Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:28, 12 October 2009

Any comments posted here related to a general discussion of psychiatry will be removed. These include comments protesting, challenging or questioning the validity, reliability, or existence of psychiatry. For more information please see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and/or Misplaced Pages:No original research

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Psychiatry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index /Archive 1: Jun 2001 - Dec 2005 /Archive 2: Jan 2006 - Feb 2006 /Archive 3: Feb 2006 - May 2006 /Archive 4: Jul 2006 - Mar 2007 /Archive 5: Mar 2007 - Apr 2007 /Archive 6: Apr 2007 - Oct 2007 /Archive 7: Oct 2007 - Feb 2008

Dual dx

I just ran into Dual diagnosis which is orphaned. It is a pretty significant topic in psychiatry and I found no mention of it here either. Shouldn't it be? JoeSmack 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is no longer orphaned, but it could probably still stand to be mentioned in several other articles, including this one. -Lilac Soul 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

antipsychiatry picture

Hello all, I really don't like the fact that the antipsychiatry part is illustrated with a picture of scientologist activists. Scientology uses psychotests that are 1. in the field of psychiatry and 2.far worse in its material effect than psychiatry itself. I will therefore delete the picture from the article if no one has a claim for it. Karibou (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern and am aware that those in the anti-psychiatry movement and scientologists are two very different camps. The picture was originally included because, simply, it was a good illustration of a group of people protesting psychiatry. Rather than just removing it though, please replace it with another free image. Chupper (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that many leading anti-psychiatry groups activley wish not to be associated with Scientology or the CCHR. An image dotted with Scientologists would work to represent the entire anti-psychiatry movement as merely cult-driven nonsense and propaganda-pandering.

It's a good idea, I'll look for another picture :). Karibou (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find any other picture.. I think it would be better to delete this picture anyway, as the scientology has a practice of psychiatry in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karibou (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You could probably get permission for free use of a pic from these guys MindFreedom media, I guess they could be considered the leading secular org routinely protesting these issues, they organised a widely-reported "hunger strike" a few years ago. EverSince (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I'd like to suggest that the introduction could be more of a general summary of each section of the main article, as per Wiki guidelines I believe, and not incorporate so many cited points (which I believe should be within each section instead). I could make such changes if no objections. EverSince (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the lead is an ongoing headache. I personally don't like them, adhering to the idea that anything in the lead should be in the body of the article and hence cited there instead. However, the current guidelines note that material likely to be challenged should be cited in the lead as well. Given this is such a contentious topic, my gut feeling would be to leave them there. As far as I can see, the lead is a summary of each section, though streamlined so it is seamless. What are yoy proposing to add or remove? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only the points likely to be challenged need be cited in the intro. Based on past debates here over certain introductory claims, I can see that one or two key citations might be needed. It shouldn't be filled up with them so that no other intro appears possible, when in fact the intro is meant to reflect the article as it evolves. EverSince (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

O-kay...which do you think need to go and which to remain then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

...i'm not trying to specify in advance what exactly should be there, I can't, just saying that there's currently too many & many not in the main article, and I'd like to just see how it goes trying to merge the sources into the right point in the article and resummarising that and see what people may want to revert or revise in the usual wiki way. EverSince (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys to jump in here, I just thought I would make a quick comment. I used to be one of those people who didn't cite in the lead. It is a summary, right? So why cite a summary when its cited in detail below? But I've gone through two GA noms now and a couple of peer revies and both times the reviewers made a big deal out of citing the lead. So now I've made it a habit to cite stuff in the lead. Unless things are changing, if this article goes to GA nomination or FA nomination, reviewers are going to want the lead cited. For the record, I feel like it shouldn't be, but I've wasted too much time thus far to go back and find the citations for everything. Chupper (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing in terms of "summarization" - The first paragraph of the lead should be a summary. You'll find all these points in the article. The second paragraph has turned into a summary of the history section. Eversince, you should be able to find the cited points throughout the article. They should not just exist in the lead. The lead might need to be reorganized though. The first paragraph should probably be expanded to include more points from the article. Chupper (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about reorganising the 1st para a little to include more of the points from the article. And perhaps in turn the history summary could become a bit briefer. I take your point about reviewers possibly wanting certain cites and as I say I can see that certain ones may be necessary (and wouldn't be difficult to copy more over if necessary). An extremely contested article like evolution which is FA class doesn't have any cites in the 1st paragraph though, and only half as many as this one in the rest - and a lot of those are covering very technical claims rather than general description of a profession as is the case here. I for one appreciate the effort you put into sourcing this article more and I see that the majority are also in the article so it shouldn't be too bad to reorganise a bit without losing anything you did. EverSince (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Anti Psychiatry material

