A critique of "MentalIllnessPolicy.org"'s claims about Antipsychiatry and Psychiatry.

https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/myths/antipsychiatry.html

> Antipsychiatry vs. Psychiatry: Essay by DJ Jaffe

> There are two broad groups controlling the nation’s mental health agenda: antipsychiatry and psychiatry. They are both right about some things, and wrong about others. It is disappointing that there is no third group that fills the gap.

1. This is an argument from ignorance.

2. There is the Critical Psychiatry "group", which is for expanding services, expanding Human Rights, expanding Client Controlled Services, eliminating non-science based paperwork from tax-funded systems, and promoting integration of individuals of perceived mood, personality and development differences into society.

> ANTIPSYCHIATRY

> Antipsychiatry groups deny mental illness exists. And whatever does exist, is not medical in nature.

1. This is an appeal to narrative, a straw man argument, lumping and treats Antipsychiatry as a monolith, which it isn't.

2. Antipsychiatry and Critical Psychiatry acknowledge some medical issues can affect/effect mood, personality and development; there is however a clear distinction between provable "medical issues" and attempts to medicalize conflict.

> The antipsychiatry agenda is led by religious organizations (Scientology) and the separate organization they founded, the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) joined by government-funded “survivor”, “consumer”, and “ex-patient” organizations. The gurus of the movement are Ron Hubbard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics Thomas Szasz and Peter Breggin. These are the organizations and individuals with highest book sales, budgets and influence, hence being characterized as the leaders. (8/2017 UPDATE: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and particularly its Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) subsidiary, are now major funders of antipsychiatry as are several states. See analysis of SAMHSA/CMHS antipsychiatry efforts.)

1. Antipsychiatry and Critical Psychiatry predate Scientology, were founded by Psychiatrists, Sociologists, Philosophers, Medical Doctors, Medical Journalists, Social Workers and Clients of the Psychiatric System that took issue with the flaws, abuse, anti-scientific thinking, fraud, and other such problems.

2. Criticism and it's validity isn't measured by what entity or entities contribute the most to the debate in regards to sales, advertisements or popularity, but by which arguments hold the most water on their own merit. Any attempt to argue otherwise run fowl of the fallacy known as "guilt by association".

>Thomas Szasz claims schizophrenia is merely a “myth.” (T.S. Szasz, Schizophrenia: The Sacred Symbol of Psychiatry (1976). Dr. Peter Breggin argued that people with schizophrenia bring the symptoms on themselves because of “cowardice” or “failure of nerve.” (P.R. Breggin, The Psychology of Freedom (1980)).

1. Criticism of one possibly valid issue (which may be an umbrella term often including possibly medical issues) does not indicate the entire field of Psychiatry and it's methods for declaring lumped criteria as "illnesses" or that it's diagnostic protocols are solid for either medical issues or non-medical issues.

2. This is also another "guilt by association" fallacy and attempt at "poisoning the well".

>Scientology believes that “aberration” is caused by “Engrams” (past memories) that recording can reduce. They, along with Thomas Szasz founded CCHR which believes using psychiatry (vs. Scientology) is torture and therefore wants to end psychiatry. A SAMHSA funded ‘consumer” group claims schizophrenia is merely “severe emotional distress and loss of social role” brought on by “trauma.”

1. Scientology does not represent all Antipsychiatry or Critical Psychiatry proponents.

2. Psychiatry has a known and confirmed history of using known torture techniques on people labeled as mentally ill.

> Antipsychiatrists will often say consumers should have choice and they are not against medications, while simultaneously distributing only information about the side-effects and no information about the benefits.

1. This is called "informed consent" is generally accepted by the psychiatric establishment as being an important part of psychiatric practices, although it is often ignored and patients are sometimes pressured to sign "informed concent" forms without being allowed to read them.

2. The point of informed consent is to make people aware of issues, not to curtail awareness. Often the harms outweight the benefits, as some medications can cause irreversible brain damage.

> Believers in antipsychiatry use terms like “survivor” “ex-patient”, and “people who have been labeled with mental illness”. Using these terms allow groups to avoid acknowledging that mental illness exists, while simultaneously getting mental health funding. They promote “Alternatives” to psychiatry.

1. Some ex-patients are indeed perfectly functional human beings wrongly diagnosed for a number of reasons. They have full ethical and legal rights to be acknowledged as being perfectly functional. To state otherwise due to concerns about "lumping" is entirely unethical.

2. Individuals declaring their own sanity in the face of wrongful diagnosis or misdiagnosis does not interfere with others choosing to willingly engage the psychiatric system.

