From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Peter Breggin, _Toxic Psychiatry_ (Q)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:58:43 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Dec12.205141.25900@newstand.syr.edu>, mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Mark D. Kline) writes:

|> >Breggin does not have to go far to find condemnations of psychiatric
|> >methodology and practice -- and often the condemnations are in the
|> >very words of the practitioners and theorists themselves.  There are
|> >ample quotations in his book from publications of the American Psychiatric
|> >Association and related groups that should appall anyone with an interest
|> >in and any understanding of scientific methodology.  Concentrate on the
|> >rapidly changing taxonomy of "disease", the decisions to now include,
|> >now exclude a particular condition, the criteria for "disease" identification,
|> >the criteria for "success" of treatment (how often is this the testimony
|> >of the "diseased" individual who at the time of testimony has been subjected
|> >to courses of psycho-active drugs and repeated ECT -- frequently against
|> >his own will or preference?).
|> 
|> Shall we give up on the treatment of mental illness, since new generations
|> of sophmores keep asserting that it doesn't exist?  
|> 

This is an implicit straw man argument coupled with a complex question
fallacy.  I don't think that anyone, and in particular Breggin, feels
that we should "give up" attempting to help people who have certain
kinds of problems.  Breggin, in fact, is quite explicit about this
(though as I have mentioned earlier, I find his own positive suggestions
to rest on grounds even less scientific than those he criticizes).  The
dispute is over how one proceeds and the reliability of judtifications
for the treatment in question.

The question above, again, presupposes that the term "mental illness"
has a clearly identifiable sense and that the disease model is a
good one.  Phrases applied to Breggin's (and *other's*) criticisms
of methodology such as "generally not shared by most academic
psychiatrists" are carefully crafted to imply widespread agreement.
But notice even here it is *generally*, *most*, and *academic
psychiatrists*.  Remember, psychiatrists used to think (and not *that*
long ago) that lobotomy was just a *dandy* way to go, and all kinds of
justifications for it were offered.  All you guys who are saying you'd
choose ECT for yourselves want to opt for lobotomy too?

I am surprised at the claim that the disease model is firmly grounded
for schizophrenia since on the basis of my own readings (yes, I do
read) it appears to me that this area is one of the shakiest.  True,
there are a lot of *hopes*.  But compare to the situation in internal
medicine where one can *independently* discuss symptoms, causes, and
treatments, where testable predictions can be made, and precise
mechanisms of infection specified.  The analogy for mental disease
does not appear to be particularly strong.  [Please note that this
is *not* to deny that there can be structural or chemical abnormalities
of the brain that can be treated.  The issue here is whether there is a
mental disease (say schizophrenia) in the same sense that there is a
physical disease (say scarlet fever)].  The attempt to give the impression
that there is near universal agreement concerning the issues that Breggin
and others raise is, I think, disingenuous.






-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm