I think this article ultimately champions Szasz’s work. I could be wrong about this, but I believe that the author wrote with the intention of celebrating Szasz and his ideas, not blaming Szasz for his failure to overturn psychiatry as a guild. (By that metric, we’re all failures.)
I left that comment with the hopes of reconciling both the commenters who seemed very angry at this piece, and other commenters who were angry at the first group of commenters, apparently for their anger. I hoped that a reminder of why we’re all commenting on MiA in the first place would serve to soothe the tempers that had been inflamed.
You’re more than welcome to take my plea to heart or not (and it is a plea– not advice or an admonishment– simply a plea), but I would hope that everyone here can recognize the good intentions behind putting time and effort into writing a piece for MiA. The author isn’t trying to deceive you– there’s nothing to “expose.” If there are errors, most authors I know would welcome a correction. (I certainly would.) Just be nice. We’re all working together toward a common goal. 🙂
Thanks for a thoughtful article, Michael, as well as for participating in a (probably overly) heated discussion.
However (and now I’m speaking to a broader audience), before we dismiss commenters for their occasionally bitter, sometimes unkind comments, we should remember that these comments are the product of a very specific context. In the days after Szasz’s death, the New York Times’ obituary emphasized Szasz’s points of agreement with the Church of Scientology, and eulogized him with a disparaging quote from E. Fuller Torrey, all the while straining to avoid mentioning any of Szasz’s ideas. When Szasz could no longer defend himself, there was a rush to bury his ideas as surely as the man himself.
In this context– where ideas critical of psychiatry are constantly smeared and always under attack– reading a phrase like “the failure of Thomas Szasz” can arouse some strong feelings. But we should have empathy for commenters who are triggered by seeing phrases that, at first look, appear very much like attacks on those who dare to oppose the hegemonic dominance of psychiatry. These are people with whom we probably fundamentally agree. The severity and tenor of their comments is probably a reflection of this context, rather than any particular animosity toward the author. We would do well to remember this before judging too harshly any particular commenter.
But all of us, commenters and authors (which is a fairly porous line– one of the prime reasons I enjoying writing for MiA) would be best served by keeping in mind that we’re a self-selecting group. All of us are here for the same reason. We all hope to ameliorate the suffering exacerbated (or sometimes even caused) by the medical establishment in persons diagnosed with mental illness. It is this hope that binds us together as a community.
Except in extraordinary circumstances (such as investigative journalism), MiA does not pay authors. This means that every author who writes for MiA has only one intention– to share something with the community. Every MiA author devotes his/her time and energy, and exposes him/herself to considerable professional risk simply to share something with this community.
As a community, we should assume that others– commenters and authors– in our community are acting with the best of intentions. If commenters speak harshly, it is because they care too much, and we owe them our understanding. If authors seem to be speaking against our beliefs, we owe them a careful reading before we speak against them.
The editors of MiA put a lot of time and energy into soliciting and editing pieces, and to watch a community turn on itself over arguments of tone or moderation is heartbreaking. It undermines the purpose of their work, which is to build a community like this one. Even if we strongly disagree with a particular author or commenter, it is for the sake of the community that we are obliged to be civil, read carefully, assume the good intentions of others, and occasionally, forgive one another for harsh words written in haste.
Thanks for the great links, cannotsay2013! To your list, I’d add the concept of “predictive neglect,” which has been removing children from mentally ill parents, even in the absence of harm. A recent ProPublica found that as many as several thousand cases occur in the United States every year, where children are forced to undergo the very real trauma of being separated from their parents, simply because the state has pathologized mental illness. You can read their excellent reporting here: http://www.propublica.org/article/should-a-mental-illness-mean-you-lose-your-kid
Thanks so much for the encouragement, Wayne! And I absolutely agree about the chilling paternalism of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.
I should be clear– to my understanding, Keris Myrick supports some aspects of the bill, though not the forced treatment legislation. This qualified support hasn’t quite made it into press coverage of the topic, as it is somewhat nuanced and doesn’t easily lend itself well to a soundbite. (The NYT coverage offered a Myrick quote that expresses vague concern, but not about any specific aspect of the bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/health/mental-health-groups-split-on-bill-to-revamp-care.html.) My reporting was limited to media coverage of the bill, which (again) lacks the subtlety of Merick’s thoughts on the matter, so I’m glad I could take this chance to clear that up.