3. Not all individuals that are Antipsychiatry or Critical Psychiatry believe in alternatives to psychiatry. Some are against all forms of pseudo-science and are also against New Age Alternatives and Religious Practices as well. To lump all Antipsychiatrists and Critical Psychiatrists together is intellectually dishonest.

>Antipsychiatry is against “force”. They believe we should either not be allowed to involuntarily treat anyone, or not allowed to involuntarily treat anyone until after they have already become danger to self or others. They oppose laws that would provide treatment to prevent dangerousness.

1. There is no justification to violate another person's Rights unless they have done something to merit it.

2. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights outlines this clearly.

3. "Presuppositional Preventative Force" doesn't make sense Epistemically or Ethically. Evidence is required for all decisions.

4. Define what is "dangerous" please.

-

> PSYCHIATRY

> Psychiatry groups represent the other extreme: they believe almost everything is a mental illness. Their literature claims up to 50% of people had a “diagnosable” mental disorder during their life. ( http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/6/593 )

1. Psychiatry is actually supposed to be a study and clinical practice concerning Moods, Personality, Development and Functionality of the Mind, and what concepts influence it.

2. Not all psychiatrists agree with World Psychiatric Association; many psychiatrists are actually Antipsychiatrists, as they helped start both the Antipsychiatry Movement and the Critical Psychiatry Movement.

> Psychiatry is led by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Mental Health America (MHA) and—above all others—the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and pharmaceutical industry. They believe that almost every feeling (too sad, too happy, too removed, too involved, too bereaved) and social issue (bad marriage, poor grades, no job, love of internet) etc and “trauma” are mental illnesses that need earlier and earlier identification, treatment and often an expensive new medicine. They have successfully directed mental health dollars to all these issues.

1. Psychiatry is actually led by:

A. The World Psychiatric Association,

B. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

C. American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry

D. American Association of Community Psychiatrists

E. American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry

F. National Alliance on Mental Illness

G. Mental Health America

H. The American Psychiatric Association

I. The National Institute of Mental Health

J. Journal of American Psychiatry

K. Association for Academic Psychiatry

> COMMONALITIES

> Interestingly, antipsychiatry and psychiatry share the same goal of expanding the definition of people with whatever it is they claim to represent. To both groups, casting a wide umbrella is the goal and narrowing focus is anathema.

1. Neither Psychiatry, Antipsychiatry or Critical Psychiatry are Monoliths.

2. It's not necessarily about changing definitions, but often about epistemic analysis of what is being proclaimed; sometimes it's about instituting intellectual honesty.

> Psychiatry casts it’s net through the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

1. It also casts it's net in regards to:

A. Diagnostic criteria

B. Diagnostic protocols

C. Involuntary commitment

D. Seeking ground in schools, social services, courts, jails, the military, etc.

2. Mental Health Agencies, Medical Agencies, Social Service Agencies and Pharma Agencies take active and aggressive roles in forcing people into the system because of the lax nature of diagnostic processes, which allowed for exploitation in regards to insurance scams.

3. Controlling families and schools also often take advantage of this.

> Anti-psychiatry casts their net through the refusal to say who is in or out. Any “Person with Lived Experience (i.e., everyone) or as the Executive Director of one government funded group, said in response to a previous Huffington Post blog of mine, everyone who has had “severe emotional distress which interferes with community participation.” is welcome. So if you were ever mad at your brother and skipped his birthday party in protest, you are welcome to the club.

1. Again, Antipsychiatry and Critical Psychiatry are not a monolith.

2. Critical Psychiatry specifically outlines that "mental illness" can be diagnosed following this criteria:

A. Epistemic foundations for criteria

B. Evidence-based foundations/citations for claims of personal functioning and dysfunction history

C. A review of attributed statements by clients

D. Medical brain scans

E. Demonstrated evidence of dysfunction or inappropriateness

F. Double-blind, independently reproduced diagnostic results with falsificationist (pseudo-patients) controls.

3. Some of the criteria for mental illness according to the DSM are concepts such as conflict or mood; this is a good reason for some people to take up the mantle of antipsychiatry.

> In this regard, antipsychiatry and psychiatry have made the term “mental illness” meaningless, which allows mental health dollars to be spent anywhere.

1. Again, Antipsychiatry and Critical Psychiatry are not a monolith. Neither is psychiatry.

2. Critical psychiatry wishes for all non-scientific and non-epistemic practices to delete all of their non-violent and non-at-(proven)risk data, and for such practices to have their public funding pulled, and for funding to be redirected towards other initiatives and to be focused on those that either at proven risk or have a history of violence.

> They both tend to shun highly symptomatic people with serious and persistent mental illness (at least from PR materials) because it interferes with their message that “people with mental illness are just like you and me.” They believe there is stigma to having a mental illness and showing the highly symptomatic (ex. those who killed someone) is stigmatizing.