This is an article on psychiatry no antipsychiatry. for original research and POV of psyhiatry there's already a page on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.220.41 (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's cited with several references. Furthermore, it's linked; anti-psychiatry is undoubtedly associated with psychiatry. It's like saying there's no point in having a section about Prince Charles on Diana, Princess of Wales, because there's already an article on him. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. It would be like having a detailed "Anti Prince Charles" section when an "Anti Prince Charles" article already existed. As it is, there's already a whole "antipsychiatry" article. There's no need to include some of it's (arguably questionable) material on the main article on psychiatry. A link should be sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.201.187 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the right amount of antipsych stuff in this article has always been a tricky thing. There are some who try to use this article as a soap box to present their opinions and they add antipsych stuff all over the place and in hefty quantitites. The entire treatment settings section, for example, needs to be rewritten to provide a more balanced and coherent explanation of psychiatric treatments, their negatives and positives. Anti-psychiatry information and important negative aspects of psychiatry need to be included, though. Anti-psych is a "sub article" of this one, and IMO should have its own section or subsection here. Chupper (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Peter and Chupper above. This is really quite a small and well-weighted crit section. Sourced as well. forestPIG 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this just about the bit in history describing the antipsychiatry movement coming to the fore? That's not even a criticism section (which aren't favoured anyway), it's just part of the historical context and influences, and so mild it doesn't even mention lobotomies and with ECT adds a sort of defensive argument.

I think there's a danger of attributing anything negative to antipsychiatry whether exclusive to that movement or not, and perhaps POV forking it. At the end of the day there are differing perspectives - pro and con - from different psychiatrists, other medical fields, other mental health clinicians and researchers, philosophers, service users, the public, lawyers etc. This article has to focus on explaining psychiatry, but only via representing throughout the article, fairly and with due weight, all significant reliably-sourced views as per WP:NPOV. EverSince (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with EverSince. Misplaced Pages articles have to be a representative and relevant sample of verifiable knowledge on the topic, and neutrally report opposing opinions as opinions, in proportion to how many people, experts or scholars hold the opinions. It's no fair to create an article, create a long section in that article, and then exclude verifiable, relevant information from that section just because it embarrasses the subject or because the facts are elsewhere in a POVFORK like Anti-Psychiatry. Another problem is that Psychiatry is itself a POVFORK. Maybe the history sections of both articles should be merged together into one article, and the rest of both articles should be merged together into another article. Anti-psychiatry is the article that could do without a redundant section that is simply a summary of another article, as History of anti-psychiatry exists as both a section in Anti-psychiatry and as an article. Maybe all three articles need cleanup to delete awkward grammatical structures that make the articles longer without adding much meaning. 24.7.55.22 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo of a psychiatric hospital room

That photo is awful! Do psych wards really look like that in the USA? In Australia and newer hospitals in the UK they look like small hotel rooms (bad hotels admittedly). The photo looks more like a medical ward or something from a sci-fi movie -- was it put there by an anti-psychiatry person? Suggest we remove it. --Anonymaus (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, I've had almost the same response over at Emergency Psychiatry, but I removed it there because it wasn't a emergency psychiatric room. It was not put there by an anti-psychiatry person, it was put there by me.

It is a psychiatric patient room. Of course, there are a wide variety of rooms. You probably should ask yourself first the context of the image, before you doubt it. Inpatient vs outpatient? In a hospital? In an office? I'm sure this is an inpatient room designed for patient monitoring. Its a good image of an inpatient room and serves to remind the reader of the medical context of psychiatry. Of course we could include an outpatient room (which is typically just the psychiatrist's office) in addition to that one to provide more of a spectrum, but I don't think this image should be removed. Chupper (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you. It's just that I've seen dozens of inpatient pychiatric units on three continents (admittedly not in North America), and I've never see anything like it. Maybe I'll take a photo of one of our "nice" rooms. --Anonymaus (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that would be awesome. Chupper (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was musing the same thing - our beds certainly look nothing like that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'll take a photo of one of our "nice" rooms. --Anonymaus" Is it POV to prefer "nice rooms" ?24.7.55.22 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Testing, testing

Rather surprisingly, this article currently has only a single instance of the word "test" and no instances of the word "testing". Does psychiatry really leave all the testing to psychology? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I count 8 instances of the word. But let's be more clear on testing, though. With testing, there is psychological testing (like intelligence, or personality or symptom severity, etc.) and medical testing (MRI, blood test, physical exam, EEG). And conducting psychological tests also has many parts - including administration, analysis, interpretation.

