So in the book of the same title, I was a little bit more explicit. I am vehemently against psychiatry as managed today. The only conciliation is that the biological aspect is important and must not be discarded. In the book I paint a more dystopian picture of the current state of psychiatry. In particular the prevalence of dangerous medication and the over-reaching power of diagnosis of even such normal behavior as grief (I am a psychologist-gerontologist). If my magic wand works I would abolish psychiatry outright. But I do not have that power. I am also aware that psychiatrists and their pharmaceutical industry they are wedded to are the most powerful lobby among us all so far, so we have to work with them. I have written extensive against psychiatry from a more academic perspective especially on Alzheimer’s disease. All available for free http://www.mariogarrett.com
In the short review here, I had to balance the argument to highlight the beliefs aspect in psychiatry.
This took me some time to digest. An interesting, valid, and important perspective. I never talk of beliefs as delusional. We cannot exist without having beliefs; 87% of all Nobel Prize-winning scientists are religious. I also agree that I have my own beliefs. Calling them delusional does not help, as the concept, as you have so rightly pointed out. The etymology comes from “deception,” which I am sure you agree the delusional person themselves are not into deception, they believe in their experience. You are accurate in determining that we are constrained by language. Ludwig Wittgenstein made that observation, as many others before him. Perhaps the most complex of problems in science which is why we have moved slowly. The only method we have to explore is to discuss and find some common ground.
A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet. There will always be a vacuum for controlling madness. Whether it is psychiatrists or another group. However much we would like to abolish psychiatry, we are unlikely to replace it with something better because it is based on “power.” As long as mad people have little power, there will always be those who will take over control. What is needed is policy. We need to restrain their power and give it back to the client/patient. I think there is a movement, albeit slow, that is doing that now. We are comrades in arms!
I agree, but just because they share custody of patients does not mean that they are not divorced (pun intended). I agree, however, that the DSM is a source of income to clinical Social Workers, Psychologists, and other peripheral clinical services. It is an edifice that the psychiatrists have used to “allow” reimbursement for all kinds of services. It would be difficult to abolish it outright because so many people have so much invested in it. A similar argument to yours is made by Gary Greenberg in The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry. I believe that although the DSM is intractable, it can be sidestepped in the future by outcome reimbursement. Something that was tried already with the ACA and hospital intake recidivism.
So in the book of the same title, I was a little bit more explicit. I am vehemently against psychiatry as managed today. The only conciliation is that the biological aspect is important and must not be discarded. In the book I paint a more dystopian picture of the current state of psychiatry. In particular the prevalence of dangerous medication and the over-reaching power of diagnosis of even such normal behavior as grief (I am a psychologist-gerontologist). If my magic wand works I would abolish psychiatry outright. But I do not have that power. I am also aware that psychiatrists and their pharmaceutical industry they are wedded to are the most powerful lobby among us all so far, so we have to work with them. I have written extensive against psychiatry from a more academic perspective especially on Alzheimer’s disease. All available for free http://www.mariogarrett.com
In the short review here, I had to balance the argument to highlight the beliefs aspect in psychiatry.
Report comment
This took me some time to digest. An interesting, valid, and important perspective. I never talk of beliefs as delusional. We cannot exist without having beliefs; 87% of all Nobel Prize-winning scientists are religious. I also agree that I have my own beliefs. Calling them delusional does not help, as the concept, as you have so rightly pointed out. The etymology comes from “deception,” which I am sure you agree the delusional person themselves are not into deception, they believe in their experience. You are accurate in determining that we are constrained by language. Ludwig Wittgenstein made that observation, as many others before him. Perhaps the most complex of problems in science which is why we have moved slowly. The only method we have to explore is to discuss and find some common ground.
Report comment
Yes, I see this more as political dynamics.
Report comment
A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet. There will always be a vacuum for controlling madness. Whether it is psychiatrists or another group. However much we would like to abolish psychiatry, we are unlikely to replace it with something better because it is based on “power.” As long as mad people have little power, there will always be those who will take over control. What is needed is policy. We need to restrain their power and give it back to the client/patient. I think there is a movement, albeit slow, that is doing that now. We are comrades in arms!
Report comment
I agree, but just because they share custody of patients does not mean that they are not divorced (pun intended). I agree, however, that the DSM is a source of income to clinical Social Workers, Psychologists, and other peripheral clinical services. It is an edifice that the psychiatrists have used to “allow” reimbursement for all kinds of services. It would be difficult to abolish it outright because so many people have so much invested in it. A similar argument to yours is made by Gary Greenberg in The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry. I believe that although the DSM is intractable, it can be sidestepped in the future by outcome reimbursement. Something that was tried already with the ACA and hospital intake recidivism.
Report comment
This is a summary of the book “Beliefs that Create Madness” (2025)
https://www.amazon.com/Beliefs-Create-Madness-Mario-Garrett/dp/B0DCTR5V8D
Report comment