From: mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Mark D. Kline)
Subject: Psychiatry & Antipsychiatry (was Re: Xanax)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:38:28 EDT

Apologies to the net for previous bungled post...

In article <1992Sep1.213610.14277@newshost.lanl.gov> gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave) writes:
>At the risk of stepping in where angels fear to tread, I have a couple
>of questions regarding the current climate in psychiatry.  My
>impression from a few conversations I've had with psychiatrists is that
>the only group as such within psychiatry that's leery of medicines is
>the psychoanalytic crowd.  Is this the same as the "rabid minority
>movement"?  My understanding is that the basis of their dislike for
>medication is the notion that the success of psychoanalysis depends on
>one's ability to clearly see oneself and one's history, and that drugs
>impair that ability.  The psychoanalyst I know, however, says she'll
>prescribe drugs if it's warranted, but I didn't feel comfortable
>pressing for details.  So, who's in this "rabid movement" and why?
	[ stuff deleted ]

There is no empirical support for the antigue notion that 
that drugs impair the ability to "clearly see oneself and one's
history."  There is no evidence that appropriately prescribed psycho-
tropics interfere with psychotherapy of any kind, including psychoanalytic
psychotherapy.  In practice, people very often find psychotherapy more
valuable to them once their symptoms are under control; then they don't
spend their therapy sessions complaining about how bad they feel, and
get about the business of figuring out how better to live.

The antipsychiatry movement is generally composed of non-professionals,
although there are a few psychiatrist patron-saints of the movement;
people like Thomas Szasz, RD Laing, and Peter Breggin.  Many of the
rabid antipsychiatrists are cultists (like the scientologists) who
have ulterior motives for believing that psychiatry is somehow harmful.
Many former "consumers of mental health services" (ex-patients) are
also involved in the movement to ban ECT, psychiatric drugs, etc.
Unfortunately, many ex-patients have legitimate gripes against the
"mental health system" where they may have had bad, even really
terrible experiences.  As one of my old supervisors told me,
there may be a grain of truth in every paranoid delusion.  Sad to
say, but psychiatric treatments which are effective (medications
and ECT, for example) have a tragic history of abuse now hopefully
mostly in the past.

The future for psychiatry -- in terms of what we can do for our
patients  -- is incredibly bright.  The economnic forecast is another
story :).  Better understanding of the CNS pathophysiology of major
mental illness means better treatment, eventually.  Psychiatrists will
always ideally be doctors of mind & body; colleagues to other medical
specialists, on the one hand, and colleagues to others who study &/or
treat behavior & its dysfunctions (neuroscientists, ethologists,
anthropologists, psychologists, social workers, etc).  God knows we
don't always measure up to that ideal in the present, but hopefully
the specialty will continue to approach it in the future.  


--
================================================================= 
mark kline                              mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu
suny health science center, syracuse    voice: (315) 422-1050
================ courtesy of syracuse university ================
Newsgroups: sci.med