Opinions on psychiatry/psychiatrists.

[jajdude]

This topic arose after watching some video on the you tube that really did its best to make psychiatry seem like the most evil thing ever. The guy who put the video up had an axe to grind as he had had some bad experience with the whole inexact business. Because long ago medication saved/improved my life, I have a different opinion. Nobody's experience or opinion can be the truth. No one knows what that is.

Anyway, there are many people who are against psychiatry. More and more new conditions and illnesses are found somehow. The criticism is that these are invented to make money. More people are taking medications than ever before. So the whole thing must be evil and greedy and not one kind and caring shrink exists. Such appeared to be the bias of that video anyway.

Yet millions are helped, somehow. That kind of puts a damper on the evilness of the practice.

I guess it's not a science. People want exactness, accuracy from science. They hold science up to strict ideals. The word itself, "science" strikes a note of reverence and seriousness. Much easier to be on the mark with the body than than the mind. So when someone is misdiagnosed or the pills don't help or make things worse, they freak out, and the whole thing is evil.

That's enough for now.

[cafolini]

This topic arose after watching some video on the you tube that really did its best to make psychiatry seem like the most evil thing ever. The guy who put the video up had an axe to grind as he had had some bad experience with the whole inexact business. Because long ago medication saved/improved my life, I have a different opinion. Nobody's experience or opinion can be the truth. No one knows what that is.

Anyway, there are many people who are against psychiatry. More and more new conditions and illnesses are found somehow. The criticism is that these are invented to make money. More people are taking medications than ever before. So the whole thing must be evil and greedy and not one kind and caring shrink exists. Such appeared to be the bias of that video anyway.

Yet millions are helped, somehow. That kind of puts a damper on the evilness of the practice.

I guess it's not a science. People want exactness, accuracy from science. They hold science up to strict ideals. The word itself, "science" strikes a note of reverence and seriousness. Much easier to be on the mark with the body than than the mind. So when someone is misdiagnosed or the pills don't help or make things worse, they freak out, and the whole thing is evil.

That's enough for now.

Firstly let me tell you that a shrink is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. A marked difference.
Apart from that, I agree with you that a psychiatrist has better remedies for situations of stress and is more up to handle specific cases, although, of course, he/she does not know for sure, with absolute certainty if what he prescribes is going to work for the particular patient. But more times than when it doesn't work, it does. It's closer to science because it works on the senses. But you are correct. There are no garantees. Glad it was of help to you when you needed it.

[Gladys]

Yet millions are helped, somehow. That kind of puts a damper on the evilness of the practice.

This help is easier to assert than to prove. The "science" that supports your view tends to be funded by those with vested interests in pharmaceuticals or psychiatry. There's the placebo effect: almost any treatment is better than none, at least in the short term. And many conditions untreated, improve with time for innumerable reasons.

Both lobotomy and organ removal, along with shock treatment, were considered state of the art treatments for mental illness around WWII. Psychological debriefing for those exposed to trauma was acclaimed a godsend a decade ago. Prosac has recently attracted growing criticism. Which of today's treatments, now accepted with almost religious fervour, will be discredited in the near future?

A study a few years back compared the efficacy of several treatments including drug therapy, psychoanalysis, behavioural modification, and talking with your local pastor, and found that all of them worked to about the same extent! Interesting are recent reports that the social and cultural dimensions of mental illness, including schizophrenia, have been much underrated.

[manuscript]

the idea that science is inherently precise is kind of a little bit imprecise itself though isnt it? in reality, a lot of science, especially related to life, is not about finding "the answer", but about testing responses to different stimuli, and making statements of possibility based on outcomes of greatest frequency. and so a favourable result is determined by "hypothesis not disproven" rather than "hypothesis proven".

medical science has a long way to go, and not just psychiatry. we are fumbling in the dark, testing out different cancer and aids medications on our patients, hoping by previous indications that we will achieve certain results, but never certain. maybe a particular patient turns out to have an unexpected reaction to a certain medication that worked for others, and it actually kills that person. it is a terrible tragedy; we were doing our best; how could we know? maybe we can learn from this and develop a way to test for this reaction before administering a full course of the medication?

i am interested in the study mentioned by Gladys. what kind of illnesses had the participants been diagnosed with, and had the diagnoses been determined to be in a great degree accurate, and how complex and persistent had their problems been? were the patients treated with each method compared to other patients who had been treated with multiple methods? was the drug treated group controlled for the possibilities that different patients may have been treated with different drugs that may have been more or less appropriate to their particular problems? were the outcomes of the treatments followed up over time and controlled for any other possible treatments the participants may have received?

obviously, treatments are not yet what they will be years from now. we need to come up with new ideas for ways these illnesses may be treated, some of which may be rejected completely, others of which may be reserved for only very specific cases, such as ECT. things are not what we might wish them to be, but that does not mean that progress is not being made.

[Phocion]

I would just say be careful who you take advice from, they are people like any other, and just as prone to fallacy.

Psychiatry can have negative effects in that it causes you to dwell on the past, which only reinforces the neuronal pathways that become more difficult to break. It is useful in that it can help you unearth things that are causing you bother without you being aware of it, but only in that it makes you aware of what you need to push from your mind.

This is why to be a reliable psychiatrist i think an extensive knowledge of Neuropsychopharmacology is salient.