Pyschiatrists don't specialize nor are they specifically trained for psychological testing. Pyschiatrists are trained in medical testing (lab tests, imaging, physical exams). Psychiatrists do use psychological testing for diagnosis and treatment checkup, though. Psychological testing can be ordered by a psychiatrist and takes place under the supervision of a psychologist. It probably depends on the circumstance, but psychiatrists may also conduct psychological testing; it just depends on the complexity of test (and the training of the psychiatrist).

So let me give you an example of "testing" that a psychiatrist might conduct. If someone comes into a hospital or clinic with psychotic symptoms (with no history), a psychiatrist may order an MRI to check for tumors, blood work to check for the presence of illicit or other drugs, get a psychosocial history, talk to the patient and request an MMPI. The results of these psychological and medical tests then guide the next step.

A lot of this info is included in the article. Take another look and see if you can't find it. Also, if you are knowledgeable on the subject and have some good references, go ahead and add some stuff in. Chupper (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your clear explanation deserevs to be in the article. And yes I should have looked for "tests" as well as "test" and "testing". Or better still, just have read more carefully. But should the Rorscharch, for example, be classed as a psychological test or a psychiatric test? Or doesn't it matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While the Rorschach could be used in a psychiatric setting, it still probably deserves to be called a "psychological" test. I'm not sure if there would ever be any "psychiatric" testing outside of medical and psychological contexts. Also, I'll try to clear all this up in the article. Thanks for your comments. Chupper (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How much evidence for psychiatry?

I found a reference to the study entitled What proportion of primary psychiatric interventions are based on evidence from randomised controlled trials? in Complementary And Alternative Treatments in Mental Health Care. It says that the study shows that much of current psychiatry is not supported by RTCs (4). Should this page have a section discussing the evidence? I think it should. Looking up that paper in Google Scholar leads to more current works. Also, that book says that hypnosis is a mainstream psychiatric practice. Is that true? It is not reflected in this article. II | (t - c) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The abstract is extremely vague - one would really need to read the whole article to figure out what it was on about.

Regarding hypnosis -it is used less now than it used to be - the classical application was in abreaction. It is not usually seen in public sector inpatient or outpatient practice. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosis is still around, yes. When looking at controlled trials, though, less than 20% of individuals can actually be hypnotized. When looking at its prevalence as a treatment in psychiatry, its basically non-existent. Of all the references I used in this page, none of them discussed hypnosis as a treatment. This falls in line with my personal experience - I've never heard of or seen hypnosis be used in a psychiatric setting. Chupper (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With reference to psychiatric training in the UK, about twenty years ago hypnosis was something the older practitioners tended to have in their repertoire, but the younger ones did not take much interest. It seemed to be used more in the guise of relaxation therapy. There was a professional organisation (the British Society for Medical and Dental Hypnosis) which was originally started by dentists: they held training courses which seemed to attract mainly general practitioners. Unlike counselling and psychotherapy courses, which were attended by casually dressed folk, with a female preponderance, BSMDH courses attracted a lot of men in dark suits, which may tell us something. There were a few full time medical hypnotists in private practice, who did not all have a psychiatric background. There was a lot of emphasis on combating "lay" hypnotists, especially stage performers and those who advertised to the public (which medical practitioners were not then allowed to do) and limiting training to doctors and dentists. This coincided with the growth of Neurolinguistic Programming and Ericksonian Hypnosis, largely outside the sphere of medicine and psychology. There is a large market for hypnotic methods to deal with bread-and-butter topics like weight loss and smoking cessation, without sailing across to the wilder shores of "past-life regression.". There was a separate organisation for Speech Therapists, and psychologists had the British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis. In the past couple of decades a few university courses (originally diploma, and now MSc) have been set up in clinical hypnosis, usually to give part time training to health professionals. This year the medical/dental and psychological societies have merged and their training is now open to a wider range of qualified health profesionals, including nurses. A few psychiatrists are involved with this, but there is more interest among them in brief psychotherapies of various kinds, as well as cognitive behaviour therapy. NRPanikker (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Brains and minds

"The brain is the most important organ studied by psychiatrists".

Hmmm, not the most original caption for an MRI scan of a human head (... containing, surprisingly, a brain!). But are most psychiatrists really interested in brain (mis)function? I thought they were more concerned with mind (mis)function, which is usually far more difficult to get a picture of. I don't want to start a huge philosophical debate about mind/body dualism, but isn't the "study of the brain" more the field of neurologists and physiological psychologists? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

...and what exactly are the other "important organs" they study? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what about the face and the hands, of which anyone communicating with another has to be aware? When dealing with anxiety, the functioning of the autonomic nervous system, which affects all of the body, needs to be considered. Those psychiatrists who deal with epilepsy and movement disorders, and other neuropsychiatric topics which are prominent among intellectually (learning) disabled and elderly people, have to be concerned with brain function. but most psychiatrists do not need to study the brains of individual patients. Most psychiatric research treats the brain as a "black box." Perhaps psychology will be reduced to neurology, or even molecular biology, one day: but people have been trying for centuries to reduce chemistry to physics, without great success, so it may take a little longer. NRPanikker (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see psychology being reduced to neurology while we still have faces abd hands... (or even organs?)Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I also laughed at the caption of the MRI. The images in this article range from MRIs to syringes and hospital beds ... (what could we use as an image of a "mind"? Perhaps a Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock painting? Or some Outsider Art?) How about this for an alternative caption: :"MRI image of a brain: mental illnesses may be associated with brain dysfunction"? Perhaps this article needs a discussion of the assumptions within psychiatry on the relationship between mind and brain (the Biopsychosocial model article is unsatisfactory in many ways and doesn't relate directly to psychiatry. Anonymaus (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure. How many psychiatrists have (or would want) access to an MRI scanner? Given that this picture is at the start of the article it gives a very misleading impression of what psychiatrists do and what most psychiatry is about. Might be more accurate to show an MRI image of a llghtly poached brain following an ECT session; or maybe a metric tonne of gleaming Prozac pills?20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I really didn't think the MRI image would be a big deal. Here's my take on it, and why it seems obvious to include it.

1. Psychiatrists are physicians. Physicians study and are well versed in physiology and anatomy. Psychiatrists are well versed in the physiology and anatomy of the brain.
2. As clearly stated in the article, psychiatrists have a broad depth of knowledge in the social and biological sciences. If someone can add in a good image that represents the mind, that would probably be good, but to say psychiatrists don't study the brain (from a physiological and anatomical perspective)... thats just incorrect.
3. What other organ systems are psychiatrists interested in? Well, the nervous system (i.e. brain) is number one. But what about the endocrine system? Doesn't a psychiatrist need to differentiate between something wrong in the brain vs. something wrong with a hormone? Or what about the circulatory system? Blood pressure plays a big role in anxiety disorders. The circulatory system is also the main system of transport for psychiatric medications, the leading treatment option in psychiatry.
4. Yes, you could get into a major debate about whether psychiatry focuses on brain vs. mind. What is obvious to me is that so little is understood about the brain from a psychiatric context. Sometimes because so little is known, people take that to mean that psychiatry ignores the brain. It doesn't - take a look at psychiatric, neuropsychological and neuroscience research. It's all about the brain! This lack of understanding doesn't mean that the brain isn't important to psychiatrists. It's quite the contrary. An understanding of the brain is critical in the practice of psychiatry, both in the understanding of neurobiological, electrophysiological and genetic traits of mental disorders and the application of treatment (again, mostly psychopharmacology).
5. In response to the comment by 20.133.0.13 - ANY psychiatrist working outpatient or inpatient in a hospital will have access to an MRI (among other devices). Psychiatrists working in private practice, probably not. And what do you think the "metric tonne" of prozac pills does to the brain? You can see changes in... wait for it... FMRI when using medications. And another aspect of MRI - I heard a psychiatrist in the U.S. say it best - "it's not very effective to treat a tumor with psychotherapy." Because psychiatrists are specialized physicians, they work with a team of other doctors to provide treatment. If someone comes in with symptoms mirroring a mental disorder, but the cause is something beyond the scope of practice for a psychiatrist (i.e. tumor), it is the psychiatrists responsibility to diagnose, consult or refer the patient to the appropriate department.

