Talk:Biological psychiatry

message: If no objections I will move the paragraph —:
The movement, bolstered by groups with similar criticisms of biological psychiatry (such as the Church of Scientology), is often labeled, sometimes derogatorily, as Anti-psychiatry. Others with an anti-psychiatry point of view do not dispute the notion that certain behavior phenotypes have an organic basis, but dispute the labeling of neurological differences as disordered and inferior (see, for example, the autism rights movement and the neurodiversity concept).
—to the main Psychiatry article, where it belongs.  Reason: the Church of Scientology’s CCHR does not focus on biological psychiatry, but on psychiatry in general. —Cesar Tort 03:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Cesar, This article would appear to disagree with your analysis. Rockpocket 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CCHR

message: I think some mention of Neuropsychiatry, and link to that article, fairly early on. Anyone agree/disagree? Neuropsychology 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore that, I have just seen it is in there. Neuropsychology 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuropsychiatry

message: The last part of this section reads "Furthermore, some scientists feel that psychiatry is a light science as that there is no tangible evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders. Thus, biological psychiatry may be the key to bring psychiatry into the realm of actual science." (After some grammatical corrections). The first sentence seems rather POV and probably a reference is needed.  I am also not certasin that the expression "evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders" is correct. --Crusio 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: The quote from the journal description:
:Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (EHPP) is a peer-reviewed journal ... examining all the ramifications of the idea that emotional distress is due to an underlying organic disease that is best treated with pharmacological therapy. This oversimplified view of human nature permeates virtually every area of our society... 
I have remove the request from the article. Rockpocket 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Quote 

message: An RfC has been created on  Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy]] 

message: The removed information was purely about developmental psychobiology, not about the subheading topic. The purpose of this article is about biological psychiatry, not about developmental psychobiology. That article is the appropriate location to add such information. Joema (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed non-sequitur about developmental psychology 

message: calling a group of people that dislike something something a vocal minority sounds highly pov and like an attempt to downplay things.  It's also a statement that cannot be verified. Added a neutrality disputed template.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.60.103 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A vocal minority 

message: The final sentence of the introduction (as stands) states that 'The field, however, is not without its critics...'.  It seems only fair that, especially given Psychiatry's proclivity towards being misused for state/political control (not just in Communist states), there should be a link to Biopsychiatry controversy which indicates why this term may be misleading.  Some might argue that Biological Psychiatry is the name given to try and provide Scientific credence to theories that many other Scientists would dismiss offhand as being based upon fallacious reasoning.  Further, I find it difficult to imagine that there is even a single Psychiatrist who would argue that EVERY 'disorder' (note: NOT disease) within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, has a neurobiological basis.  
The whole article could be seen as an attempt by Psychiatrists to provide a Post-Hoc Justification for keeping so many people locked up in (expensive) Psychiatric institutions using tenuous Pseudo-Scientific justifications which *appear* scientific (one of which is the term Biopsychiatry).  One could try to justify Quackery using the term 'Biological Quackery' to achieve the same (unconvincing) sticking plaster results.  The key point to realise is the SCIENTIFICALLY based Medical Tests are often NOT used in reaching Psychiatric Diagnoses.  Whereas one can objectively test for high blood pressure using a blood pressure meter, or use brain scans to find a brain tumour, such objective tests are ALMOST-NEVER used in Psychiatry.  Also, we find that people often find there way into Psychiatry after engaging in criminal (including misdemeanour) acts, or even visiting Political Demonstrations.  
Given Psychiatry's conflation with the misuse of power (both now and in the past) we should be concerned as to whether any attempt at Scientific justification could possibly negate the highly questionable practices of Pscyhiatry.  This is perhaps a criticism of practice and not theory - Scientists and Doctors are held to high ethical standards (say, to make sure that they don't make-up results), why shouldn't Psychiatrists be held to those same standards?
I will be making a minor modication to the introduction to refer people to the Biopsychiatry controversy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASavantDude (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of 'Biopsychiatry controversy' in Introduction

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biological psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318051743/http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html to http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830113155/http://www.umaine.edu/jmb/archives/volume11/11_3-4_1990summerautumn.html to http://www.umaine.edu/JMB/archives/volume11/11_3-4_1990summerautumn.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318051743/http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html to http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Biological psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613185709/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Bi/Biological_Psychiatry.html to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Bi/Biological_Psychiatry.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613192013/http://www.sobp.org/purpose.asp to http://www.sobp.org/purpose.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506221541/http://medapps.med.harvard.edu/psych/education-residency.htm to http://medapps.med.harvard.edu/psych/education-residency.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516124057/http://www.delano.com/ReferenceArticles/Depression-Historical.html to http://www.delano.com/ReferenceArticles/Depression-Historical.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308092048/http://www.springerpub.com/journal.aspx?jid=1559-4343 to http://www.springerpub.com/journal.aspx?jid=1559-4343
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified