836-9.

42. Laing, R.D. (1960). The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. Penguin Books.

43. Laing, R.D. & Esterson, A. (1964). Sanity, Madness and the Family. London: Penguin.

44. Ant colony clustering by expert ants, Sadeghi, Z. Comput. Eng. Dept., Islamic Azad Univ. Teshnehlab, M. 2008

45. Parsopoulos, K. E.; Vrahatis, M. N. (2002). "Recent Approaches to Global Optimization Problems Through Particle Swarm Optimization". Natural Computing 1

46. How the body shapes the way we think a new view of intelligence, October 27, 2006, Rolf Pfeifer, Josh Bongard

47. Myatt, D.M., Bishop, J.M., Nasuto, S.J., (2004), Minimum stable convergence criteria for Stochastic Diffusion Search

48. Particle Swarm Optimization by Maurice Clerc, ISTE, ISBN 1-905209-04-5, 2006

49. Hawks, J; Wang, ET; Cochran, GM; Harpending, HC; Moyzis, RK (2007)

50. "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

51. Nasuto, S.J. & Bishop, J.M., (2008), Stabilizing swarm intelligence search via positive feedback resource allocation, In: Krasnogor, N., Nicosia, G, Pavone, M., & Pelta, D. (eds), Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York,

52. Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, 2002 RobertWhitaker

53. a b c Kato, Tadafumi (October 2011). "A renovation of psychiatry is needed". World Psychiatry (World Psychiatric Association) 10 (3): 198–199. doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00056.x (inactive 2015-01-09). PMC 3188773. PMID 21991278.

54. Allen Frances (17 May 2013). "The New Crisis in Confidence in Psychiatric Diagnosis". Annals of Internal Medicine.doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00655.

55. a b Phillips, James; Frances, A; Cerullo, MA; Chardavoyne, J; Decker, HS; First, MB; Ghaemi, N; Greenberg, G; Hinderliter, AC; et al. (January 13, 2012). "The Six Most Essential Questions in Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Pluralogue. Part 1: Conceptual and Definitional Issues in Psychiatric Diagnosis" (PDF). Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine (BioMed Central) 7 (3): 1–51.doi:10.1186/1747-5341-7-3. ISSN 1747-5341. PMC 3305603.PMID 22243994. Retrieved 24 January 2012.

56. Berrios G E (April 1999). "Classifications in psychiatry: a conceptual history". Aust N Z J Psychiatry 33 (2): 145–60.doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.1999.00555.x. PMID 10336212.

57. Perring, C. (2005). "Mental Illness". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

58. Sharkey, Joe (1994). Bedlam: greed, profiteering and fraud in a mental system gone crazy. NY: St. Martin's Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-312-10421-9.

59. Foucault, Michel (1988). Madness and Civilization: a History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0-394-71914-X.[page needed]

60. a b c d e f g Katsching, Heinz (February 2010). "Are psychiatrists an endangered species? Observations on internal and external challenges to the profession". World Psychiatry (World Psychiatric Association) 9 (1): 21–28. doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2010.tb00257.x (inactive 2015-01-09). PMC 2816922. PMID 20148149.

61. a b Rosenhan D (1973). "On being sane in insane places".Science 179 (4070): 250–258. Bibcode:1973Sci...179..250R.doi:10.1126/science.179.4070.250. PMID 4683124. (subscription required (help)). (URL given leads to abstract of study)

62. Spitzer R.L., Lilienfeld S.O., Miller M.B.; Lilienfeld; Miller (2005). "Rosenhan revisited: The scientific credibility of Lauren Slater's pseudopatient diagnosis study". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 193 (11): 734–739.doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000185992.16053.5c. PMID 16260927.

63. Williams, J.B.; Gibbon, M; First, MB; Spitzer, RL; Davies, M; Borus, J; Howes, MJ; Kane, J; Pope Jr, HG; Rounsaville, B (1992). "The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID) II: Multi-site test-retest reliability". Archives of General Psychiatry 49 (8): 630–36.doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820080038006. PMID 1637253.

64. McGorry, PD; Mihalopoulos, C; Henry, L; Dakis, J; Jackson, HJ; Flaum, M; Harrigan, S; McKenzie, D; Kulkarni, J; et al. (1995)."Spurious precision: procedural validity of diagnostic assessment in psychotic disorders". Am J Psychiatry 152 (2): 220–223.doi:10.1176/ajp.152.2.220. PMID 7840355. Retrieved2006-07-02.

65. van Os, J.; Gilvarry, C.; Bale, R.; Van Horn, E.; Tattan, T.; White, I.; Murray, R. (1999). "A comparison of the utility of dimensional and categorical representations of psychosis". Psychological Medicine 29(3): 595–606. doi:10.1017/S0033291798008162.PMID 10405080.

66. "The Ross Institute – Trauma". The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. Archived from the original on July 6, 2008.

