Monday, May 10, 2021

Comments by rhizome

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • Nathan–
    Thanks for your well-reasoned, careful comments above. As someone who has seen a loved one harmed not only by ECT and psych drugs but also by psychotherapy, I feel strongly that a needed critique of the poor evidence base for psych drugs should go hand-in-hand with critical thinking about the psychotherapy evidence base. Thanks again for pointing out that there are potential harms from talk therapies. We should always be alert to double standards.

  • Conveying respect and dignity to other people involves, I would think, answering honest questions about seemingly contradictory claims. Instead of either acknowledging the contradictions or trying to explain why what seems to be contradictions are in fact not contradictions, Dr. Moffic offers obfuscation and the arrogance of an “expert” who is comfortable in the knowledge that he will not be held accountable. Dr. Moffic is of course correct that no one has to read his comments or blogs: abstaining from doing so would probably be a good prescription for a happier life. Yet it is hard to remain silent when one sees Dr. Moffic time and again in these forums responding with evasion, denial, incoherence, and at times insensitivity and disrespect.

  • Dr. Moffic: I agree with the assumption that it is important to separate and distance the critique of biopsychiatry from Scientology. Yet it is you, in your Psychiatric Times article, who conflates the two in what is essentially an ad hominem attack on critics of biopsychiatry. And then, in your comment above, by suggesting that it might not be possible to know “what is behind one’s moniker,” you deploy a rhetorical slight-of-hand in which you imply that any critic of biopsychiatry might be a secret Scientologist. Claiming to desire dialogue while making such rhetorical maneuvers does not show good faith.