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

Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#31

Post by seti0Cha »

e40 wrote: post #6
98codes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While what they're saying is true, to me it rings just as misguided as not taking pain medicine when you have a broken leg until it has properly set first. Medication for neurological issues isn't and shouldn't be the end-all-be-all but can indeed be a way to manage the issues at hand while teaching the tools needed to deal with the symptoms via therapy if possible.

There are always side effects and there is a real fear by many that they will be dependent on those drugs and have to live with the real side effects.

Psychiatric treatment is not without its dangers either. A bad psychiatrist can fuck you up. I know several people that experienced this. I also know a couple of people who were messed up by poorly prescribed psychopharmaceuticals. The ugly truth is, there's no safe solution.

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#32

Post by avgcorrection »

mjburgess wrote: post #20
jbandela1 wrote: post #3

How good are we at explaining large ML model outputs? My understanding is not very good? And that is with us having a very deep understanding of the hardware, software, algorithms, and mathematics involved. Now let’s suppose that you run your ML model on a computer and you get bad results. Two experts show up. One says that you have a faulty memory chip and that they can fix what is wrong with the memory chip and the…

I'm unsure as to the thesis of this comment: what's your point? Perhaps I just don't buy your premise. We understand ML models very-well, but we don't like the explanation. Models are on a spectrum from parametric where a data distribution is assumed, to non-parametric, where it isnt. In the non-param case, models largely remember compressed "averages" of historical data. The sense in which we dont "understand" how,…

> I'm unsure as to the thesis of this comment: what's your point?

A roundabout analogy which is supposed to liken the human mind to ML by showing that experts in both fields are equally perplexed at the two objects of study (ML and the human mind).

You see now how we are approaching human-like intelligence? ML experts don’t know what they are making or doing, just like psychologists and psychiatrists can’t communicate on their different models of the mind!

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#33

Post by yamrzou »

e40 wrote: post #6
98codes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While what they're saying is true, to me it rings just as misguided as not taking pain medicine when you have a broken leg until it has properly set first. Medication for neurological issues isn't and shouldn't be the end-all-be-all but can indeed be a way to manage the issues at hand while teaching the tools needed to deal with the symptoms via therapy if possible.

There are always side effects and there is a real fear by many that they will be dependent on those drugs and have to live with the real side effects.

I have read an interesting thought the other day about the side effects of those drugs from a psychoanalytic poit of view. It's just a psychoanalyst's thought, nothing scientific:

“Recently the thought occurred to me that we have antidepressants back-to-front, as it were. The listed side-effects of these drugs (mostly SSRI’s) is really the main action, and the advertised effect is the real side effect.

In other words antidepressants reduce anxiety and depression as a side effect of reducing libido – in the more inclusive sense of ‘life force’. Perhaps the relief of depression occurs because anxiety and depression are symptoms of libido or life energy hitting up against an obstacle or difficulty either in the internal or external world. This obstruction interferes with the ability of libido to express itself. Reduce libido and the unpleasant effects (depression and anxiety) of libido encountering an “obstruction” are correspondingly also reduced.”

https://aucklandpsychotherapy.co.nz/antidepressants/

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#34

Post by dleslie »

98codes wrote: post #5
yamrzou wrote: post #2

Fascinating story. Thanks for sharing. > Ray’s mother asked the Lodge to give him antidepressants. But to the Lodge psychiatrists the premise of this form of treatment – to be cured without insight into what had gone wrong – seemed superficial and cheap. Drugs “might bring about some symptomatic relief”, Ross, Ray’s psychiatrist, acknowledged, “but it isn’t going to be anything solid in which he can say, ‘Hey, I’m a…

While what they're saying is true, to me it rings just as misguided as not taking pain medicine when you have a broken leg until it has properly set first. Medication for neurological issues isn't and shouldn't be the end-all-be-all but can indeed be a way to manage the issues at hand while teaching the tools needed to deal with the symptoms via therapy if possible.

Taking pain killers can exacerbate injuries by masking the pain caused by behaviours that cause additional trauma.

I've seen a child's broken arm go from a scheduled intervention to an emergency surgery because the xray techs manipulated it poorly. The kid felt nothing thanks to the opioids she was given, and so didn't protest when they made a further mess of it.

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#36

Post by urthor »

webmobdev wrote: post #28
yamrzou wrote: post #2

Fascinating story. Thanks for sharing. > Ray’s mother asked the Lodge to give him antidepressants. But to the Lodge psychiatrists the premise of this form of treatment – to be cured without insight into what had gone wrong – seemed superficial and cheap. Drugs “might bring about some symptomatic relief”, Ross, Ray’s psychiatrist, acknowledged, “but it isn’t going to be anything solid in which he can say, ‘Hey, I’m a…

I have faced the opposite problem in India - psychiatrists insisting that they won't treat me without pills and even disparaging therapy as it "takes a long time and 'unreasonable' commitment from both patient and doctor"!

This is a core problem with all of medicine.

When the treatment involves the patient changing their behavior, most doctors give up and don't bother.

And yet, the majority of diseases are rooted in patient behavior.

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#37

Post by psychphysic »

knaik94 wrote: post #25
psychphysic wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key issue is also that even within mental health services there is animosity towards psychiatry. Whatever one thinks of antidepressants or antipsychotics (maybe less mood stabilizers I think), psychologists hate them. And I think while psychiatrists see psychology as helpful for their patients, psychologists can see the use of medications as a failure. I could say more but I think I'll just leave it at that.

I would appreciate it if you did say more. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that psychologists hate medicine. In most cases psychologist and psychiatrist work together to provide treatment to a patient. Why would psychologists see the use of medicine as failure?

Here's a nice article on it [2]

> In addition, the qualitative aspect of therapist views showed that, perhaps above and beyond this, therapists feel the impact of psychiatric drugs on the therapeutic relationship. While some felt that drugs could improve client engagement, there was a strong feeling that their effects (and side effects) had a negative impact on clients' ability to work therapeutically.

> Having to take meds can be viewed as failure by some therapists which is not helpful to clients. (Respondent 906)

One of the therapists even calls out other therapists about seeing medication and failure.

Probably better to read the whole thing but boils down to psychologists don't like medications.

[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/capr.12403

###########

Forget all this

gonna do a stream of consciousness as it's late here, the topic is pretty overdone and constantly attracts hate and honestly this is opening a can of worms but effectively you will see many many psychiatrists and doctors in general refer patients to psychological intervention. Psychologists recommending someone seek medications is nearly nonexistent.

Why? I suspect its similar to the divide between doctors and midwives. Midwives can occasionally see caesarian sections as 'cheating' and labour a right of passage for women.

Psychologists do something very similar, psychotherapy is a protracted unpleasant affair something that is worn as a badge of honour by those that undertake it.

Then someone takes a pill and says well to be honest I won't bother.

That irks some.

But more to the point, there are also audits and overall several pushes to reduce usage of psychotropics [0]. So it can literally feel like a failure as a psychologist if one of your patients has to start taking a medication and later in the week you literally have to track that a failure.

[1] is a recent interview in BPS (British psychological society) about a psychologists who started an organisation for evidence based psychiatry. CEP receive funding from Scientology.

The most prominent UK psychology society promoting a piece about an cult funded body that opposes medicines.

If you spend any time looking you will find psychology is rife with anti-psychiatry. This is just the article from the past few months that came to mind.

[0] https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/improving-h...

[1] https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/medical-model-has-presid...

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#38

Post by philosopher1234 »

fritzo wrote: post #35

> When his ex-wife moved to Europe with their two sons It's hard to ignore that if the gender roles had been reversed in this story, the obvious response of everyone around the bereft despondent mother would have been: "give her back her children"

This is completely off topic.

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#39

Post by philosopher1234 »

Psychoanalysis is criminally underrated in the US. It’s detractors broadly don’t understand it. It has the potential to seriously help tons of people, but it is understandably challenged, as it represents a painful reckoning with yourself.

Who would want to find out that their personality causes many of their problems? Maybe it requires a bit of masochism to take advantage of.

Re: Psychiatry Wars: a lawsuit that put psychoanalysis on trial

#40

Post by throwaway0asd »

knaik94 wrote: post #25
psychphysic wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key issue is also that even within mental health services there is animosity towards psychiatry. Whatever one thinks of antidepressants or antipsychotics (maybe less mood stabilizers I think), psychologists hate them. And I think while psychiatrists see psychology as helpful for their patients, psychologists can see the use of medications as a failure. I could say more but I think I'll just leave it at that.

I would appreciate it if you did say more. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that psychologists hate medicine. In most cases psychologist and psychiatrist work together to provide treatment to a patient. Why would psychologists see the use of medicine as failure?

Psychiatrists prescribe medications and psychologists perform counseling. The role of prescriptive medication is to modify behavior that either increases focus or stabilizes emotionally heterogeneous states. That medication is often issued in consultation between a psychiatrist and the treating psychologist to enhance receptivity to counseling (or other social contexts) otherwise it may interfere.
Post reply on HN