1. Many facets of psychiatry actually seek out people to diagnose, either for ideological reasons or for funding reasons.

2. People diagnosed with mental illnesses are indeed humans. "Othering" people due to conflict or differences is without epistemic reasoning.

3. There is a distinct difference between at-risk/violent individuals and those that are not; the psychiatric establishment does a terrible job at differentiating them, but those diagnosed with psychiatric disorders are actually less likely to be violent and are more likely to be victims of violence, hence some respond with violence due to neglect.

4. "Othering" the mentally ill is the textbook definition of stigma.

> ANTIPSYCHIATRY: THE GOOD AND THE BAD

> Antipsychiatry has done a fearless job of identifying and publicizing many abuses in the mental health system: especially of people who have been mistreated. They have also done a good job at bringing the over marketing of psychiatric medications (especially to children) to the public’s attention.

1. Great.

2. Not the only concern of the Antipsychiatry Movement. It's mostly focused on how the criteria, diagnostics, records and involuntary commitment are applied incorrectly. The abuses and medicine issues (Human Rights issues) are secondary to the intellectual issues. One is ethics, the other is academics.

> Scientology and anti-psychiatry have done a brilliant job at confronting the APA, Big Pharma and NAMI for medicalizing everything.

1. Actually most of that was done in the 1970s with the help of several non-Scientologist Psychiatrists and Philosophers.

2. For the record Thomas Szasz was not a Scientologist, he just worked with them to expose issues, and admitted it was simply a matter of funding and numbers.

> Unfortunately Scientology and anti-psychiatry go to nonsensical next steps: because some things psychiatrists believe are mental illnesses really aren’t therefore mental illness doesn’t exist. They apparently believe every organ in the body, except the brain can have illness, and the brain is always functioning.

1. Again, not all Antipsychiatrists and Critical Psychiatrists are Scientologists. Many are actually non-Scientologists and in fact identify as Atheists, Agnostics and Pantheists.

2. The DSM (and it's contents) isn't a monolith; this is why the DSM (and ICD) is grouped into sections and why some things are changed or removed while others are not.

3. There are 5 mental illness groups: Mood, Anxiety, Developmental, Psychosis & Personality. Sub-categories are lumped by supposed symptoms of personal dysfunction. Not everyone agrees on these.

4. Stating that some sub-categories are without foundation is not the same thing as stating all sub-categories are without foundation.

5. Any criteria that is not checked on or is without evidential foundation or epistemic reasoning is invalid.

> As “proof” they point to the lack of biomedical markers sufficiently developed to be used to diagnose serious mental illness. This is akin to saying colon cancer did not exist before the invention of the colonoscopy.

1. Evidence for false diagnostic concepts:

A. Moods are considered symptoms

B. Reasoning for moods isn't explored or considered important

C. Personal medical history is "interpreted" to fit criteria

D. Checking on validity of medical history is non-existent

E. Review of medical history and attributed quotes is not reviewed by patients

F. All diagnostics are done via rhetoric; no evidence is used

2. Colon cancer had evidence of bleeding and death; most people accused of mental illness show no evidence of mental illness other than mood. Some may commit acts of self harm to draw attention to the issues in their lives that are being ignored by created by others.

> Antipsychiatry has tried to eliminate the right to choose electroconvulsive therapy, antipsychotics, hospitalization and others. They work to eliminate the right of people with anosognosia to receive treatment unless they are well enough to choose it.

1. Again, Antipsychiatry and Critical Psychiatry are not a monolith. Neither is psychiatry.

2. Antipsychiatry attempts to eliminate the violation of Universal Human Rights.

3. Stopping Human Rights violations is not the same as prohibiting the free use of services.

4. Anosognosia is often used as a term to gaslight people accused; often people that are abused or exploited and called mentally ill by abusers. This has been documented.

5. The vast majority of Antipsychiatry and Critical Psychiatry supporters are not opposed to force against those proven violent.

6. ECT is not considered ethical to apply to someone without consent by even the current psychiatric establishment.

> Another widely shared belief among antipsychiatrists is that because some people were mistreated; the system of care should be eliminated. The Baby/Bath water syndrome.

1. Straw man argument.

2. The argument is that any part of the system that violates Human Rights and is not based on verifiable claims should be eliminated.

3. The remove of abuse and irrationality from the system is not the same thing as total elimination of the system.

> THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF PSYCHIATRY

> Psychiatry has done a good, albeit incomplete job of coming up with medications for people with serious mental illness and providing patients and their families educational materials on how to deal with serious mental illness. They have done a stellar job at getting mental illness covered under the insurance policies of corporations.