I liked Anonymaus's caption alternative, but I think it is safe to say that MOST mental disorders are ASSOCIATED with brain dysfunction or irregularities. Again, I stress associated. The causal relationship is not known, but differences in neuroanatomy and neurobiology have been found in the major classes of mental disorders.

Lets not forget that psychiatrists are physicians. 4 years of medical school gives you a lot of education of physiology and anatomy. The amount of pictures focused on biological aspects of psychiatry may be way too heavy. This was not my intention, though. Showing images of a brain (which I hoped I've shown to be very important in psychiatry) or hospital bed is a lot easier then showing images of a "mind" or other social subject of psychiatry. But, that is no excuse. If you can find good representations, lets post them. Also, if you guys want to switch it to the alternative caption, let me know - I've got a good reference. Chupper (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly coherent and persuasive argument, Chupper, although I've never considered any of the bodily systems you mention as "organs" proper. I'd definitely change the caption. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need a reference for a caption do we? But tell us anyway. Anonymaus (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes fair and reasonable argument Chupper. But I still disagree with that picture. Psychiatrists do not typically use MRI, or any other brain imaging technique; nor have they ever. In my experience, their tools are typically notebook and pencil, backed up with medication and medical records. (Unless you're Radovan Karadžić, of course.)20.133.0.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymaus, I'm no expert on Misplaced Pages policy and you know a whole lot more on the subject of psychiatry then I do! But I would just assume if you are describing a picture in the caption, no reference would be needed. If you were including a claim, however, a reference makes sense to me. So if you have a picture of a red dot and say "A red dot", you are simply describing the image. But if you say "A red dot. Red dots are often used in underwear", you may need a reference :). Chupper (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mm, yes, good point:).Anonymaus (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't resist suggesting whether might be a more accurate reflection of modern psychiatry than the existing one in the article... :) EverSince (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. But that butterfly does look rather blue, doesn't it. Not just common-or-garden NHS beige like most of the rest of us. Oh-oh, wait a minute, wasn't that a Rorschach image on that webpage? Darn it, that's another generation's projectve test validation scores trashed! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, those skies are blue in America, aren't they. But surely even the American Lady can't keep that clover all to herself anymore? Neverless, Anonymous, a vast improvement and not without an essential fagility lacking in the original image. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - just introducing myself

Hello - didn't quite realize what a welter of controversy was present in the formatting of articles on psychiatry.

If I might suggest a good point to begin, would be to try to bring into the picture some new articles on social perception of psychiatric illness.

Of course, there are those who don't believe that psychiatric illness exists. I am sympathetic. I am also sympathetic to the wide range of viewpoint rejecting science, to various degrees. Just not sure if that viewpoint moves science forward very much. Not sure if I want to spend my time trying to argue for the existence of gravity, or evolution. And am quite wary of struggling to pursue negotiations on text, within an on line community that considers The Earth as a Floating Disk on the Primordial Body of Water (or ether, or what have you) vs. the earth as subject to the force of gravity as equally valid viewpoints, both of which have references to back them up.

Thnx.

Menelaus2 (talk)

In response to your comment above, and as an addendum to what I left on your talk page, take a look at this quote from the founder of Misplaced Pages.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

And when it states "ancillary" article, it doesn't mean that an article can just be created if it is in the extreme minority. It still must prove significant. A good example of an ancillary article within this context is Anti-psychiatry. Those viewpoints are held by the minority, but it is still substantial enough to mention. Therefore it gets mentioned in the main article and splits off to its own article. Chupper (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History

Section says William Tuke adopted the methods of Pinel. Nothing I've read suggests this, but the source is an old book that doesn't seem to be online, can anyone clarify what it claims? It also implies the moral treatment movement was psychiatric, but Tuke was a religious layman who explicitly rejected the harsh and pessimistic biomedical methods and theories of the day. Pinel did so in a different way, and himself was partly adopting the methods of ex-patient and superintendent Jean-Baptiste Pussin and his wife. EverSince (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Things you don't know about psychiatry......

