Psychiatry On The Defensive, But Ceding No Ground

Philip Hickey, PhD
31
96

On May 27, The Lancet Psychiatry published an editorial titled This year’s modelThe article is a response to the British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology’s  Guidelines on Language in Relation to Functional Psychiatric Diagnoses, which was published in March of this year.

The paper was produced:

“…to support clinical psychologists in the development of documents using language consistent with the Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) position on functional psychiatric diagnoses.”

The paper cites two reasons for dissatisfaction with the present concepts and language:

  1. lack of validity of current systems (DSM and ICD)
  2. growing evidence that the experiences listed in the diagnostic manuals can be better understood as responses to various psychosocial factors, such as loss, trauma, poverty, inequality, unemployment, discrimination, etc…

The paper espouses three principles:

“Principle 1: Where possible, avoid the use of diagnostic language in relation to the functional psychiatric presentations.”

“Principle 2: Replace terms that assume a diagnostic or narrow biomedical perspective with psychological or ordinary language equivalents.”

“Principle 3: In situations where the use of diagnostic and related terminology is difficult or impossible to avoid, indicate awareness of its problematic and contested nature.”

Various examples are provided of alternatives to medical diagnostic terms, e.g. “difficulty” for “disorder”; “suspicious thoughts” for “paranoia”; “compulsive checking/cleaning” for “obsessive compulsive disorder”; etc….

The language guidelines end with a restatement of the DCP’s commitment to change:

“This is an evolving set of guidelines designed to support the practical implementation of moving beyond functional psychiatric diagnosis.  We welcome additional suggestions and general feedback.”

The BPS’s Division of Clinical Psychology has attracted a fair amount of attention in the past year or two by publicly expressing dissatisfaction with psychiatry’s so-called diagnostic system.  The language guidelines are the latest chapter in this process.  The DCP statements are a very significant development in this field.

For almost a hundred years, psychologists who work in this field have gone along with the travesty of psychiatric diagnosis, even though the flaws of such a system are clear to anyone with even cursory training in psychology.  What the DCP is saying, if I understand them correctly, is that they will no longer play along with this charade.  They will no longer pay lip service to these invalid concepts as the entrance fee to work in their chosen profession.

The potential impact on psychiatry is enormous, because, if psychologists revolt today, perhaps social workers, counselors, and psychiatric nurses will follow suit tomorrow.  And psychiatry cannot function without its army of so-called ancillary workers.  This is the context in which The Lancet Psychiatry editorial has been published.  There is a crack in the dike!

. . . . .

The editorial opens with characteristic psychiatric assertiveness:

“Language matters, especially so in mental health, and everyone has an opinion on the terms that should be used to discuss mental illness.”

The central issue in this debate is that the various problems catalogued in the DSM (other than those clearly identified as being due to a general medical condition) are not illnesses.  But with its opening sentence, the editorial sets this entire argument at naught.  And note the truly exquisite contradiction. On the one hand,  “Language matters…”:   the words we use to describe something have a profound effect on our response.  But on the other:  “… the terms that should be used to discuss mental illness.”  By calling these problems “mental illnesses”, they’ve already closed the door to any meaningful consideration of alternatives.

And that’s just the opening sentence!

Then there’s a nice piece of psychiatric chicanery.  The editorial refers to the DCP guidelines and asserts:

“The document states that ‘as a profession, we have publicly [affirmed] the need to move towards a system which is no longer based on a “disease” model’. The basis for such a change is, the authors say, ‘a large and growing body of evidence suggesting that the experiences described in functional diagnostic terms may be better understood as a response to psychosocial factors such as loss, trauma, poverty, inequality, unemployment, discrimination, and other social, relational and societal factors’.”

Let’s take a look at what the Guidelines actually say:

“The DCP’s position statement on Classification of Behaviour and Experience in Relation to the Use of Functional Psychiatric Diagnoses highlights the lack of validity of current systems (DSM and ICD), as acknowledged by both critics and those who support the idea of diagnosis in principle. The full statement is available on the Society’s website (www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public files/cat-1325.pdf)” [Emphasis added]

and then

“Alongside these developments, there is a large and growing body of evidence…”

In other words, the DCP gave two reasons for issuing the language guidelines:

  1. because the various problems embraced by psychiatric “diagnoses” are not real illnesses, i.e. they lack validity.
  2. because these problems are better conceptualized as responses to adversity, etc.

But The Lancet Psychiatry cited only the second reason, and made no mention whatever of the first.  And note that the first reason, which the DCP had clearly prioritized, was supported by a publicly available “full statement“, which runs to nine pages, and cites 34 references.  Here’s a quote:

“At the same time it should be noted that functional psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorders and so on, due to their limited reliability and questionable validity, provide a flawed basis for evidence-based practice, research, intervention guidelines and the various administrative and non-clinical uses of diagnosis.” [Emphasis added]

Incidentally, the term “functional psychiatric diagnosis” is an older psychiatric term that meant “as opposed to organic”.  It was a recognition, commonly held by many psychiatrists prior to about 1960-1970, that many of the problems that psychiatrists encounter were not caused by organic pathology.  The term was quietly slipped to the sidelines as part of psychiatry’s fraudulent promotion of the notion that all psychiatric problems were illnesses – “just like diabetes”.

What The Lancet Psychiatry has done essentially here is sidestep this whole question of whether or not psychiatric diagnoses are real illnesses.  Instead, they focus on the need to recognize (some might say, belatedly) the disempowering role of adversity in people’s lives.  But again, watch where they go with this:

“The DCP argument is worth considering. If mental-health disorders were treated more as distress than disease, might this benefit people needing help, by steering professionals towards a more holistic frame of mind, and putting the onus onto governments to sort out social problems for which clinical and social services might only be a sticking-plaster? Two points support this argument: first, governments could do much more to reduce social inequality; second, the simplistic view in support of biomedical explanations—that by making mental health problems no-one’s fault they are automatically destigmatising—is likely mistaken.”

So, they argue, perhaps there is something to be said for calling these problems distress rather than disease, because

  1. practitioners might become more holistic, and
  2. governments might “sort out” social problems

But note again, all of this is tangential to the real issue:  that psychiatric diagnoses are not real illnesses.  The reason for debunking the concept of psychiatric illness is not that it will make practitioners more holistic, or that it will pressure governments to “sort out” social problems, or that it might reduce stigma.

The compelling – indeed, I would suggest, the only – reason for debunking the concept of psychiatric illness is that the problems embraced by the term are not genuine illnesses.  Other considerations might have relevance and importance, but they are always secondary to this core point.

. . . . .

Having patronizingly conceded that there might be some merit to the DCP’s position, The Lancet Psychiatry quickly reasserts psychiatry’s claim to validity, righteousness, competence, and wisdom:

“However, although language is important, the simple relabelling of mental illness as mental distress is unlikely to achieve much; better care arises from action, not editing. Improved care needs professional communication and research, both of which are aided by concise and precise descriptors, and terms such as mood swings and altered state are certainly not precise. Furthermore, the human mind is capable of having experiences that are qualitatively hard to describe with everyday language. Of course, when talking to a patient, one must use language that he or she is comfortable with, which will often be unique to the individual. Any good doctor can (and does) manage this dozens of times a day. The DCP suggests that a conflict between technical and everyday language exists where, in fact, it does not; and the idea that technical terms such as bipolar disorder ‘assume a diagnostic or narrow biomedical perspective’ is misguided. It is based on a misunderstanding of how doctors are trained, and what the so-called disease model and diagnostic language actually mean to them..”

Again, note the nimble distortion:  “…simple relabeling of mental illness as mental distress”.  The issue is not a “simple relabelling”.  The labeling is secondary to a recognition that the problems are not illnesses, and therefore should not be called illnesses.  By referring to “simple relabeling”, the editorial is deceptively trivializing what in reality is the most profound issue facing psychiatry today.

“…terms such as mood swings and altered state are certainly not precise.”  The implication here being that terms such as “schizophrenia” and “bipolar disorder” with their inherently vague, polythetic definitions, are precise!