67. Neighbors, HW; Jackson, JS; Campbell, L; Williams, D (1989)."The influence of racial factors on psychiatric diagnosis: a review and suggestions for research". Community mental health journal(Community Mental Health Journal) 25 (4): 301–311.doi:10.1007/BF00755677. PMID 2697490.

68. a b Antonucci, Giorgio (1986). Coppola, Alessio, ed. I pregiudizi e la conoscenza critica alla psichiatria (preface by Thomas Szasz)[The prejudices and critical knowledge to psychiatry] (1st ed.). Rome: Apache Cooperative Ltd.[page needed]

69. Sapouna, Lydia; Herrmann, Peter (2006). Knowledge in Mental Health: Reclaiming the Social. Hauppauge: Nova Publishers. p. 70. ISBN 1-59454-812-9. Retrieved 2014-01-12.

70. a b c d e f g Fitzpatrick, Mike (August 2004). "From 'nanny state' to 'therapeutic state'". The British Journal of General Practice 54(505): 645. PMC 1324868. PMID 15517694. Retrieved19 January 2012.

71. a b c d e Gosden, Richard (2001). Punishing the Patient: How Psychiatrists Misunderstand and Mistreat Schizophrenia. Melbourne: Scribe Publications. p. 14. ISBN 0-908011-52-0. (The text of the book in full is available online)

72. Moynihan, Ray and Alan Cassels (2006). Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning Us All Into Patients, Nation Books. ISBN 1-56025-697-4.

73. "Rethinking Models of Psychotropic Drug Action".

74. a b Breggin, Peter (2000). Reclaiming Your Children: A healing Plan for a Nation in Crisis. Perseus Publishing.

75. Peter R. Breggin. "Psychostimulants in the treatment of children diagnosed with ADHD: Risks and mechanism of action" (PDF).

76. Gardiner Harris; Benedict Carey; Janet Roberts (May 10, 2007)."Psychiatrists, Children and Drug Industry’s Role". New York Times.

77. Marilyn Elias (May 2, 2006). "New antipsychotic drugs carry risks for children". USA Today. Contributing: Susan O'Brian.

78. Gosden, Richard & Beder, Sharon (Fall–Winter 2001)."Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies". Ethical Human Sciences and Services 3 (3): 147–159.PMID 15278977.

79. Thomas Ginsberg (28 May 2006). "Donations tie drug firms and nonprofits". The Philadelphia Inquirer.

80. "House of Commons Health Committee: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry (Fourth Report of Session 2002–2005)"(PDF). p. 100.

81. "House of Commons Health Committee: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry (Fourth Report of Session 2002–2005)"(PDF). p. 101.

82. "No Free Lunch (main page)". Nofreelunch.org. Retrieved2014-01-13.

83. "Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals | Society | The Observer". The Observer.

84. a b "Prescription Drug Expenditures in 2001: A report by The National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Educational Foundation (May 2002): Another Year of Escalating Costs" (PDF). National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

85. Read, John (2010). "Can Poverty Drive You Mad? 'Schizophrenia', Socio-Economic Status and the Case for Primary Prevention".New Zealand Journal of Psychology 39 (2): 7–19. Retrieved 8 April2012.

86. Prudic, J.; Olfson, M.; Sackeim, H.A. (July 2001). "Electro-convulsive therapy practices in the community". Psychological Medicine (Cambridge University Press) 31 (5): 929–934.doi:10.1017/S0033291701003750. PMID 11459391.

87. "Paper on ECT statistics at MH Stats Conference – ect.org".

88. Leonard Roy Frank (June 2006). "The Electroshock Quotationary" (PDF). Endofshock.com. Retrieved2014-01-13.[page needed]

89. Semple, David; Smyth, Roger; Burns, Jonathan (2005). Oxford handbook of psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 6.ISBN 0-19-852783-7. Retrieved 2014-01-12.

90. Noll, Richard (2007). The encyclopedia of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Infobase Publishing. p. 3. ISBN 0-8160-6405-9.

91. a b c d Medicine betrayed: the participation of doctors in human rights abuses. Zed Books. 1992. p. 65. ISBN 1-85649-104-8. Retrieved 2014-01-12.

92. Strous, R. D. (2006). "Nazi Euthanasia of the Mentally Ill at Hadamar". American Journal of Psychiatry 163 (1): 27–27.doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.27. PMID 16390885.

93. Birley, J. L. T. (January 2000). "Political abuse of psychiatry". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 101 (399): 13–15. doi:10.1111/j.0902-4441.2000.007s020[dash]3.x. PMID 10794019.

94. "Press conference exposes mental health genocide during apartheid". South African Government Information. 14 June 1997. Retrieved 16 January 2012.

95. van Voren, Robert (January 2010). "Political Abuse of Psychiatry—An Historical Overview". Schizophrenia Bulletin 36 (1): 33–35.doi:10.1093/schbul/sbp119. PMC 2800147. PMID 19892821. Retrieved 16 January 2012.