It's killed many more people than it's cured. In fact, it hasn't cured any people. When people take the medications, the things that are said to be side effects are actually effects that happen to everyone that takes them. These medications actually damage your body. They don't cure anything, they cover things up. When psychiatrists proscibe something to you, you become a subject of trial and error. Ask any psychiatrist personally and they'll tell you, but they hide it in public so that their money will continue to flow in. Psychiatry make more money than any other business in the world and has only killed or damaged people. Find out the facts.

http://www.cchr.org/#/home —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieli56 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for forum-style discussion. There are many other places to do that on the interwebs. XJeanLuc (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

CCHR is scientology in disguise. Beware of what this man says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.251.223 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh "but they hide it in public", what? 203.59.213.54 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Xenu

Approaches to psychiatry

Have added some info about different approaches in psychiatry. The most prominent view point currently in the western world is a biologically based one. However there are other ways to approach these problems which could use more development. They can be view psychologically, socially, or as a narrative for example.--Jmh649 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

This article gives a very one sided view of psychiatry and at this point I think does psychiatry a bit of a disservice.

• Imaging as far as I am aware is used for research only not diagnosis. It is used to exclude other illnesses but this is not made clear.

• Little or no discuss takes place about psychotherapy or lifestyle interventions. It has been show for example that exercise, cognitive behavior therapy, and SSRIs are all equally effective in depression. What about group therapy which is often lead by a psychiatrist or the assessment of psychiatric fitness.

• One of psychiatry main purposes is to provide people with safe environments were they will not kill themselves of others. We lock up suicidal people to protect them from themselves and we lock up the criminally insane to protect others. Psychiatry is the only profession which can lock up people against their will and force treatment. If a medically ill person does not want treatment no one can force them.

• This article has too much emphasis on pharmacological treatment / approach.

--Jmh649 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is often the case on Misplaced Pages that the largest-scope articles are some of the weakest, because only an expert has the perspective to handle such an article properly, and experts are hard to come by. You seem to be an expert: please improve the article in any way that seems right to you, so long as you give good sources for any claims that might be controversial. You don't have to give sources in order to remove dubious unsourced statements, but it would be nice to justify each action on this talk page, even if only briefly. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are psychiatrists the only ones allowed to lock people up and do things to them against their will? What about policemen, judges and prison officers? For centuries before there was any effective treatment for them, lepers were confined away from everyone else. In modern times and in many countries people with certain infectious diseases can be forcibly removed if they refused to take treatment or to go into hospital. Currently there is a move towards locking up sex offenders for life and applying modern equivalents of castration, by judicial order and in accordance with popular notions of sex offending. In the USA psychologists, rather than psychiatrists, may be asked to determine "fitness to be executed." NRPanikker (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the field of medicine. But excellent points. If someone is bleeding they can refuse a blood transfusion and die from a lack of blood. You cannot commit someone of sound mind and force treatment upon them. I guess public health might be an exception. I have no idea what power they have if someone say has chlamydia and refuses treatment.--Jmh649 (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Forcing medical treatment on people happens all the time, such as forcing abortion on women whose life is in danger, and keeping people alive against their will on ventilators (even with signed proof that it is agains tthe patients wishes) and tying people to the bed if they don't want to be treated - the later i saw happen in a UK hospital, when a woman didn't want a tetanus injection after getting cut. Psychiatrists actually have a lot more oversight to prevent such things, compared to ER doctors.Dillypickle (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but tying a women to the bed to give a tetanus shot is illegal and if the person was of sound mind they would be able to charge everyone involved with assault. I have people refuse tetanus every once in a while and it is their right to do so. If someone want to leave and is of sound mind they can. If someone is not of sound mind one can admit them against their stated wishes. And do so legally.Jmh649 (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is different in different countries. Forcing treatment on people of sound mind is legaly mandated in countries that have laws agains euthynasia by withdrawal of treatment, for example. Psychiatirsts can assess the patient as being of as sound a mind as they want, but doctors can still (or even must) force treatment. Or the definition of "not of sound mind" becomes "refuses treatment the doctor wants to give". Here at least, people forced to have a tetanus against their wishes are also forced to pay for it - suddenly they become compus mentis when the hospital wants the money!

