I'm a psychiatrist. It is always amazing to me that despite four years of medical school, six years of residency and fellowships, and four board certifications, the assumption is that I have no idea what I'm talking about and have evil motives.
There are fair criticisms of psychiatry, there are bad psychiatrists, but mostly there are crappy generalizations. Good psychiatrists have an understanding of what medications can and cannot do, and a well-rounded view of the person they are treating as a whole human being.
I work with the mentally ill who are involved in criminal justice, both juveniles and adults. I can assure you, having more psychiatrists would help a lot of people.
Any chance you could answer some questions? I'll get to them after a couple of (relevant) anecdotes.
I was diagnosed with depression by a psychologist. I got a referral to a psychiatrist, and I was told that the psychiatrist would probably want to do his own assessment of where I was at & what kind of therapy would best benefit me.
Nope. It was, "You've got such & such diagnosis; let's try such & such drug. Bye!" Some years later, I was treated by another psychiatrist. Same deal.
Second, I've read a fair amount about various psychoactive drugs. One thing I've noted in the literature is that often drugs are only found to be effective when used in combination with other kinds of therapy: counseling, etc. So if I am taking a psychoactive drug regularly to treat some condition, then I always get regular counseling for that condition as well.
I have mentioned this practice of mine to both psychiatrists, and both indicated their approval. But in both cases, counseling was never mentioned until I brought it up. I'm thinking that, if I were a psychiatrist, then I might insist that my patients get regular counseling in addition to my treatment. To avoid even recommending it strikes me (in my highly inexpert opinion) as an awful practice, possibly rendering psychiatric treatment ineffective. One might even call it a violation of professional ethics.
So, my questions.
1. Would you say my experiences related above are typical?
2. Would you say that these experiences point out problems (with the two psychiatrists at least, and with the profession as a whole, if the answer to #1 is "yes")?
3. If these are problems, then what do we do about them?
I'm curious what you make of the claims Robert Whitaker makes in "Anatomy of an Epidemic" and elsewhere? Psychiatry comes off looking quite bad in his analysis and he is far from the only critic of the profession. My attempts to find convincing rebuttals of his claims from Psychiatrists have so far drawn a blank.
In a nutshell for those not familiar with the book, he presents convincing evidence that most psychiatric medicines have no significant short term benefits over active placebos and in fact worsen long term outcomes and that the profession has been complicit in presenting unsupported hypotheses about chemical imbalances in the brain causing conditions such as depression as established fact and in pushing drugs as the primary means of treatment without sufficient evidence of their efficacy and largely ignoring worrying evidence of long term harm.
I'll admit to having a pre existing suspicion of psychiatry stemming from taking a degree in psychology in the UK but after reading this book and digging more deeply I have to say it looks far worse for psychiatry than I previously imagined.
Everyone's different, but as a programmer, I'd like more explaination of my psychiatrist's thought process on why they choose particular diagnosis and the medications they use. And preferably a decent bit of pharmacology and statistics of expected outcomes (especially when I ask).
Obviously it's a complicated profession. The medication changes your brain and often only has moderate success. Sometimes the medications can put you into a bad mood (and who do we blame? Probably the doctor). Diagnosis are partially based on subjective information.
I was ruined myself by a psychiatrist that over prescribed benzos and later tried to use her authority to sell 'multilevel marketing' goods and services. It's hard to blindly trust someone based on their degree after that.
I think part of the difficulty is that we don't have a great understanding of consciousness or how the mind actually works. It feels a bit like medicine prior to germ theory.
Even for relatively more understood things like depression it's not like we can test the serotonin levels to validate it before SSRIs and then check them after.
It seems to be a mixture of this seems to work, but given the high variation among people and general complexity of mental states the science is difficult.
Theodore Dalrymple (a retired prison psychiater from England) wrote a book about how psychiatry undermines morality. It is called 'Admirable Evasions' (1). One of the things he notes: many people call themselves depressed nowadays. Few people call themselves unhappy.
And some of the problems that cause bad outcomes are outside of what you control. Laws forbidding families from getting information about their mentally ill adult children, for example.
Also, "the system" (insurance companies, the courts, etc) sometimes make it very, very hard to get someone the help they need.
I had a mentally ill colleague that was very difficult to help. His family was ready and willing, but it was just impossible, given the legal constraints on everyone, to get him the help he needed. He was homeless for 6-9 months before he was committed and then got back on his meds and was able to go home.