96. Fulford, K; Smirnov, A; Snow, E (1993). "Concepts of disease and the abuse of psychiatry in the USSR". The British Journal of Psychiatry 162 (6): 801–810. doi:10.1192/bjp.162.6.801. Retrieved23 January 2012.

97. a b c d e f Szasz, Thomas (September 1994). "Psychiatric diagnosis, psychiatric power and psychiatric abuse" (PDF).Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (3): 135–138.doi:10.1136/jme.20.3.135. PMC 1376496. PMID 7996558. Retrieved 20 January 2012.

98. a b c d e f g h i j k l m Szasz, Thomas (Spring 2001). "The Therapeutic State: The Tyranny of Pharmacracy" (PDF). The Independent Review V (4): 485–521. ISSN 1086-1653. Retrieved20 January 2012.

99. Black, Edwin (2012). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Dialog Press.ISBN 978-0-914153-29-0.[page needed]

100. a b Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889–1936. Norton: New York.ISBN 0-393-04671-0. Not about antipsychiatry.

101. Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Knopf Canada. Highlights similarity between Psychiatric treatments and disaster Capitalism.[page needed] Not about antipsychiatry.

102. Baker, Robert (Winter 2003). "Psychiatry's Gentleman Abolitionist" (PDF). The Independent Review VII (3): 455–460.ISSN 1086-1653. Retrieved 12 February 2012.

103. "Curing the Therapeutic State: Thomas Szasz interviewed by Jacob Sullum". Reason Magazine.

104. a b Costigan, Lucy (2004). Social Awareness in Counselling. iUniverse. p. 17. ISBN 0-595-75523-2. Retrieved 2014-01-12. Not about antipsychiatry.

105. Sheldon Richman (March 4, 2005). "Bush's Brave New World". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on 2005-03-06. (Web page changed slightly; this is current page)

106. Davidson, Larry; Rakfeldt, Jaak; Strauss, John, eds. (2010). The Roots of the Recovery Movement in Psychiatry: Lessons Learned. John Wiley and Sons. p. 150. ISBN 88-464-5358-1.

107. Wallace, Samuel (1971). Total Institutions. Transaction Publishers. p. 9. ISBN 88-464-5358-1. Retrieved 2014-01-12.

108. Weinstein R.M. (1982). "Goffman's Asylums and the Social Situation of Mental Patients" (PDF). Orthomolecular psychiatry 11(4): 267–274. Retrieved 2014-01-13.

109. Lester H., Gask L.; Gask (May 2006). "Delivering medical care for patients with serious mental illness or promoting a collaborative model of recovery?". British Journal of Psychiatry 188 (5): 401–402. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.015933. PMID 16648523.

110. Szasz, Thomas (1989). Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry: An Inquiry into the Social Uses of Mental Health Practices. Syracuse University Press; Reprint edition. ISBN 0-8156-0242-1.

111. "Mental Illness On Trial: The Rodney Yoder Story".Stopshrinks.org.[unreliable source?]

112. Szasz, Thomas (2002). "Patient or Prisoner?". Ideas on Liberty 52: 31–32.

113. "UNC study: Mental illness by itself does not predict future violent behavior". UNC Health Care. February 2, 2009.

114. "Search Content | Science News". Science News.

115. "Dr. Loren Mosher, 1933–2004". Alliance for Human Research Protection. 13 July 2004. Retrieved 2014-01-13.

116. Warme, Gordon (2006). Daggers of the Mind: Psychiatry and the Myth of Mental Disease. Canada: House of Anansi. ISBN 0-88784-197-X.

117. Ross, Colin (1995). "Errors of logic in biological psychiatry" in Colin Ross and Alvin Pam Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry. NY: Wiley & Sons. pp. 85–128.

118. Kirk, Stuart A. (2013). Mad Science: Psychiatric Coercion, Diagnosis, and Drugs. Transaction Publishers. p. 326.

119. a b Szasz, Thomas (June 2008). "Debunking Antipsychiatry: Laing, Law, and Largactil". Current Psychology 27 (2): 79–101.doi:10.1007/s12144-008-9024-z. (subscription required (help)).

120. Burston, Daniel (2004). "Szasz, Laing and Existential Psychotherapy". Existential-Human Institute. Retrieved2014-01-13.

121. McCommon B (2006). "Antipsychiatry and the Gay Rights Movement". Psychiatr Serv 57 (12): 1809.doi:10.1176/appi.ps.57.12.1809.

122. Rissmiller DJ, Rissmiller J; Rissmiller (2006). "Letter in reply".Psychiatr Serv 57 (12): 1809–1810. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.57.12.1809-a.

123. Laffey, Paul (2003). "Antipsychiatry in Australia: Sources for a Social and Intellectual History" (PDF). Health & History 5 (2): 17–36. doi:10.2307/40111451. JSTOR 40111451.

