Posted by Jost on October 27, 2006, at 13:54:18 [reposted on October 28, 2006, at 13:04:13 | original URL]
In reply to Anti-psychiatry theory of iatrogenesis, posted by clint878 on October 27, 2006, at 10:53:09
There are others in the mental health and general community who could be called anti-psychiatrict, besides the scientologists.
Some, esp. now that biological psychiatry is gaining legitimacy, consider this a fringe movement. However, it has historical roots outside scientology, for example, with Dada-- which may not count, in a sense-- but more importantly, with the movements of the 60s. Psychiatrists and psychologists such as RD Laing, Silvio Arieti, and Thomas Szasz among others, theorized that emotional problems were caused by bad or destructive parenting, or just were problems in living, as opposed to 'illnesses" (eg Szasz).
How widespread this idea is in the general public, I'm not sure. However, wikipedia says this:
"Critics of psychiatry generally do not dispute the notion that some people have emotional or psychological problems, or that some psychotherapies do not work for a given problem. They do usually disagree with psychiatry on the source of these problems; the appropriateness of characterizing these problems as illness; and on what the proper management options are. For instance, a primary concern of anti-psychiatry is that an individual's degree of adherence to communally, or majority, held values may be used to determine that person's level of mental health. "
Writers such as Peter Breggin still argue that ADs and other drugs used to treat mental disorders are just like street drugs-- useless, addictive, and bad for you.
I don't agree-- but I also think the approach is not just one of people with weird prejudices and odd ideologies.
Jost
poster:Jost
thread:698487
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20061018/msgs/698489.html