Behaviorism and Mental Health

Alternative perspective on psychiatry's so-called mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Tell Your Story
  • Submit Your Story
  • Moderation Policy

Psychiatry is a Lost Cause

April 20, 2013 By Phil Hickey |

It is easy to vilify psychiatrists.  Their spurious conceptual framework, toxic “treatments’ and blatantly corrupt links to pharma make them easy targets.  Their destructive activities, to which they resolutely cling, invite criticism which they steadfastly ignore.  Any thoughts that perhaps they had seen the errors of their ways have been dashed by the soon-to-be published DSM-5, which promises to be business as usual, only more so.

HOW DID THEY GET THIS WAY?

In the first half of the twentieth century psychiatrists worked either in mental asylums or in private practice.  The dominant philosophy was psychoanalysis, which essentially means helping people by getting to know them and talking to them. The concepts of psychoanalysis migrated way beyond the consulting room, and became widely known through novels, magazine articles, movies, etc…, and in society generally, psychiatrists were well regarded.

PSYCHIATRY AND GENERAL MEDICINE

But within medical circles they were something of a laughing stock.  From the late 1800’s on, general medicine had abandoned its folklorish roots and climbed squarely on the back of science.  By 1950, it was based almost entirely on science, and empirical validation was the yardstick by which treatments were evaluated.

By contrast, psychiatry couldn’t even produce scientifically acceptable definitions of its subject matter, and behind their backs, psychiatrists were frequently ridiculed by physicians in other specialties.

COMPETITION FROM OTHER PROFESSIONS

To compound the psychiatrists’ plight, other helping professions were beginning to muscle in on their turf.  Freud had stated that a medical degree was not necessary for the practice of psychoanalysis. (The Question of Lay Analysis, 1926).

By 1950, psychologists, social workers, and other professionals were using psychoanalytic concepts in their work with clients, and were beginning to be seen as a threat by the psychiatrists themselves.

ENTER THE DRUGS

There had been a few psychotropic drugs available to psychiatrists prior to 1950, but their impact was fairly minimal.  From the 50’s on, however, more drugs came on the market, and the psychiatrists tragically latched onto these as the solution to both problems.  The fact that they were prescribing drugs created the impression that they were “real” doctors, while their prescription privileges set them apart from the other professionals who were snapping at their heels.

SPURIOUS CONCEPTS

People, including psychiatrists, hate to be inconsistent.  Since they were prescribing drugs, the psychiatrists had to persuade themselves that the conditions they were treating were real illnesses.  From 1952 to the present time, one of their primary endeavors has been the spurious medicalization of virtually every human problem, and the promotion of the idea that these “illnesses” are best treated by drugs.  The self-serving aspect of this activity, as well as the corrupting impact of pharmaceutical money, is finally being exposed widely for the destructive travesty that it is.

A small number of psychiatrists have responded positively to this wave of outrage, and have taken appropriate steps.  But the body of psychiatry not only clings persistently to their errors, but, with DSM-5, has made it clear that their policy is still:  full speed ahead.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

This is not an academic matter.  Psychiatry is destroying people daily on the altar of psychiatric turf and pharma profits.  The destructive nature of psychiatric treatment is documented daily in journals, medical articles, and, most compellingly, in the heart-rending stories of survivors.

Psychiatry is a lost cause, and there is a pressing need for members of the helping professions, both individually and through their professional associations, to distance themselves from psychiatry and to speak out clearly and strongly against its meaningless concepts and destructive “treatments.”

We can no longer say that we didn’t know.  We can no longer say that we were trying to change the system from the inside. We can no longer say that we were doing good despite the evils being perpetrated in the next room.

It’s time for divorce!  If psychologists, social workers, counselors, case managers, addiction counselors, job coaches, etc., want to retain any shred of respectability in the coming decade, they need to distance themselves from psychiatrists and speak out against the abuses.

 

Filed Under: A Behavioral Approach to Mental Disorders Tagged With: conflict of interest, DSM-5, expansion of psychiatric turf, myth of mental illness, over-medicalization of everyday life, pharmaceutical industry

About Phil Hickey

I am a licensed psychologist, presently retired. I have worked in clinical and managerial positions in the mental health, corrections, and addictions fields in the United States and England. My wife Nancy and I have been married since 1970 and have four grown children.

 

Recent Articles

  • AND FINALLY
  • RESPONDING TO DR. MOREHEAD’S SECOND ATTACK ON ANTI-PSYCHIATRY
  • DR. PIES STILL TRYING TO EXCULPATE PSYCHIATRY FOR THE CHEMICAL IMBALANCE THEORY OF DEPRESSION
  • RESPONDING TO DANIEL MOREHEAD, MD,  PSYCHIATRY’S LATEST CHAMPION
  • PROBLEMS AT A COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH CENTER
  • THE ENIGMA-MDD PROJECT: SEARCHING FOR THE NEUROPATHOLOGY OF “MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER”
  • ILLNESSES OR LOOSE COLLECTIONS OF VAGUELY DESCRIBED PROBLEMS?
  • WHY IS PSYCHIATRY SO DEFENSIVE ABOUT CRITICISM OF PSYCHIATRY? Part 2
  • WHY IS PSYCHIATRY SO DEFENSIVE ABOUT CRITICISM OF PSYCHIATRY? Part 1
  • ADDRESSING THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF MENTAL HEALTH – OR PERHAPS NOT

The phrase "mental health" as used in the name of this website is simply a term of convenience. It specifically does not imply that the human problems embraced by this term are illnesses, or that their absence constitutes health. Indeed, the fundamental tenet of this site is that there are no mental illnesses, and that conceptualizing human problems in this way is spurious, destructive, disempowering, and stigmatizing.

Disclaimer

The purpose of this website is to provide a forum where current practices and ideas in the mental health field can be critically examined and discussed. It is not possible in this kind of context to provide psychological help or advice to individuals who may read this site, and nothing written here should be construed in this manner. Readers seeking psychological help should consult a qualified practitioner in their own local area. They should explain their concerns to this person and develop a trusting working relationship. It is only in a one-to-one relationship of this kind that specific advice should be given or taken.

Privacy Policy

Popular Topics…

ADHD akathisia alcohol alcohol/drugs antidepressants antipsychotics anxiety benzodiazepines bipolar books worth reading case study chemical imbalance theory conflict of interest dealing with problems of daily living dementia dependence depression drug DSM DSM-5 ECT expansion of psychiatric turf IF THEY'RE NOT ILLNESSES WHAT ARE THEY? involuntary commitment Mad in America major tranquilizers myth of chemical imbalance myth of mental illness neuroleptics over-medicalization of everyday life parenting pharmaceutical industry placebo posttraumatic stress disorder Psychiatric "spin" research corruption schizophrenia shock "treatment" side effects somatic symptom disorder SSRI's suicide survivors of psychiatry tardive dyskinesia violence

© 2009–2024