124. Seyyed Nassir Ghaemi (2006). "Paradigms of Psychiatry: Eclecticism and Its Discontents". Current Opinion in Psychiatry.(registration required)

125. McLean, A. (2003). "Recovering Consumers and a Broken Mental Health System in the United States: Ongoing Challenges for Consumers/ Survivors and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Part II: Impact of Managed Care and Continuing Challenges". International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation8: 58–70.

126. Everett B (1994). "Something is happening: the contemporary consumer and psychiatric survivor movement in historical context".Journal of Mind and Behavior 15: 55–7.

127. Rissmiller, D.J.; Rissmiller, J.H. (June 2006). "Evolution of the Antipsychiatry Movement into mental health consumerism" (PDF).Psychiatric Services 57 (6): 863–866.doi:10.1176/appi.ps.57.6.863. PMID 16754765.

Reliable sources on antipsychiatry

Potential references to keep/add


Three cheers to the clean up effort! Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Whitaker

I mean Robert Whitaker.

It’s a long time since I edited this article last time. In YouTube I've just watched “Myths and Facts About Antidepressants / Robert Whitaker and Stefan Molyneux”. Perhaps it merits a place in the External Links section, say, instead of the article in Spanish that belongs to the Spanish wiki.

But why is Wikipedia's software blocking the above YouTube interview of Whitaker? —Cesar Tort 23:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suicide

Suicide is only mentioned once in the article. If antipsychiatrist activists are against coercive psychiatry, then aren't they for suicide being respected as a civil and human right? Should this be mentioned more in the article? Michael Ten (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fork article

This article and Controversy surrounding psychiatry have a lot in common. I don't propose merging them but rather separating what is strictly "anti-psychiatry" (a term of the 1960s and early 70s) and the broader criticism of psychiatry. Otherwise the information is duplicated.

I just left an identical message in the talk page of "Controversy surrounding psychiatry".

--Cesar Tort 17:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources which describe "anti-psychiatry" as an "umbrella term", covering many sub-topics. Some sources also discuss the origins of anti-psychiatry from the 1940s, even though the term itself was not coined until the 1960s. User:FiachraByrne is one WP editor who has contributed much on this historical background, and it would be good to get her input here. Johnfos (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's still a fork. There ought not to be two distinct articles describing the same topic.
--Cesar Tort 22:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been five parallel critiques of psychiatry: Thomas Szasz’s conceptual and logical critique of the mental illness idea; the critique of social control through psychiatry (some of this by anti-psychiatrist David Cooper), Peter Breggin’s medical evaluation of the assaults on the brain with drugs, electroshock and lobotomy, the cry of those who have been harmed by it and examining the scientific basis of biological psychiatry.

Exponents of this late strategy, like those academics and MDs that publish in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry have focused on the various bio-reductionist claims and logical fallacies in psychiatry; on the dubious science behind psychopharmacology (Elliot Valenstein), and on statistical analyses that show that poor countries with few psychiatric drugs called neuroleptics (“antipsychotics”) fare much better in the treatment of people in psychotic crisis than the rich countries (Robert Whitaker, whose wiki article I linked above). More recently Whitaker has published more influential books on other psychiatric subjects, taking psychiatry to task on its very theoretical base.

Problem is: with the exception of the old critics like Ronald Laing and Cooper, most of these contemporary critics find terrible the term "Anti-psychiatry”. This does *not* mean that we ought to move this page, only to take note that critics dislike the term. (See e.g., what Colin A. Ross says in the YouTube interview "Psychiatrist admits Psychiatry is Not Based in Science Colin Ross What is Anti Psychiatry").

(Wikipedia does not allow me to insert a YouTube link; that's why I'm pasting the YT title.)

--Cesar Tort 23:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You're asking us to accept YouTube as a reliable source? Goodness me. Anti-psychiatry is a term which appears in many psych handbooks and encyclopedias. I notice that Cooper's book Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry has been reissued in 2013. In the past few years, Paul J Taylor (University of Chester) has written several pieces on anti-psychiatry. These are more the type of source we need to be referencing here. Anti-psychiatry is a notable term, with origins in the 1940s and 1950's, and we need a comprehensive article WP article on it. This article is fulfilling that purpose. -- Johnfos (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent what I said. Robert Whitaker's work has been fairly influential. I pointed out to his YouTube conferences just as a starting point to become familiar with Whitaker's books, not as a source (YT) to be inserted in the article.
And second, I never suggested moving this page or merging it, only pointed out that the content is forked and that we need to separate "Anti-psychiatry" (basically a 1960s and 70s intellectual movement) from the current critical views of psychiatry.
Cesar Tort 17:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Instead of being concerned about being misunderstood, please listen to what is being said to you. I'll say again that anti-psychiatry is not just a 1960s and 1970s phenomenom. There is a lot of relevant history before that. And there is still a lot of interest in anti-psych even today, as the recent references provided previously show. I really think this article hangs together quite well, and am not in favour of making major changes to it. -- Johnfos (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've answered here. Cesar Tort 01:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's a fork and a problem. There's the well-known movement: antipsychiatry, and there are people who are against (anti) psychiatry and they are two entirely different topics which isn't clearly articulated in either this article or Controversy surrounding psychiatry. IIRC there's a 3rd article that addresses the antipsychiatry movement of the 60s with some title that isn't obvious. I will post it if I think of it. I've been thinking that one should be moved to "Antipsychiatry" and I think merging this one with the controversies article makes sense. For now, I'm posting about this at WP:FTN for more input. —PermStrump(talk) 05:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You might have been referring to Biopsychiatry controversy?
IMHO the main article should be Controversy surrounding psychiatry and the others, if well articulated, deserve separate articles. I'd leave this page separate as Antipsychiatry was well known, as a term, when I was much younger. But again, contemporary critics of psychiatry reject the label. Even Thomas Szasz rejected it after publishing his most influential book in the 1960s (see my 23:05, 5 June 2016 comment in this thread).
--Cesar Tort 14:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Cesar Tort: That might be it. I remembered seeing something about antipsychiatry on the talkpage of another article and I might have been thinking of Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy#Not all Antipsychiatry is Scientology. I think they probably could be 3 separate articles, but right now it seems like they are redundant. Are we on the same page? This fell off my radar for a few days and now I'm a little mixed up. I think we're at least on the same page that something isn't working and needs to be improved? :-P I will have more time to dedicate next week. —PermStrump(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Scientology critique of psychiatry really needs a separate article, as no single serious critic of psychiatry uses Scientology sources—a “critique” based on a space religion rather than science.

The main article should be Controversy surrounding psychiatry, and Anti-Psychiatry a sort of branch of the main article.

--Cesar Tort 02:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I could get behind that. Makes sense to me. —PermStrump(talk) 03:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot do it, only pointed out the problem (forked article). Hope others do the job. - Cesar Tort 16:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been on my to-do list since I posted Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8#Sources in Feb. :) —PermStrump(talk) 17:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's consensus in this talk page, I'd recommend to proceed as pointed out above: Anti-psychiatry as a branch of a broader criticism of the profession. --Cesar Tort 01:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like a bit more time please to explore the options, and will then get back to you here. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering how long I've been meaning to start taking a serious stab at this article, but haven't done anything yet, there's no rush as far as I'm concerned. —PermStrump(talk) 05:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The categorization structure at Category: Psychiatry controversies implies to me that Controversy surrounding psychiatry is the main article, as discussed here, and Anti-psychiatry and Scientology and psychiatry (also mentioned above) are important sub-articles. And I think we should just work along these lines, editing in the usual way. I have found the fork/branch discussion earlier in this section to be an unnecessary distraction. Johnfos (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I edited it a while ago, but it was removed--"Anti-psychiatry is the view that psychiatric treatments are often or are always more damaging than helpful to patients" Guess somebody thinks 'anti psychiatrists' can't hold the view that psychiatry is always harmful. It's a dubious edit by somebody high and mighty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.114.118 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bans on conversion therapy

Can we try to clear this up? Editor Joe1w has tried to add the following sentence to the lead. 

In the 21st century, the movement began to erode the legal foundations of psychiatry, such as bans on conversion therapy.[1]

I don't see the referenced page of the book making any such statement. While anti-psychiatry writers like Szasz (who is quoted indirectly and not necessarily on this specific issue) may have made early criticisms of coercive aspects of the practice, nothing much came of it. It took the gradual shift in the attitudes of the broader society and a matching shift within the mainstream of the profession to bring about anything like a ban. To call that ban an erosion of the legal foundations of psychiatry seems to be an unwarranted conclusion or synthesis.

Not to mention that this was added to the lead without there being any mention in the body of the article. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sexual Identities and Sexuality in Social Work: Research and Reflections from Women in the Field", Priscilla Dunk-West. Routledge, Apr 1, 2016. p. 33. Retrieved 8 feb 2017
The reference from the page in the book starts with Dr. Thomas Szasz's assertion that the LGB is deemed mentally ill for not playing the game to fit societal norms and goes on to talk about how this has led to "conversion therapy". Dr. Szasz was a proponent of separation of psychiatry and state and part of the anti-psychiatry movement, so it can be said that the movement has begun to erode the legal foundations of psychiatry in the 21st century.
Joe1w (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Your so it can be said... is precisely the sort of thing WP:No original research forbids. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There was in the body of the article relevant information concerning the gay rights movement which led to renewed conversion therapy movements and subsequent bans. How you can delete the insertion there?
Joe1w (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that TheValeyard removed a similar unsourced statement from the body. Was not me. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Libertarianism, which has historical precedent in the Stoics and in Schopenhauer, is strongly associated with the ‘anti-psychiatry’ movement of the last half century. According to that movement, attempts by the state or by the medical profession to interfere with suicidal behavior are essentially coercive attempts to pathologize morally permissible exercises of individual freedom (Szasz 2002). Benjamin (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're presenting a polemical statement here rather than any sort of actionable suggestion on how to improve the article. Szasz's views are covered reasonably well in this article. While there is some overlap, such as coverage of Szasz in libertarian periodicals like Reason (magazine), I'm not sure you can get very far with asserting "strongly associated". Produce some suitable references and state what you'd like to change in the article please. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Szasz, T., 2002, Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Benjamin (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Independant sources are probably warranted here. We can't cite one book by one author to state that the correlation is "strongly associated". Carl Fredrik talk 06:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Benjamin, you asked if I thought the same content would be appropriate to add at Libertarianism as here at Anti-psychiatry. That's putting the cart before the horse. So far, there has only been your identical posts at both talk pages and it's unnecessary for the responses to happen in both places.
Thus far, you have not proposed any changes to the articles in question. Your Szasz cite, all by itself, does not support your assertion of "strongly associated" and you'd need to be more specific than citing an entire book. What we need here is a source-based discussion of new content that you would like to add, not an argument. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And you don't think the work of the most famous, living proponent of the anti-psychiatry movement is sufficient evidence of this? Benjamin (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_4_szasz.pdf https://libcom.org/blog/thomas-szasz-antipsychiatry-neoliberalism-22102013 https://web.archive.org/web/20050306053352/http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411b.asp https://mises.org/library/libertarian-psychology

Also, any essay by Richard Vatz about Psychiatry. Benjamin (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment

This is a decidedly one-sided representation of the field. It ignores an entire body of literature on the successful treatment of mental illnesses as well as the fact that many of the people cited as critics had absolutely nothing to offer people with severe mental illnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:4000:57EB:CC01:E579:CF39:AF05 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

From the perspective of psychiatry, perhaps, not from the perspective of anti-psychiatry. From the perspective of anti-psychiatry, psychiatry's representation of the field is "decidedly one-sided". There is much literature about cynicism in, and the failure of, psychiatry, and psychiatry has had its "incurables" going way back. To say that many of "the people cited as critics had absolutely nothing to offer people with severe mental illnesses" is to stretch the truth past breaking. Actually, most of the people cited as critics worked with people described as, or labeled, "mentally ill" for a living.Antipsych (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

I have reverted the characterization of anti-psychiatry as a 'fringe' science for being NPOV, and for mischaracterizing the movement. Anti-psychiatry is an umbrella movement with different aspects — there is a philosophical dispute over whether the problems psychiatry deals with are proper "illnesses", there is a political dispute over how society should treat people classified as mad, and there is a scientific argument over whether the drugs are harmful or effective. All are a part of antipsychiatry. Calling anti-psychiatry a fringe science is not only incorrect — there is an ongoing debate over the longterm safety and efficacy of the drugs — but it also overemphasizes the scientific angle over the political and philosophical aspects of the movement. Richard Paternoster (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the fringe label does not belong. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Debate in psychiatry and surrounding its limits is widespread. The anti-psychiatry movement is most assuredly fringe — please see WP:FRINGE. Carl Fredrik talk 06:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at WP:FRINGE. Considering the bulk of the article recounts actual harmful and abusive practices over psychiatry's history, surely the introduction's characterization of antipsychiatry as 'fringe science' downplays the history of the movement for a potshot at the its contemporary status? It's not just another alternative health belief like homeopathy and antivaccination — as the article itself shows, there is a long history here of protest and philosophical thought. While I concede contemporary antipsychiatry is not mainstream, it was a viable protest movement during its heyday in the '60s, and antipsychiatry's primary objections were (and are) not empirical, but ontological (Szasz) and political (e.g. Foucault, coercion, patient rights, etc.). Even if the treatments 'work,' neither Foucault, nor Szasz, nor many other critics' arguments are automatically invalidated. Labeling it 'fringe science' in the introduction misrepresents the movement's history, its nature, and the contents of the article itself. Richard Paternoster (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
No, because valid criticism of psychiatry ≠ anti-psychiatry. It's very simple. Carl Fredrik talk 14:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is pointed to from Controversy surrounding psychiatry#Anti-psychiatry. The "movement" of anti-psychiatry is not limited to purely medical or methodological criticisms of psychiatry. As the criticisms verge into philosophical and political, they start to leave the realm of normal scientific debate. It is because of this shift that I believe the label pseudoscience is inappropriately applied to the movement. And given that, historically, some of the criticisms of earlier forms of psychiatry have become mainstream views (such as the widespread rejection of Freudian psychoanalytic theory), it seems hard to justify applying the "fringe" label to the anti-psychiatry tradition (assuming we allow the modern movement to claim that earlier criticism as their heritage). I'll agree that both of these articles need a lot of work. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe links to fringe science. Anti-psychiatry is not fringe science. The disclaimer below is rather ridiculous, although, by all means, if Wikipedia needs a disclaimer, let there be a disclaimer. The disclaimer below would presume to know, as psychiatry presumes to know, what "mental health" is, justifying the obverse, the cardinal belief of the mental health movement and the psychiatry religion (i.e. in something called "mental illness", their "Jesus" if you will). A disclaimer, perhaps, but don't call anti-psychiatry a fringe view. If you are going to do anything, okay, prove your "mental illness" is actual disease. If you can't do that, don't call the people who dispute the reality of "mental illness" fringe. Physical disease, no problem. Meta-physical disease, big problem. Theodore Roosevelt may have had something to do with this by calling people whose views he thought extreme the "lunatic fringe", but, right there, you've got a slur, not a principled discussion, and definitely not net neutrality. I'm very wary of anti-anti-psychiatry, or pro-psychiatry, trying to bully its opposition into silent submission or, even worse, death. Please, let's not ruin and silence a minority viewpoint through the tyranny of the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipsych (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to misinterpret what fringe is. Also, calling psychiatry a religion isn't going to gain you any points… Please think before you write. There are ArbCom decisions regarding fringe and fringe science.
To point to flaws in psychiatry is not the same as being anti-psychiatry, and to say that there is no such thing as psychiatric disease is just plain stupid. How would you define any disease, be it psychiatric or not? Carl Fredrik talk 20:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I am anti-mental-health-system myself (i.e. anti-libel, anti-abduction, anti-imprisonment, anti-assault, anti-poison, anti-brainwashing, etc., simply put, pro-freedom and anti-forced mistreatment). I figure anti-psychiatry is at least a stop along the road to the position I hold. Call me fringe if you want to, anti-psychiatry, on the other hand, itself should probably not be so marginalized, not so long as it has any adherents.
Can psychiatry prove any of its bogus diseases bona fide? Until such a time as it can do so, case closed. We're not "evidense based" until we let the evidense speak for itself.Antipsych (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Fine, but Wikipedia operates according to the policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Carl Fredrik talk 20:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically, calling anti-psychiatry fringe is to express an opinion, and probably not the sort of opinion anybody calling themselves anti-psychiatry would hold.

