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

Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

plato.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#21

Post by wu-ikkyu »

cannonpr wrote: post #11
imperio59 wrote: post #4

Psychiatry is a failed science. False promises of cures that usually do more harm with debilitating "side effects" to their drugs and barbaric shock treatments. Best to seek the help of a real medical professional, nutritionist, fitness trainer, etc. All these have a better chance to help you than the dice roll of a psychiatric "diagnosis".

I can honestly only appreciate this comment as a form of sarcasm ? If instead you were serious please consider the following, our understanding of psychiatry is constantly evolving and psychiatrists are trained MDs, please don't confuse badly trained psychologists and the pharma industry trying to pump you full of drugs and nutritional supplements, with the science of psychiatry.

> please don't confuse badly trained psychologists and the pharma industry trying to pump you full of drugs and nutritional supplements, with the science of psychiatry.

69% of psychiatrists defining mental illnesses and their treatments in the DSM-5 reported having financial ties to big pharma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5#Criticism

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#22

Post by dwringer »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #14

Imagine you see a squadron of fighter jets flying in above in the sky. Then, one of the jets inexplicably breaks formation and flies off by itself. How do you know which group is on the right course? It could be that the supposedly "rogue" jet that broke formation had realized the others had lost course, and thus reestablished the "correct" course. Thus is the problem of psychiatry. It makes the subjective and critic…

> Imagine you see a squadron of fighter jets flying in above in the sky. Then, one of the jets inexplicably breaks formation and flies off by itself.

A clear-cut case of Paternal Conflict Syndrome.

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#23

Post by wu-ikkyu »

tertius wrote: post #15
imperio59 wrote: post #4

Psychiatry is a failed science. False promises of cures that usually do more harm with debilitating "side effects" to their drugs and barbaric shock treatments. Best to seek the help of a real medical professional, nutritionist, fitness trainer, etc. All these have a better chance to help you than the dice roll of a psychiatric "diagnosis".

> Best to seek the help of a real medical professional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatrist Psychiatrists are medical doctors.

And yet they are not bound to the same medical code of ethics or the same degree of objective science that all other medical doctors are.

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#24

Post by Nav_Panel »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #14

Imagine you see a squadron of fighter jets flying in above in the sky. Then, one of the jets inexplicably breaks formation and flies off by itself. How do you know which group is on the right course? It could be that the supposedly "rogue" jet that broke formation had realized the others had lost course, and thus reestablished the "correct" course. Thus is the problem of psychiatry. It makes the subjective and critic…

> It could be that the supposedly "rogue" jet that broke formation had realized the others had lost course, and thus reestablished the "correct" course.

This analogy is flawed: it assumes there is some objectively "correct" course that exists.

We could say that psychiatry is flawed because it assumes that the mean corresponds to "health," but this does not seem to be the point of psychiatry. Psychiatry isn't attempting to bring individuals into some objective "healthyness," rather it seems to be attempting to reincorporate deviant individuals back into society, flawed and unhealthy as that society (and treated individual) may be.

The ethical implications of this are another question: a psychiatrist might argue that this is a good practice, as they are helping people remain within society, which will likely result in better outcomes along the broader society's axes of good and bad. Others, such as yourself, might argue that this is bad, for various reasons such as that the treatment results in suffering or that deviant individuals also have access to novel perspectives.

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#25

Post by wfo »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #14

Imagine you see a squadron of fighter jets flying in above in the sky. Then, one of the jets inexplicably breaks formation and flies off by itself. How do you know which group is on the right course? It could be that the supposedly "rogue" jet that broke formation had realized the others had lost course, and thus reestablished the "correct" course. Thus is the problem of psychiatry. It makes the subjective and critic…

It also led to the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. And, e.g. the chemical castration of Alan Turing.

But at the same time if you've ever spent time with people with serious dehabilitating mental illness, it's clear there are a lot of people who are very seriously struggling and very much need help and aren't capable of seeking it out on their own. And if you've ever experienced any kind of mental illness or talked in depth to someone who has, it's clear it's a very real phenomena and not just someone daring to be different.

So while I agree with the general thrust of your post I think this:

>It makes the subjective and critical judgement that the behavior exhibited by most people signifies health, and any deviance from the statistical mean is diseased; evolution be damned.

Is unfair. It's a tough line to thread, which is why psychiatrists and philosophers spend lifetimes working on these issues and trying to figure out where the line is. It's absolutely not the case that "any deviance from the statistical mean is diseased"; this is not an unfair characterization of what was done at the inception of the field when people understood nothing, and it's certainly a good warning about how powerful and dangerous it is classify something or someone as 'insane' (read Foucault! Who is shockingly missing from this article!) but it's not a fair critique of modern day psychiatric medicine.

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#27

Post by cannonpr »

brookside wrote: post #19
cannonpr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can honestly only appreciate this comment as a form of sarcasm ? If instead you were serious please consider the following, our understanding of psychiatry is constantly evolving and psychiatrists are trained MDs, please don't confuse badly trained psychologists and the pharma industry trying to pump you full of drugs and nutritional supplements, with the science of psychiatry.

I don't buy this view that pharma companies are the bad greedy ones, and psychiatrist are noble wise doctors participating in clean science. Pych doctors more than willing participants in the prescribing of stimulants and mild euphoriants. They get rich also doing so - 4/5 $200 appointments an hour is common, and if you look at the highest paid public employees in some states you'll see state-hired prison and other p…

Sadly enough a lot of doctors are complicit in it, after all a lot of doctors didn't get into it out of altruism, then again the same can be said to apply to a lot of developers, lawyers, and several other professions. My comment was in no way denying that our society is messed up. Just please don't equate a medical profession and body with nutritionists, that is just grossly disproportionate and just outright weird. If you like I can have a rant as to how little we understand cell uptake pathways and metabolic pathways another day.

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#29

Post by phren0logy »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #23
tertius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Best to seek the help of a real medical professional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatrist Psychiatrists are medical doctors.

And yet they are not bound to the same medical code of ethics or the same degree of objective science that all other medical doctors are.

I'm a psychiatrist, and yes, we are.

Psychiatrists are the same kind of medical doctor as every other medical doctor.

Re: Philosophy of Psychiatry (2015)

#30

Post by wu-ikkyu »

phren0logy wrote: post #29
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet they are not bound to the same medical code of ethics or the same degree of objective science that all other medical doctors are.

I'm a psychiatrist, and yes, we are. Psychiatrists are the same kind of medical doctor as every other medical doctor.

1. Psychiatry is not bound to the medical ethic of patient autonomy. Medical doctors cannot lock someone in a cell and forcibly drug them because they have an STI.

2. Psychiatric illnesses are defined based on "fallible subjective judgments". Medical illnesses (pathologies) are defined based on objective biological tests.

Post reply on HN