You can keep track of the current state of the legislation via the GovTrack.us website, a project of the transparency group Civic Impulse. The status of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act is here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3717
Please note that even though GovTrack lists the bill as having 1% chance of being enacted, that’s actually the status of the average bill. You can find full details of the GovTrack methodology here: https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#prognosis
Thanks so much for the kind words! I’m glad you found the links to the studies useful. I aim to be as transparent as possible in my research, and give my readers resources that they can cite in their own arguments, so it’s nice to know that’s working out the way I intended.
First, I’m very sorry to hear that you underwent that sort of suffering. I think that we are too rarely exposed to the lived experience of those who have the psychiatric treatment touted as “cures,” so thank you for sharing.
And you make an excellent point about the title of the bill. It’s called the “Helping *Families* in Mental Health Crisis,” not “Helping *Persons* in Mental Health Crisis.” It’s clearly meant to help the people *around* those suffering, not the patients themselves.
Long-time lurker, first-time commenter. I just wanted to let you guys know that I will be reading your comments and taking questions, either here or on Twitter, @ChristianExoo. If there’s anything you think I should know, don’t be shy– your thoughts are always appreciated! (Also, I promise that I’m not nearly as mean as my author photo makes me look!) And if you don’t make it in the next few hours, I’ll be sporadically checking for new comments in the next few days, so you will eventually get an answer. Okay, let’s do this!
Hi oldhead–
I think this article ultimately champions Szasz’s work. I could be wrong about this, but I believe that the author wrote with the intention of celebrating Szasz and his ideas, not blaming Szasz for his failure to overturn psychiatry as a guild. (By that metric, we’re all failures.)
I left that comment with the hopes of reconciling both the commenters who seemed very angry at this piece, and other commenters who were angry at the first group of commenters, apparently for their anger. I hoped that a reminder of why we’re all commenting on MiA in the first place would serve to soothe the tempers that had been inflamed.
You’re more than welcome to take my plea to heart or not (and it is a plea– not advice or an admonishment– simply a plea), but I would hope that everyone here can recognize the good intentions behind putting time and effort into writing a piece for MiA. The author isn’t trying to deceive you– there’s nothing to “expose.” If there are errors, most authors I know would welcome a correction. (I certainly would.) Just be nice. We’re all working together toward a common goal. 🙂
Best,
Christian
Report comment
Thanks for a thoughtful article, Michael, as well as for participating in a (probably overly) heated discussion.
However (and now I’m speaking to a broader audience), before we dismiss commenters for their occasionally bitter, sometimes unkind comments, we should remember that these comments are the product of a very specific context. In the days after Szasz’s death, the New York Times’ obituary emphasized Szasz’s points of agreement with the Church of Scientology, and eulogized him with a disparaging quote from E. Fuller Torrey, all the while straining to avoid mentioning any of Szasz’s ideas. When Szasz could no longer defend himself, there was a rush to bury his ideas as surely as the man himself.
In this context– where ideas critical of psychiatry are constantly smeared and always under attack– reading a phrase like “the failure of Thomas Szasz” can arouse some strong feelings. But we should have empathy for commenters who are triggered by seeing phrases that, at first look, appear very much like attacks on those who dare to oppose the hegemonic dominance of psychiatry. These are people with whom we probably fundamentally agree. The severity and tenor of their comments is probably a reflection of this context, rather than any particular animosity toward the author. We would do well to remember this before judging too harshly any particular commenter.
But all of us, commenters and authors (which is a fairly porous line– one of the prime reasons I enjoying writing for MiA) would be best served by keeping in mind that we’re a self-selecting group. All of us are here for the same reason. We all hope to ameliorate the suffering exacerbated (or sometimes even caused) by the medical establishment in persons diagnosed with mental illness. It is this hope that binds us together as a community.
Except in extraordinary circumstances (such as investigative journalism), MiA does not pay authors. This means that every author who writes for MiA has only one intention– to share something with the community. Every MiA author devotes his/her time and energy, and exposes him/herself to considerable professional risk simply to share something with this community.
As a community, we should assume that others– commenters and authors– in our community are acting with the best of intentions. If commenters speak harshly, it is because they care too much, and we owe them our understanding. If authors seem to be speaking against our beliefs, we owe them a careful reading before we speak against them.