[manuscript]

.need to think more

[Delta40]

I think one has to develop a trust relationship with their pdoc just like you would expect with any other medical professional you have regular dealings with. In my experience, a psychologist is the person to see to dwell on the past, sort through stuff and undergo any variety of therapies while your pdoc can oversee your progress, supervise your meds and discuss your prognosis with you etc. It isn't a counselling session. I'm fortunate to have two professionals who are very clear on the boundaries of our relationship and this is how it operates and I appreciate other people might want more from their pdoc.

[jajdude]

"Firstly let me tell you that a shrink is a psychologist"

What? You sure about that are ya? We have the Internet and the "google" right in front of us my friend.

Thank you all for your replies. I did not think out my original post very carefully. It was a poor post, one to just get the ball rolling. The topic is hard. It's old. It is full of moss. It rolls, and gathers. Who knows about this? Yay or nay?

I say yay. Keep on studying the mind. I disagree with the much maligned down think on the subject. It had to come from somewhere. Let it be. If you have a better answer to how the mind works, come and tell us.

But, then "There are no garantees." eh cafolini.

[Gladys]

If you have a better answer to how the mind works, come and tell us.

Thanks for the gracious invitation. :drool5:

For a healthy mind: get a good night's sleep, eat a non-processed varied diet with sardines aplenty, exercise twice a day, bask a little in the midday sun, socialise with tolerant friends, always keep a good book on the boil and, if all else fails, confide in someone with a bit of sense and sensibility.

[Delta40]

or live in a third world country where you don't have time to dwell on how the mind works....

[MystyrMystyry]

For a healthy mind: get a good night's sleep, eat a non-processed varied diet with sardines aplenty, exercise twice a day, bask a little in the midday sun, socialise with tolerant friends, always keep a good book on the boil and, if all else fails, confide in someone with a bit of sense and sensibility.

Those sardines sound a bit fishy to me - do they count as non-processed? Good thing that Sense and Sensibility is boiling away, because if it fails to appetize it could always send one into a good night's sleep, hopefully not at midday though, when one could go visiting friends at lunch time and eat their food. Finally arriving home should count as two exercises if they live far enough away.

[manuscript]

. sorry, i need to think more about this topic before responding impulsively.

[jajdude]

or live in a third world country where you don't have time to dwell on how the mind works....

A good point. Just looking up a drug I got info that about half of the worldwide sales was in the US. In many countries the drug may not even be for sale. In some countries there are "western-style" hospitals that charge extremely high rates for foreigners, who may be the only ones who seem to take certain medications or need them. Not that poor people or people of any culture are immune to the same illnesses as the wealthier countries who seem
to suffer from them more, but that they don't have the same tendency to resort to pills, which could be a major expense. Culture and stigma also play a role in how much mental illness gets treated, and in how it gets treated.

[manuscript]

ok i lived in a third world country but i still kept thinking about the workings of the mind what am i supposed to do now?

[caddy_caddy]

Yet millions are helped, somehow. That kind of puts a damper on the evilness of the practice.

I guess it's not a science. People want exactness, accuracy from science. They hold science up to strict ideals. The word itself, "science" strikes a note of reverence and seriousness. Much easier to be on the mark with the body than than the mind. So when someone is misdiagnosed or the pills don't help or make things worse, they freak out, and the whole thing is evil.

You tell me " misdiagnosed "??????:crazy:
SO,they experiment on us. That's very accurate really. Try this and try that.
Yes , you have right to freak out .
Because when you go to a pshychiatrist you think you're going to a man of science not to a witch or a man of superstition who sells you illusions!!

[Admin]

Psychiatrists graduate from the same medical schools as cardiologists, surgeons, etc. They take the same courses, go to the same classes. In fact, the first 9 years (4 year undergrad, 4 year med school, 1 year internship) of a doctor's education is more or less identical no matter what field they go into to. Future psychiatrists are forced to intern for a rotation as surgeons, future surgeons are forced to intern for a rotation as a psychiatrist, etc. Brain science is not as well developed as some other areas, but the field is certainly a scientific one in search of facts and truth.

One problem is sometimes patients go on medications, think they're cured because they feel better, then go off the medications (often against the doctor's orders) and get upset when the problems come back. If you have a chronic disease like hyperthyroidism you need to take a pill a day, for the rest of your life, to keep it in check, mental disorders need not be any different. Most have a genetic basis, you cannot cure something like schizophrenia, you can take medications to treat it, to prevent the symptoms from manifesting, but you're not curing it.

Someone above mentioned getting sunlight, you may be surprised that you'd get that advice from a psychiatrist, but you would. There are studies showing vitamin-D plays a role in combating depression, and our bodies need sunlight to manufacture vitamin-D. Likewise there are also studies on eating fish, because Omega-3s are shown to play a role, and exercise too. You wouldn't blame the cardiologist for prescribing a statin to control cholesterol in a sedentary overweight adult that refuses to exercise or eat right, the field of psychiatry isn't much different. Patients want easy fixes, and those are pills.

[Gladys]

Most have a genetic basis, you cannot cure something like schizophrenia, you can take medications to treat it, to prevent the symptoms from manifesting, but you're not curing it.

That mental illness has a genetic basis is hardly surprising: all illness and good health does too. Genes come with a veritable multitude of switches many of which are turned on or off by environmental factors.

What is the evidence that schizophrenia is incurable? The fact twentieth-century psychiatry has had no success is scarcely evidence - what with lobotomy, organ removal, ETC and crude drugs (inadequately tested) in its arsenal.

I gather prominent epidemiological studies of schizophrenia have been seriously flawed.