Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#111

Post by Houshalter »

mattnewport wrote: post #80
phren0logy wrote: post #21

I'm a psychiatrist. It is always amazing to me that despite four years of medical school, six years of residency and fellowships, and four board certifications, the assumption is that I have no idea what I'm talking about and have evil motives. There are fair criticisms of psychiatry, there are bad psychiatrists, but mostly there are crappy generalizations. Good psychiatrists have an understanding of what medications…

I'm curious what you make of the claims Robert Whitaker makes in "Anatomy of an Epidemic" and elsewhere? Psychiatry comes off looking quite bad in his analysis and he is far from the only critic of the profession. My attempts to find convincing rebuttals of his claims from Psychiatrists have so far drawn a blank. In a nutshell for those not familiar with the book, he presents convincing evidence that most psychiatric…

I just heard a convincing criticism of our mental health system from the invisibilia podcast. They went to a European town where mentally ill people were assigned to live with regular people to take care of them. And that they had much better outcomes than in the US.

The full episode is here, there's a lot of interesting observations in it: http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/483855073/the-proble...

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#112

Post by Houshalter »

pm90 wrote: post #95
digitalarborist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably that otherwise normal people just don't make it into the stories because they're not as memorable. Though often you'll hear of people otherwise healthy who are down on their luck, addiction problems, abuse, or just general anxiety and depression. The other problem is that the definition of sane changes depending on context. I recall watching a documentary on Japanese school children and their attitudes towar…

I feel this comment really hits the spot on the current "epidemic" of ADHD diagnosis and prescriptions. Parents are sooooo worried about their kids not being "normal" (i.e. docile and obedient) that they will do anything to make that happen. I almost feel that it was better before we had modern medicine when parents were resigned to dealing with their kids' unique character instead of chemically forcing them into sub…

Ugh I hate this myth that "ADHD ain't real". It's a real condition that hugely impacts life outcomes. Sure there are worse diseases, and unlike other conditions ADHD people appear normal on the outside. But it makes it hugely difficult to do normal things and succeed in society. Sufferers commonly drop out of school, get worse jobs, are more likely to get involved in crime, and are less happy.

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#113

Post by Sone7 »

cgriswald wrote: post #70
Sone7 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't do that. You can look up the debilitating side effects yourself. Asking someone to re-live watching their loved one lose their self from benzos or anti-psychotics that were prescribed as a first measure rather than a last resort - which Does happen, and far too often - is crueler than you know.

Nonsense. Asking for evidence and examples is not "cruel", especially when a broad claim is being made based on a personal experience. I have many dark, hurtful experiences in my life. And when I share them, the only thing I expect in return is respect. Asking a question about my experience or asking me to provide evidence in support of my broader claims is not disrespectful. It's something I would expect might happe…

There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was.

I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way.

Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed.

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#114

Post by jokoon »

The future is really about making advance in understanding the human brain and neurosciences. If AI could be really good at anything, it's really about making solid steps in psychology and have opportunities to stomp down myths.

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#115

Post by triplesec »

Yxven wrote: post #82
phren0logy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. These experiences are not the norm, but still much too common. 2. Psychiatrists might not recommend talk therapies for a number of reasons (even though they probably should). Many insurance plans don't cover it, and lots of people aren't interested and want a "quick fix" to the problem in the form of a pill. Finally, the education for licensed therapist varies WILDLY , and there are a lot of really bad ones. That…

How does one find a good psychiatrist?

And there's the rub. It's total chance, and there's no guide. You have to understand psychology and psychaitry to have a chance of navigating the system. And when you're struggling, that's the last thing you can do

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#116

Post by smegel »

phren0logy wrote: post #21

I'm a psychiatrist. It is always amazing to me that despite four years of medical school, six years of residency and fellowships, and four board certifications, the assumption is that I have no idea what I'm talking about and have evil motives. There are fair criticisms of psychiatry, there are bad psychiatrists, but mostly there are crappy generalizations. Good psychiatrists have an understanding of what medications…

> I have no idea what I'm talking about

Long term brainwashing can do that to people.