And more psychiatric arrogance:  “… that technical terms such as bipolar disorder ‘assume a diagnostic or narrow biomedical perspective’ is misguided. It is based on a misunderstanding of how doctors are trained…”  So that’s it – the magical power of medical training which we outsiders cannot possibly grasp.  All of which is a little hard to reconcile with the spurious, insultingly simplistic notions of “chemical imbalances”, and “illnesses just like diabetes”, which have become stock in trade for the great majority of psychiatrists.

And what are we to make of  “…the human mind is capable of having experiences that are qualitatively hard to describe with everyday language”.  Are The Lancet Psychiatry’s editors seriously suggesting that labels such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, dysthymia, etc., are more fitted to the task of describing the nuances and complexity of human thought and feeling than everyday speech?  Does the statement:  “I have major depressive disorder” better communicate a person’s emotional experience than the statement:  “I feel devastated with grief”?

The editorial continues to sing the praises of medical training and psychiatrists:

“Medical training involves developing autonomy, the ability to make good decisions under acute and chronic pressures, experience of life in often extreme circumstances, and communication with a broad range of people from all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Good psychiatrists know that even the best drug treatments have limited effectiveness in the face of extreme social adversity. To repeat: medical training is not just a process of learning scientific terms of health and illness; it is also about experiencing humanity.”

To which I can only respond that if this is indeed an accurate portrayal of psychiatric training, then most of the psychiatrists I’ve encountered either didn’t get the message, or quickly forgot it when they started to practice.

. . . . .

In the final paragraph, the editorial stakes out the turf:

“Doctors can and should work within a multidisciplinary team, and be able to reconcile different perspectives.”

Firstly, note the term “Doctors”.  They’re referring to psychiatrists, but the use of the more generic term is, I suggest, an attempt to piggy-back, undeservedly, on the value of real physicians, and their consequent prestige and standing within the community.

And then the assurance that psychiatrists should, through interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration, be able to reconcile different perspectives.  But in fact, the two perspectives:  depression is an illness vs. depression is not an illness, are irreconcilable.  So reconciling the differences inevitably means that the so-called ancillary professionals will get into line.

And in case there’s any residual doubt as to what that means:

“The biomedical view is an essential component. New research techniques have proliferated in the past few years, promising much information about the function of the brain and mind; neuroscientists will press ahead with this work regardless of the philosophical bias of services.” [Emphasis added]

So the great neuroscience breakthrough is at hand.  Now where have we heard that before?

. . . . .

Then a mild rebuke:

“It would be lamentable were the providers of mental health care simply not able, or not inclined, to put these findings into practice.”

Note the phrase “not inclined”.  So the psychologists in the DCP are baulking against the great neuroscientific breakthroughs (which haven’t actually happened yet), because they’re simply “not inclined” to do so.  Such wanton cads!

. . . . .

And finally:

“Medical training is a help, not a hindrance, to thinking about mental health.”

Medical training is indeed a great help in dealing with medical matters.  But it is very much a hindrance in dealing with matters that are not.  And this is the crux of the issue that psychiatrists – including the author of this editorial – will not address.  Depression is not an illness; distractibility/impulsivity is not an illness; childhood misbehavior is not an illness; persistent apathy/inactivity is not an illness.  And the history of psychiatrists fraudulently applying medical concepts and practices in the misguided attempt to treat these problems has been nothing short of disastrous.

This issue – whether the problems are illnesses or not – is by no means academic.  This battlefield is strewn with the dead and wounded victims of psychiatry’s relentless, and blatantly self-serving, drive to medically pathologize every conceivable human problem.

Psychiatry has been shaken by recent criticism, including some from within its own ranks, but they remain remarkably resistant to anything remotely akin to critical self-scrutiny, and, as The Lancet Psychiatry’s editorial makes clear, they are ceding no ground.

. . . . . 

And Incidentally

Note the title of the editorial:  “This year’s model”.  I’m not entirely sure what this means, but I think it’s a subtle disparagement of the DCP’s position:  another fad!

On The Lancet Psychiatry’s home page, the journal expresses a commitment to publish  “…news and comment about all aspects of psychiatry…including psychosocial approaches to all psychiatric disorders…and new ways of thinking about mental illness promoted by social psychiatry.”

But apparently the editors are not receptive to the notion that the various problems embraced by psychiatry’s “diagnostic” manuals are not actually illnesses.  So they will consider all aspects of the matter, except those that pose a threat to their anomalous hegemony in a non-medical area.

And Finally

Recently Niall Boyce, MD, PhD, the Editor of The Lancet Psychiatry, was interviewed by The Scientific 23.  In response to the question, “What do you most dislike about your job?,” Dr. Boyce replied:

“What I dislike is almost the flip side of what I like about it, which is that mental health is quite a young field in terms of what we now understand about the human mind and brain. What this means is that although there is lots more up for grabs because there is less known about it than about other medical specialities, there is often quite acrimonious controversy. You have to have a thick skin to navigate these sorts of arguments. It is a painful experience when you know people, you know that they are fundamentally nice and that they want the best for patients, but they disagree in the most awful and sometimes personal ways over issues.”

I strongly suggest that Dr. Boyce needs to recognize that articles and editorials such as the one discussed here, which promote psychiatry’s unsubstantiated assertions, and preemptively dismiss challenges to the spurious medicalization of all human problems, are a major contributor to the kind of rancor and acrimony that he bemoans in the quote above.

31 COMMENTS

  1. Phil,
    I always enjoy reading your posts. Im glad I dont have to have a debate against you 😉

    Maybe you can submit this argument as a letter to the Lancet. It cant hurt.

    About the substance of your argument I basically agree: when ones whole identity and profession is based upon a lie – ie the notion that human distress is reducible to discrete categories and that these categories are anchored in biology- then one must avoid, obfuscate, and deny, ie use the most primitive forms of defense to maintain the precariously perched house of cards that maintains the status quo. Remember, psychiatrists’ ability to keep their status and income depend upon this maintenance. If schizophrenics and bipolars and ADHD kids were rarely medicated and helped to rejoin normal life with primarily psychosocial intervention, then we would witness the national tragedy of many psychiatrists having to retrain in other professions, unable to buy nice cars and big houses, unable to send their kids to college – it brings a tear to my eye to think about that!

  2. I agree with your point about medicalizing human conditions. And saying that people who are struggling with problems in their lives have a disease is demeaning.

    It is also clear that the pharmaceutical industry wants to create diseases in order to increase the market for its drugs. Questionable “diseases” certainly include ADHD, mild or moderate depression, low sex drive, pre-anything (pre-diabetes, pre-hypertension), and obesity.

    But it seems to me that whether conditions such as severe depression or schizophrenia are considered diseases depends on the definition of disease. Certainly these psychological states are not diseases if disease is defined as a condition of the body or one of its parts that prevents normal functioning, that produces characteristic signs and symptoms, and that has known or unknown chemical or structural causes. But if disease is defined as a disorder of normal functioning, couldn’t these conditions be considered a disease? Certainly it is abnormal if you can’t get out of bed for a week because you’re too depressed, or if you’re in a constant state of panic because you think everyone is talking about you on TV.

    I hate to give any ground to psychiatry, which I have personally observed as too often corrupted. But I do question whether no psychiatric condition should be considered a disease.

      • I want to first say that I never mentioned bipolar because I believe it is one of the most abused diagnoses in the psychiatric lexicon.

        I agree that there are problems with the reliability and validity of severe depression and schizophrenia. But it seems to me that there are validity and reliability questions surrounding medical conditions that are known to be diseases. I’m no expert, but Alzheimer’s disease and sinusitis come to mind.

        • Marie,

          I agree “bipolar” is likely an almost completely iatrogenic illness, most of which is caused by medical misdiagnoses of adverse reactions to the ADHD drugs, antidepressants, steroids, and other drugs.

          But I also think the same is true for most schizophrenia, given John Read’s research into schizophrenia and adverse childhood experiences and child abuse. According to his research, the most common attribute of all “schizophrenics” is childhood trauma or abuse.

          https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fnews%2F2006%2F06%2F13%2Fchild-abuse-can-cause-schizophrenia%2F18.html&ei=gR9KVY_IH_SAsQSjtYDwBw&usg=AFQjCNEAHl4HB-W7Q77VVBjUVXZa4DZKsQ&bvm=bv.92765956,d.cWc

          But trauma and abuse are not brain diseases, so should not be medicated. Yet Dr. Read’s other research shows that 77% of child abuse victims presented to hospitals are diagnosed as “psychotic,” but only 10% of non abused children are so diagnosed. And these “psychosis” claims are based on no actual medical tests, but do result in a neuroleptic prescription.

          And the antipsychotics / neuroleptic drugs are known to cause the negative and positive symptoms of “schizophrenia,” via neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome:

          “Neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome is principally characterized by the same symptoms that constitute the negative symptoms of schizophrenia—emotional blunting, apathy, hypobulia, difficulty in thinking, difficulty or total inability in concentrating, attention deficits, and desocialization. This can easily lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. Instead of decreasing the antipsychotic, the doctor may increase their dose to try to “improve” what he perceives to be negative symptoms of schizophrenia, rather than antipsychotic side effects.”

          And the central symptoms of neuroleptic induced anticholinergic intoxication syndrome:

          “neuroleptics … may result in … the anticholinergic intoxication syndrome … Central symptoms may include memory loss, disorientation, incoherence, hallucinations, psychosis, delirium, hyperactivity, twitching or jerking movements, stereotypy, and seizures.”

          So I’m not saying all so called “schizophrenia” is caused by psychiatrists inappropriately drugging trauma or abuse victims. However, Read’s research, plus mine, implies that turning child abuse victims in “schizophrenics” with the neuroleptics is the likely etiology of approximately two thirds of all so called “schizophrenia” patients.

          • Oops, thank you as always for another wonderful article, Philip, and for fighting the good fight. The psychiatric industry is stubborn, but should be ashamed of themselves.

          • “…the most common attribute of all “schizophrenics” is childhood trauma or abuse..”

            Kind of like autism being caused by refrigerator mothers?

            I am a believer in trauma as being at the root of mental distress and do not advocate giving anyone a pass. But channeling Bettelheim is not good strategy, unless the objective is to do more recruiting for NAMI or help Jeffrey Lieberman sell books. Everything matters. Including diet. The evidence is all around us, including right on this site. Take also a look at Dr. Perlmutter’s “Grain Brain.”

          • GetItRight,

            In case you didn’t bother to read the link in my post, I was not “channelling Bettelheim,” I was quoting recent reseach by John Read, et al. I found nothing at the links named “Dr. Perlmutter’s brain grain,” although I may be having problems with my iPhone? But I absolutely agree, good nutrition is very important, and there is a problem regarding today’s GMO foods.

            Are you the mother of an autistic or schizophrenic child whose concerned, or feels guilty, about the fact two thirds of schizophrenics today had symptoms of child abuse / adverse childhood experiences misdiagnosed and mistreated with the neuroleptics? And that the neuroleptics are actually known to cause both the positive and negative symptoms of “schizophrenia.”

            My heart goes out to you if you are, I’m sorry I trusted in doctors who are frauds as well. But I’d politely request you not insult or try to demean my research, merely because you are possibly also embarrassed you mistakenly trusted in the wrong type doctor also. I’m sorry your child was harmed by the psychiatric industry.