Psychiatrists may be able to lock people up more easily, but forced treatment is certainly not something that only psychiatrists can do.Dillypickle (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad introduction, goes around in circles and not based on material, observable things

The definition of "psychiatry" here depends on the term "mental disorder". The problem with this is that it takes for granted that the reader knows what the writer means by "mental disorder". But that is not obvious. When you click on "mental disorder", the definition is based on the terms "psychological" and "distress" and "disability", once again taking for granted that the reader knows what the writer means or intends to mean. However, all of these terms are vague, are subject to large disagreement between whatever the writer means by that and how the reader interprets it. Why is it that the meaning of these terms is treated as if it were obvious? --Prebteu9832 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

These are some valid points. Psychiatry is less of a science than the rest of medicine. No psyc illness has an objective test ( they are all diagnosed by subjective tests ). Therefore the definition is subjective and subject to interpretation. There is nothing one can do to fix this. --Jmh649 (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If we considered only "material, observable things," it would hardly be possible to discuss this subject at all. Such a set of blinkers might be no hindrance to a study of physics, but a mindless psychology can go only so far in making sense of "distress."

However, neither the specialty of psychiatry, nor the broader field of medicine are sciences. Rather they are practical arts, like engineering, teaching or cookery. Practitioners may make use of science, but they are not primarily concerned to make general statements about the nature of the world or the things in it. Scientific orthodoxy is constantly changing, and the further back one looks the less beneficial, according to current thinking, does it seem for some of the doers of times past to have followed the intellectual fashions of their time. Perhaps engineering may have become applied physics: but teaching is not yet applied psychology, cookery is hardly applied chemistry and medicine is by no means applied physiology. The vexed relationship between theory and practice, which was discussed in another context by Karl Marx, was set out well almost 2000 years ago by the proto-Wikipedian Aulus Cornelius Celsus in the introduction to his De Medicina. NRPanikker (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ECT and brain damage

If one is to claim that ECT causes brain damage one needs a newer ref then 1977. --Jmh649 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion over "brain damage", although obviously worthy of the most rigorous scrutiny, may be somwehat missing the point? Any treatment which essentially makes the patient forget who they are is likely to be hotly debated by anyone seeking to protect civil liberties, whether or not physical structures are provably damaged. The more disturbing, but seemingly much more likely side-effect of ECT, is not so much "brain demage" as "personality removal". Likewise the issue of "threats to keep patients in line", however disturbing, may be a slight distraction - the treatment seems to "work" by "wiping the mental slate clean" and can thus only succeed where the traditional roles of submissive patient and empowered physician are clearly defined. Surely the thrust of anti-Psychiatry was not the risk of unfortunate side-effects, but the self-perpetuating imbalance of whole treatment paradigm? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Something missing in the article: A modern view on psychiatry

So here is the thesis about psychiatry and its eligibility: (1) Question of the subject/person: "Why?. (2) The result: deficit. (3) Arbitrary cycle of 1 and 2 made possible by the deprivation of liberty (personal freedom) and by the use of drugs of the pharmaceutical industry. Conclusion: The psychiatry and its most valuable working appliance the psychiatric hospital is an attempt of an autonomous killing machine as well as a felicitous attempt of a supposed control body successfully crept into the constitutional state. 77.56.180.238 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Any changes to this article would need to be based on reliable sources, not on personal views. The comments in this section and the previous one aren't productive. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Doc James is quite right to ask about more recent references to brain damage, even if I think he may be missing the point.And any editor is free to question the balance in any given article, aren't they?. I see plenty of labels stuck all over articles to mark them for improvement, without them actually being improved - how productive are those? Maybe comments can be productive if they encourage others to improve? Isn't it fair to discuss fully any changes before making them? Do you think this article provides an adequate modern view on psychiatry? And which are your reliable sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to disagree with DocJames, I think he is right. Regarding the rest, I'm not an expert on psychiatry and haven't contributed to this article, I'm just pointing out my general experience that comments based on personal opinions rather than sources are pretty much universally ignored, or at any rate don't lead to improvements. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you are right. I think personal experience can occasionally cloud one's encyclopedic judgement. Or is that tune? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources are for example the moving pictures One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film), Spider (film) and Quills (film). The protagonists do not know why they are not allowed to go out of the psychiatric hospital/asylum/sanatorium. (just three examples). The equal thesis stands if you'd remove the hospital/asylum/sanatorium and consider only the medical speciality Psychiatry. EDIT: reliable sources on Psychiatry??? :] 77.56.182.171 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