I don't think fringe belongs in the first paragraph where the description of anti-psychiatry comes to serve as a definition. It is highly prejudicial against anti-psychiatry (What did I say about anti-anti-psychiatry?) to do so.

If anybody is going to call anti-psychiatry "fringe", perhaps those people would be critics of anti-psychiatry, and they should be doing so in a section reserved for criticism of anti-psychiatry itself. They should not be the people defining anti-psychiatry. It doesn't have to be, and for proponents it most certainly isn't, a pejorative term.Antipsych (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry is not "fringe science" because it's not "fringe psychiatry" — i.e. a psychiatric approach disavowed by the mainstream — but instead a critique of psychiatry as an institution. If I recommended that psychiatrists give their patients guacamole baths, my proposal would be fringe psychiatry and fringe science until I could demonstrate through proper channels the effectiveness of my method.

Hydrotherapy, ice baths, blood letting, emetics, blistering, revolving chairs, and such were anything but fringe psychiatry. Ditto electrically induced grand mal seizures, and people are still receiving those, and psychiatry claims, falsely, that such mistreatments are "safe and effective". Of course, they aren't going to do any real research because if they aren't actually "safe and effective" it's going to effect profits and business as usual. Now there is this transcranial therapy, and it sounds as harebrained as anything (Wilhelm Reich's orgone boxes come to mind), but if psychiatry is on it, it can't be "fringe" can it?.Antipsych (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, neither of the two sources in the first paragraph is sufficient to justify use of the label "fringe", so the word should go right away on those grounds. In fact both of them take antipsychiatry fairly seriously. That being said User:Antipsych should know that he or she is going to have a hard time getting along on Wikipedia if his or her sole purpose is as an antipsychiatry booster. But that being said, the actions of an overeager user shouldn't necessarily produce an equal and opposite reaction. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have a hard time getting along at Wikipedia if everybody here is a troll for organized psychiatry and a psychiatry booster to boot. Propagandists for the psycho-pharmaceutical industrial complex make lousy resisters of social control masquerading as medicine. Corporate corruption is pretty pervasive. When corporate interests buy elections, do I really have to pretend that the wolf in sheep's clothing is actually a sheep.Antipsych (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Antipsych: accusing other editors of being corporate shills is a violation of WP:AGF. Don't do that.