1. Most psychiatric concepts are unproven, and most psychiatric educational materials contain unscientific claims and support "othering" members of the community.

2. The covering of a concept by insurance is no measure of it's validity. Only epistemic measures are true measures of somethings validity.

> Unfortunately in their rush to medicalize “lived-experiences” they have, like antipsychiatry become a major force behind the elimination of services for the most seriously ill. (Ex. standing by as hospitals close; refusing to engage in efforts to reform involuntary treatment laws, etc)

1. Ok.

2. What percentage of people in involuntary commitment have been proven to be at risk or caused harm? Statistics and citations please. No presuming. Presumptions are not science or logic, and therefore they are not facts nor reason.

> As psychiatry demand that more and more services focus on the worried-well, fewer dollars are left for the seriously mentally ill. Their anti-stigma campaigns contribute to the problem because they only show the highest functioning individuals, leading to tremendous misunderstanding as to the nature of serious mental illness.

1. Agreed.

2. Anti-stigma campaigns actually have increased stigma, "othering", witch-hunts, overdiagnosing and an increase in psychiatric force. The number of psychiatric institutions have only increased every year; they have never decreased.

> THE THIRD WAY

> There is a desperate need for an organization that focuses on serious mental illness only.

1. How do you define "serious mental illness"?

2. What do you plan to do with the records of those accused of serious mental illness despite a lack of data proving it so?

> An organization that accepts the antipsychiatry mantra that we have medicalized everything, and their devotion to confronting abuse, but rejects their position that mental illness does not exist. An organization that embraces their holding a microscope to the medical/pharmacological/mental health complex; but is grounded in science.

1. That's already called Critical Psychiatry.

2. Anti-evidence psychiatrists that support "intuitive diagnosis" and "reported history diagnosis" have launched a campaign to discredit Critical Psychiatry as a rebranding of Antipsychiatry, despite Critical Psychiatry being an Epistemology-centric version of Psychiatry.

> An organization that accepts pro-psychiatry philosophy that mental illness exists, and medications can work, but rejects their philosophy that everything is a mental illness and deserves equal funding.

1. There is still debate about the term "illness" in regards to the concept of "mental"; but Critical Psychiatry accepts the concept of "dysfunctional symptoms" and differentiates them from all being "illnesses" in the medical sence, while acknowledging some are due to medical issues.

2. Not every concept is built of equal parts; this is true of diagnostic labels, but also their criteria.

3. It is agreed that anything that isn't science/evidence based should be removed from public funding.

> An organization that acknowledges serious and persistent mental illnesses are no-fault biologically based disorders and therefore there is no stigma to suffering from it. (There is however discrimination).

1. How is biology-based illness determined without biology-based testing? As there are currently zero accepted biology-based tests for psychiatric disorders accepted by any Psychiatric Organization.

2. Labeling regardless still comes with legal restrictions.

> An organization that believes it is important to focus dollars, policies and public attention on the most seriously ill. An organization willing to help them to the front of the line, rather than shun them to the back.

1. Focusing on money may actually increase false diagnosis. Removing patients and telling them to focus may actually increase aggressive false diagnosis in order to keep the system afloat.

2. How are people currently shunned?

> Some organizations fill parts of the gap. Privately funded research organizations like NARSAD, IMHRO and The Stanley Medical Research Institute are looking for cures for serious mental illness, but they only focus on research.

1. Research is required before clinical practice and application; evidence is always required before practice.

2. Cures for what? How?

> Organizations like the Treatment Advocacy Center focus on serious mental illness but intentionally and appropriately limit their campaigns to reform assisted treatment laws and changing Medicaid policies to insure more impatient treatment is available to those who need. They also do not organize at grass roots level.

1. How does this increase science-backed services, or limit abuse or fraud? If anything this gives the psychiatric establishement a blank check to increase evidence-less based applications.

2. Agencies are inherently non-grassroots. That is called astro-turfing. Grassroots in an inherently ad hoc movement created and maintained by individuals not associated with an agency. That is the difference between an Agency Organization and a Grassroots Organization. Agencies are supported by Special Interest Businesses, whereas Grassroots Organizations are supported by Special Interest Citizens without ties to Special Interest Businesses.

Notes of consideration:

1. Please attempt to learn about logical fallacies, cognitive biases and common misconceptions when formulating an argument or critical piece. Much of your critical piece was filled with logical fallacies such as straw man arguments, lumping and so on.

2. Please check with the antipsychiatry and critical psychiatry communities before making claims about their positions in order to avoid misconstruing or misrepresenting their positions. There are several boards and forums on the internet where people can be reached.