    • Marie, You have real clarity in your perspective, so don’t let it slide. The concern you raise is valid and remains valid at the highest levels of deciding what is going on with people and how we should say anything about them–in the sciences of the mind, the philosophies of them, and the various academic critiques, too. Your comment is a pleasure to encounter here. I think Dr. Hickey stays cogent because his overall purpose is constrained by very clear principles. His effort to unmask fraud and shed light on the needless suffering psychiatry creates or ignores is made in a highly pragmatic fashion and according to principles that are very sound. Usually, sadly, in practice, the disease concept is very immediately made wholly literal, and then the supposed disease of mind just magically appears on paper and in every caregiver’s mind. It gets seen around the hospital and by everyone the labelled person ever meets again–almost everyone, that is. Since it is understood as the doctor’s province to declare this mental disease real and dangerous, the doctor will and does and let’s everyone know it however and whenever the doctor likes. Since it can’t be made to go away, the person is just there for this unpredictable and perniciously unhuman disease to make use of.

      Clearly, you see how that routine way of enforcing dependency and compliance works. I just wanted to say that Dr. Hickey to my way of thinking is consciously working toward a point that takes correct account of the facts in all his articles, including the demanding ones that your comment is concerned with. So his semantic discussion seems to me to be limited to the help that this part of deconstructing psychiatric rhetoric contributes for reaching the further goal of raising awareness of the drug plague, in particular, and of therapy for how it always counts. We can rely on him time and again for making more accurate representations of the whole truth than the mainstream bothers to promote. And he hardly represents some extreme of antipsychiatry, I should add. He wants the right processes to take effect so that behavioral healthcare means what it says when it says anything, and so that it works out to proves its value to external critics, too. Whether that can happen in our lifetime, except that all the external critics are happy credentialists just rubberstamping the policies of every other credentialist with some nifty entitlements that Obamacare enables for them all, seems like an open question to me.

    • Marie,

      “If disease is defined as a disorder of normal functioning, couldn’t these conditions be considered a disease?”

      By the same logic, if butter were defined as congealed rock, then congealed rock would be butter. But it wouldn’t be much use for spreading on bread.

      But you have hit the nail on the head, because this is precisely the kind of mental chicanery that underlies psychiatry. T he APA defines mental illness essentially as any significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving. So, therefore, by their logic, all the items in their “diagnostic” catalog are illnesses – just because they say so. But the word illness already has a meaning – something going wrong with the function or structure of an organism.

      What psychiatry does in practice is push the notion that all of their diagnoses are biological illnesses, but when pushed on the matter, they revert to the other definition.

      Best wishes.

  3. Hi Philip
    Thanks for your great article. I have been diagnosed with all the big psychiatric diagnosis. I spent years floundering in mainstream psychiatry but I found successful longterm answers in fairly basic psychotherapy; and I am a happy customer.

  4. I may be too optimistic,but somehow I feel good about the psychiatric profession digging in their heels in the face of well-reasoned criticism. As the public becomes more and more aware of such criticism, it will become manifest that the psychiatrists have dug a hole for themselves that they won’t be able to climb out of.

    • Ted,

      I think you’re absolutely correct. I believe that we need to keep hammering at psychiatric nonsense wherever and whenever we find it. They have no reasonable response, beyond the same tiresome, unsubstantiated assertions. And slowly, the public and the media are beginning to see this.

  5. I think that changing the language is only really a loss for them. Even though we live in a crazy marketed world where up can mean down a push for greater accuracy with language means a push for greater accuracy on the whole I think.

    Some of these diagnosis like bipolar disorder get so elaborate that in the end it just kinda looks like… life… human ? heh.

  6. Good news that psychiatry is ceding ground on the language of distress, even if they aren’t acknowledging the real issues (validity, reliability).

    I think the real issue is less whether counselors, psychologists and others stop using psychiatric language, its when insurance companies stop giving all the money to psychiatry.

    One of the worst aspects of Obamacare is the focus on increased “treatment” for the low income and impoverished “mentally ill”. Anyone who has low income insurance essentially only has access to a doctor, diagnoses and meds. High co-pays and deductibles act as a firewall to getting any other type of holistic care.

    Essentially, insurance companies are approving prescribing seroquel and prozac for poverty. This is where the real battle is- changing how insurance companies operate and shifting money away from drugs and “treatment” to modalities that are far more effective at addressing societal based problems.