Would you respect someone who has studied Scientology for 10 years, just because it's a long time? I think in that case, the longer the worse.

Psychiatry is no different, pseudo-scientific quackery that exists largely to provide politically comfortable answers to questions society does not want to confront.

Oh, and to rubber stamp who the courts excuse for crime.

A generation of boys on ADHD drugs, thank psychiatry for that.

It is a corrupt and disgraceful occupation.

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#117

Post by atsaloli »

vonmoltke wrote: post #45
intopieces wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your profession needs no help from marsrover to find itself under the wheels of a bus. Every other medical revolution -- such as the rise of antibiotics, the pioneering of complex surgeries, and the advancements in medical imaging -- have resulted in a net reduction of people suffering from the ailments those tools are involved in treating. Not so with psychiatry. The more drugs that are developed, the more illnesses…

> You'll have to excuse the skepticism of some us who have seen loved ones suffer through debilitating, sometimes permanent side effects from drugs their psychiatrists prescribed. What debilitating side effects are those? How does their frequency compare to side effects for non-psychiatric drugs and treatments?

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medicati.... That's from the National Institute for Mental Health

Tics, liver damage, abnormal thinking are all listed as side effects. So is violent behaviour.

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#119

Post by artimaeis »

morgante wrote: post #90
artimaeis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a strange question, what does it mean to cure a patient? Say a patient goes to a doctor and is diagnosed with heart disease - is there anything that can be done to cure this? Or do we simply alleviate the symptoms to make way for a better life? This is the case with so many illnesses: diabetes, cancer, arthritis, the list is so long. But do you have the same skepticism of a doctor? Of a surgeon? We are not simpl…

It means to restore them to a level of health where they are not dependent on the doctor or medicine for continued care. > Say a patient goes to a doctor and is diagnosed with heart disease - is there anything that can be done to cure this? And they'd say there possibly is (such as lifestyle changes), and encourage them to pursue those changes while providing temporary medical relief. > This is the case with so many…

> Medical professionals are working tirelessly to find cures for conditions like cancer.

Researchers are, the doctors at your local hospital are very unlikely to be participating in the research of new cures for anything.

> psychiatrists seem to be almost completely uninterested in finding or promoting permanent cures

Psychiatric research has developed hundreds of new, more advanced medicines in the last 10 years alone. More effective anti-depressants, with different interactions so different populations can take them with less risk of drug interaction. More effective anti-anxiety medications that have lower risk factors. Then there's the research of lifestyle changes - I've never met a psychiatrist who didn't believe that exercise was one of the most effective means of getting through depression!

I believe you're against bad psychiatrists, which I understand and agree with. I'm also against bad medical doctors! Bad surgeons, too - though I believe there's a lot of complexity with measuring the performance of that field in particular.

A good doctor recommends lifestyle changes to patients with say diabetes or heart disease - of course they do. But bad ones just give you the prescriptions for drugs that alleviate the worst symptoms without telling you that there's anything you can do to fix it. I just don't see why we'd attack all doctors for the actions of the worst ones.

Re: Can Psychiatry Turn Itself Around?

#120

Post by nwah1 »

AstralStorm wrote: post #109
nwah1 wrote: post #3

We're all aware that most of the drugs that are common in the profession have serious side effects. I'm glad the author called for his colleagues to focus more on the whole body, since realistically lifestyle and nutritional changes can have as profound effects as drugs, with no side effects. I tend to think subclinical deficiencies in various nutrients can play a big role. Most people are already aware of the impora…

Lithium, uridine... no side effects? You must be joking. Even at subclinical dosages there are sometimes side effects from those. Dietary changes have a ton of shoe effects as well. Even the dieteticians cannot really find precise enough consensus on these.

As the article mentions, the dosages of lithium that are naturally in water tend to be well below the levels that we're familiar with in prescription lithium. (Less than 1/1000th the amount)

But if lithium is more like a micronutrient, then long term administration of low dose lithium would be much better than temporary use of prescription dosages, and have very few side effects.

Post reply on HN