The editors of MiA put a lot of time and energy into soliciting and editing pieces, and to watch a community turn on itself over arguments of tone or moderation is heartbreaking. It undermines the purpose of their work, which is to build a community like this one. Even if we strongly disagree with a particular author or commenter, it is for the sake of the community that we are obliged to be civil, read carefully, assume the good intentions of others, and occasionally, forgive one another for harsh words written in haste.
Report comment
Hi oldhead–
I actually had a few thousand words in Salon about a month ago deconstructing (some of) Torrey’s research. This might be along the lines of what you’re looking for: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/elliot_rodger_and_the_nra_myth_how_the_gun_lobby_scapegoats_mental_illness/
Report comment
Thanks for the tip on Hanna Pickard! I’ll be sure to take a look at her work.
Report comment
Thanks for the great links, cannotsay2013! To your list, I’d add the concept of “predictive neglect,” which has been removing children from mentally ill parents, even in the absence of harm. A recent ProPublica found that as many as several thousand cases occur in the United States every year, where children are forced to undergo the very real trauma of being separated from their parents, simply because the state has pathologized mental illness. You can read their excellent reporting here: http://www.propublica.org/article/should-a-mental-illness-mean-you-lose-your-kid
Report comment
Thanks so much for the encouragement, Wayne! And I absolutely agree about the chilling paternalism of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.
Report comment
Oh, and thanks so much for the nice words! (I didn’t want to forget that!)
Report comment
Hi Johanna–
I should be clear– to my understanding, Keris Myrick supports some aspects of the bill, though not the forced treatment legislation. This qualified support hasn’t quite made it into press coverage of the topic, as it is somewhat nuanced and doesn’t easily lend itself well to a soundbite. (The NYT coverage offered a Myrick quote that expresses vague concern, but not about any specific aspect of the bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/health/mental-health-groups-split-on-bill-to-revamp-care.html.) My reporting was limited to media coverage of the bill, which (again) lacks the subtlety of Merick’s thoughts on the matter, so I’m glad I could take this chance to clear that up.
However, as an organization, NAMI has offered a glowing letter of support for the bill, which can be found at Rep. Murphy’s site: http://murphy.house.gov/uploads/nami%20letter%20of%20support%20Helping%20Families%20in%20MH%20Crisis%20Act.Dec%2011.2013.pdf
Report comment
Hi oldhead–
You can keep track of the current state of the legislation via the GovTrack.us website, a project of the transparency group Civic Impulse. The status of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act is here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3717
Please note that even though GovTrack lists the bill as having 1% chance of being enacted, that’s actually the status of the average bill. You can find full details of the GovTrack methodology here: https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#prognosis
Report comment
Hi Steve–
Thanks so much for the kind words! I’m glad you found the links to the studies useful. I aim to be as transparent as possible in my research, and give my readers resources that they can cite in their own arguments, so it’s nice to know that’s working out the way I intended.
Report comment
Hi Copy_cat–
First, I’m very sorry to hear that you underwent that sort of suffering. I think that we are too rarely exposed to the lived experience of those who have the psychiatric treatment touted as “cures,” so thank you for sharing.
And you make an excellent point about the title of the bill. It’s called the “Helping *Families* in Mental Health Crisis,” not “Helping *Persons* in Mental Health Crisis.” It’s clearly meant to help the people *around* those suffering, not the patients themselves.
Report comment
Hi Ann–
I would *love* to write more for you– thanks for the invitation! And if you’re looking for a takedown of Fuller Torrey’s numbers, I had a few thousand words on that very subject in Salon about a month ago: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/elliot_rodger_and_the_nra_myth_how_the_gun_lobby_scapegoats_mental_illness/
Report comment
Hi MiA community!
Long-time lurker, first-time commenter. I just wanted to let you guys know that I will be reading your comments and taking questions, either here or on Twitter, @ChristianExoo. If there’s anything you think I should know, don’t be shy– your thoughts are always appreciated! (Also, I promise that I’m not nearly as mean as my author photo makes me look!) And if you don’t make it in the next few hours, I’ll be sporadically checking for new comments in the next few days, so you will eventually get an answer. Okay, let’s do this!
Report comment