POV tag redux

I have removed the POV tag from this article on the grounds that it is non-functional, and only serves to make the article ugly. The neutrality of this article is always going to be disputed no matter what, so I feel that we just have to make an executive decision not to disfigure the article with a useless tag, but (of course) to deal with specific issues when they are raised. I have acted boldly here, and hope that other editors will support this action. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the tag. It is exactly because the "neutrality of this article is always going to be disputed no matter what" that there must be a tag. If the neutrality of a Misplaced Pages article is disputed so persistently, then its tag is neither disfiguring nor useless. Besides, the article will be a POVFORK until merged with Anti-psychiatry. 24.7.55.22 (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no that would be a fringe viewpoint. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you identify that as a fringe theory? 24.7.55.22 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"'Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.'" Also, "'If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page.'" 24.7.55.22 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If the article is not neutral, then there must be some specific statement in it that is not neutral. What statement, please? You're not going to be able to keep a tag on this article without at least stating what part of it you feel is not neutral. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the NPOV tag at the top of the article, so I came here assuming there was some debate over the neutrality of something in the article. Apparently there isn't, and so the tag really shouldn't be there. Dgf32 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If an editor finds a statement in the article that isn't NPOV it should be identified and fixed. If editors disagree as to whether a particular statement is NPOV or not or if editors disagree on how to improve a statement to be NPOV, then we should resolve the matter by a discussing here on the talk page. While that discussion is going on, the NPOV tag may be placed on the article. Since there's no NPOV problem being resolved by discussion on the talk page and no particular NPOV issue identified, the tag should be removed. If an editor does identify a statement that isn't NPOV, let's fix it. I'd be very happy to help resolve any disagreements regarding neutrality if they do arise.Dgf32 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No article on Frontier Psychiatry?

It was a huge movement during the 1800's in the American mid-west and again through the 90's. 203.59.213.54 (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Psychiatry for the indigent

I've had extensive contact with poor Americans on Medicaid and with Canadians (who, given Canada's government-funded health care system, nearly all receive Medicaid-quality health care). The psychiatric patients among them tell me the only treatment they get is medication prescribed in five-minute med-check appointments. In fact, in Canada, it is nearly impossible to get ongoing monitoring from a psychiatrist at all, and most psychiatrists do only a one-hour consultation with follow-up monitoring by the family practitioner. These kinds of things need to be out in the open, not concealed where the medical community wants them. I am not a scientologist or an anti-psychiatry activist, just someone who is sick and tired of the truth being buried alive because of technicalities. My attempts to add this information to the article have been blocked several times. To the people doing the blocking, if you have any good faith at all, let's talk. What would satisfy you? Durwoodie (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your statements are replete with unsubstantiated (and often wrong) accusations. Canadians only receive Medicaid-quality care? Really? Do you have a reliable source for that? What truth is being buried? There are thousands of people whose life is better because of psychiatric treatment. There are sources for that. And, unfortunately, there are thousands of people who don't respond well or even at all to psychiatric medication. And many psychiatric medications have serious side effects. Nobody is denying that, so please stop the conspiracy-theory talk. If you want to add info to a WP article, you will have to follow WP's policies and guidelines. Please star with reading the guidelines on reliable sources and neutral editing. --Crusio (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The "sources" you refer to are all mental health industry insiders, who have a vested interest in perpetuating certain myths. If those are the only sources that are permitted to be used, nobody will ever find out what's really going on. Whatever. I'm glad that you didn't simply arrange to have me shot to death as a "troublemaker"--or, worse yet, locked up in a psychiatric facility for that reason. Durwoodie (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New Edit

I have written an article on Toronto Journalist and author Patricia Pearson's book about her battle with diagnosed anxiety, A Brief History of Anxiety (Yours & Mine) and added a reference in the See Also section. Hopefully this will meet with other editors' approval. Durwoodie (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I see that one of the sold-out hookers who shill for the pharmaceutical industry has deleted my reference not only from here but from biopsychiatry controversy because it is allegedly about an "obscure anti-psychiatry book." That does not, however, prevent me from pointing out that the vested interests of the psychiatry industry are policing Misplaced Pages and protecting their wealth by removing legitimate references from articles. And the coward didn't even have the courage to identify himself here when he did it! Durwoodie (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• Top-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class neuroscience articles
• High-importance neuroscience articles