  7. Fast and fair, Dr. Hickey. Really great work. I wish we had more people going proxy for your kind intentions, so that the hotly critical language you give back to psychiatric slanderers wasn’t taken for attacking every single psychiatrist personally. To me, you are submitting testimony that helps anyone conscientious about how to try to be safe and helpful in their practice amid remarkably scandalous goings on. And I mean for securing their capacity to have independent voice as underlings to the professional KOLs. No doubt the trade journals and administration centers and professional groups see the few as needing safe haven over the many, and the many ordinary psychiatrists suspect this at times, but the little guys should learn to see how to get more out of your systematic critique in the run-up to making the idea of abolition more popular here. Maybe they will learn how to read it and talk it over less fearfully and bitterly one day at a time.
    Thank you for the inspiration yet again.

      • I don’t wanna just jump on the bandwagon and say how good the article is, but I don’t wanna rain on your parade, either. I agree completely with what you write about psychiatry’s misuse and abuse of language and thus persons, but isn’t it true, at least in the U.S., that the whole idea of “mental illnesses as biological diseases” was invented to justify prescribing Rx *DRUGS*….????…. Look at the FDA, and prescribing guidelines: Just by claiming that a “diagnosis” is REALLY a “real” “disease”, – now the shrink can write a $cript…. Everybody gets a cut of the $$$$. It’s a GREAT SYSTEM…..!!!!….- except for the poor “mental patient”….
        It’s obvious that psychiatry was INVENTED in the first place, solely to make $$$$ selling drugs, and to act as agents of social control over those
        poor drug addicts. It’s a drug racket. The lies that Pharma sells Americans on TV are, to me, proof of what I’m saying here. When Pharma’s advertising & marketing budget is several orders of magnitude larger than their research & development budget, you see where their priorities really are….. Money&Power, Money&Power, Money&Power….
        That’s the *ONLY* thing any shrink I’ve ever known has truly cared about…. If it was just me, I could be an anomaly…. But too many of my friends are *DEAD* because of the LIES of the pseudo-science of psychiatry….. I don’t expect you to agree with my choice of wording publicly…. But please keep up the good work, Dr. H…..

  8. My wife has d.i.d. Though the ISSTD guidelines state that “Psychotropic medication is not a primary treatment for dissociative processes” they then go on to detail how medication is used extensively with these patients. I have shielded my wife from all this. Through a thorough implementation of attachment theory, I could control the worst of her affect issues and ptsd episodes from the start, and at this point, so much of that is just a thing of the past.

    Sometimes I wonder if it’s a combination of laziness and arrogance as to why therapists are so inclined to use medications. Laziness because it’s easier to drug a person into a zombie rather than help them set up strong attachment relationships in their lives who can act as a safe haven during the various issues that assail d.i.d. patients in the beginning. And arrogance that ONLY therapists know how to help someone with d.i.d. I have done things with my wife that no therapist could ever replicate in my 24/7 walk with her thru this disorder. I have complete access to all 8 of the ‘others’ in her ‘system’ unlike her counselor who only talks to 3 of them. I am deeply saddened for the people who come on my blog and only know the kind of treatment that ISSTD espouses. I may be wrong, but I think you would agree that they get the language correct with this disorder(realizing this is just a coping strategy gone awry), but they do NO BETTER when it comes to the treatment that they promote.

  9. Psychiatry is the strong preying on the weak. All troubled people have been mistreated by loved ones, care givers, and are often sent into unvolontary commitment and force drugging by the same so called loved ones when they fight back about their abusers. The abusers are often as pernicious as the psychiatrists they abandon their loved ones to. Most psychiatrists and their staff are sadists.

    The goal of antipsychotics is to slowly destroy the brain of people aiming the most important systems of the body; nervous system, uro/genital systems, and dont solve anything they just hurt the poor patients even more. In fact the goal of psychiatrists and antipsychothics is clearely to “medically” and socially kill weak people that disturb the activities and survival of stronger people.

    There are obviously no mental ilnesses, just people who are weaker than others and when they threaten to fight back againt their oppressors are labeled as “crazy”. There are just people in pain.