Don't accuse me of being 1. "fringe", nor, 2. an "anti-psychiatry booster" then. My apologies otherwise. I didn't mean to violate any policy. One is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea whether you are "corporate shills", or not.Antipsych (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The only way you will be able to get agreement or consensus is to bring forward some sources (we can debate later whether these sources can be considered reliable or meet WP:MEDRS) that support your favored reading. So far, you have brought only bluster. That's not going to change anyone's mind. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Antipsych, I think you didn't read the first paragraph of my comment carefully. I understand this is a very important topic for you. But as I wrote here and on your "talk" page it can be difficult to collaborate on writing an encyclopedia when people are getting very emotional about the topic. This is true regardless of the very real dominance of the bio/chemical/medical/technological industries on Wikipedia.

I think there are plenty of sources which don't conflate anti-psychiatry with "conspiracy theory" and other examples of "junk science". All you have to do is look at, and cite, such sources.Antipsych (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:jmcgnh what sources do you propose describe antipsychiatry as "fringe science"? This label was added to the article recently with no new sources to support it. In my opinion it's a stretch.
I tried to rewrite the lead a little bit to reflect the existing sources more closely. Both describe antipsychiatry as a "movement" and I think centering on this term reflects the tone of the article. Perhaps that change will help us to move past an unproductive revert war. It would not be undue to add well-sourced claims about what mainstream psychiatrists think about antipsychiatry. By the way this is what the current source (Nasrallah 2011) says:

The antipsychiatry movement is regarded by some as “intellectual halitosis” and by others as a thorn in the side of mainstream psychiatry; most believe that many of its claims are unfair exaggerations based on events and primitive conditions of more than a century ago. However, although irritating and often unfair, antipsychiatry helps keep us honest and rigorous about what we do, motivating us to relentlessly seek better diagnostic models and treatment paradigms. Psychiatry is far more scientific today than it was a century ago, but misperceptions about psychiatry continue to be driven by abuses of the past. The best antidote for antipsychiatry allegations is a combination of personal integrity, scientific progress, and sound evidence-based clinical care.

Whereas Burns (2006) does not remark on what psychiatrists think about antipsychiatry. He does write:

This was not to be a criticism of some of psychiatry’s practices or of failures in the system; this was to be an assault on the very legitimacy of psychiatry.

and in conclusion

The contradictions inherent in psychiatry which generated the anti-psychiatry movement in the 1960s and 1970s have not gone away. Mind and brain, freedom and coercion, the right to be different (perhaps even the duty to be different), nature and nurture remain live issues. Many (though by no means all) ex-patient groups have become militantly anti-psychiatric, often referring to themselves as ‘survivors’ rather than patients, clients, or service users. In Germany and Holland the state contributes to hostels and crash pads for individuals who have ‘escaped’ routine mental health services. The most high-profile anti-psychiatry group is probably the Church of Scientology. While much of their focus is on controversial treatments such as brain surgery and ECT (Chapter 6), they are critical of the whole endeavour. They would argue that we should avoid artificial and technological approaches to human suffering and seek alternative personal routes to relief.
Overall, however, there is now much less concerted opposition to psychiatry as a discipline. This may, in part, be due to a somewhat exaggerated faith in the rapid expansion of ‘biological’ explanations and an optimism that genetic and genomic advances will soon render the whole issue academic. However, while there is less conceptual opposition to psychiatry, there is no shortage of disquiet about various aspects of its practice. We turn to these now in Chapter 6.

I hope everybody has a good day. groupuscule (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Great! some sources. @Groupuscule: I'm on record as opposing the fringe label, but not disputatious enough nor knowledgeable enough to find suitable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Specific sourcing in the lede is not needed as long as it is present in the article. We should label it as such, see See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Obvious_pseudoscience and the sections following the linked one as well. There are a multitude of sources stating anti-psychiatry is fringe — it is not a debatable issue. Carl Fredrik talk 11:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Where, then, are these sources? Even in a web search I see anti-psychiatry called a "pseudoscience" only by bloggers. Meanwhile, the anti-psychiatrists, of whom there are many, published through reputable channels, call psychiatry a "pseudoscience". If you would like to clarify mainstream psychiatrists' view of anti-psychiatry, Mr. Fredrik, perhaps your time would be better spent in producing a well-sourced paragraph or two on this topic. Cordially, groupuscule (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No, that is plain false… I don't have time with this nonsense, I will source and replace most of this article when/if I have time. Anti-psychiatry is most assuredly fringe… Carl Fredrik talk 18:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense, derives from 'no sense', which we are getting from you in bundles. Your augment appears to be based on rhetoric not logic. More like book learning, rather than life experience of the real World. Don't see how your current pontifications can add value on this topic. Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. Huff and blow all you like but ask a physiologist why some sweet young things often hold an absolute conviction that they know.Aspro (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Your proof that anti-psychiatry is pseudo-science consists of what? Otherwise, your opinion violates NPOV. Essentially, anti-anti-psychiatry should not be defining anti-psychiatry in any way it sees fit. Duh.Antipsych (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive_8&oldid=1136524313"