Some of it might come from creepy movies or sad history of psychiatric institutions, which is unfortunate.
However, recently there was an unexpected result regarding schizophrenia suggesting it might be just a result of a genetic bug of extensive deletion of redundant neurons in the brain, a bio-computational problem when you look at it with the eyes of a hacker. If confirmed, this would invalidate a lot of previous research and force the whole field to take a bit different, algorithmic view on many issues.
In Science there exist certain topics that are minefields.
Differences between human groupings. Race. Class.
The Brain or Mind.
Sexuality.
Future/Past analysis.
Most of economics.
Most interesting subjects contain taboos and dangers that should you cross them, shall ruin your career or life. That is why if we're really as smart as we think we have to use the Dark Arts. I don't know what would happen to a modern day Darwin but I doubt it'd be pretty.
The most controversial debate on science I ever saw was on Intelligence Squared on the subject of Organic Farming. My intuition is that one side felt strongly enough that they rigged the vote, and that the moderator knew it too when he saw the results.
Would you respect someone who has studied Scientology for 10 years, just because it's a long time? I think in that case, the longer the worse.
Psychiatry is no different, pseudo-scientific quackery that exists largely to provide politically comfortable answers to questions society does not want to confront.
Oh, and to rubber stamp who the courts excuse for crime.
A generation of boys on ADHD drugs, thank psychiatry for that.
The last Psychiatrist I went to prescribed me 4mg of Klonopin a day for anxiety. The one before that prescribed me 40-50mg of Adderall a day for ADHD and about 600mg of Seroquel a night for sleeping problems. Both times I decided to quit going and tapered myself off.
There never really asked how I felt or seemed to care about me in any way shape or form. Just, "Here's your drugs, see you next month."
I have a horrible opinion about the entire profession of Psychiatry and at this point do not trust any of them in the slightest. I have not seen one in years. These days if I have a degenerated mental health in some form (whether that be inability to focus, sleep, or bouts of anxiety), marijuana is my go to solution.
Psychiatry is distinct from psychology and other forms of talk therapy.
When all you have is a hammer, etc.
The separation is amusingly pronounced. Even for a teenager it is pretty much totally up to the patient whether to see a psychiatrist, psychologist who uses empirically validated methods, psychologist who doesn't, LCSW, GP, etc. and they will all tell you wildly different things.
It doesn't help that most people haven't heard of, or don't know the difference between, many of those things.
I'm married to a psychologist specializing in evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy for treating anxiety and insomnia. There are ways to deal with these problems without medication. And these methods are backed up by peer reviewed studies to prove they work. If you do end up needing help in the future I'd recommend reading up on CBT.
Psychiatrists are a bit like chiropractors. They want to be seen as "doctors", but none of what they do has any scientific basis. Ever notice how psychiatrists just prescribe you random medications without knowing how, or even if, they work? The most damning fact is that I've never met anyone on psych meds who is doing really great.
if a publicly traded, large market cap, privately owned pharmaceutical company owned a patent for marijuana it would be legal and pushed heavily by psychiatrists.
however, it is a plant, and cannot be patented, so instead we made it illegal.
We're all aware that most of the drugs that are common in the profession have serious side effects.
I'm glad the author called for his colleagues to focus more on the whole body, since realistically lifestyle and nutritional changes can have as profound effects as drugs, with no side effects.
I tend to think subclinical deficiencies in various nutrients can play a big role. Most people are already aware of the imporant brain benefits of Vitamin D and Omega 3, but there's others.
Had a doctor prescribe two meds once, then a few weeks later asked me how one of them was working. I was honestly confused by the question, since I have no idea how one drug is working when I've only ever taken it in tandem with something else. The very question indicates at best an unacceptable level of indifference, at worst outright incompetence.
Wouldn't that imply that the second drug might just be there to ease side effects of the first? Regulate hormonal levels or blood pressure, or any other functions that might not be directly related to how effective the other one is but simply keeps everything in order? I get what you're saying, but incompetence is a bit of an extreme conclusion to draw from you not knowing what your prescription is meant to do.
There seems to be a huge gap between what psychiatrists believe and how psychiatric knowledge is presented to the general public.
For example, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that depression is qualitatively different from being unhappy, or that depression can't be caused by events that would make a typical person unhappy, or cured by the opposite. And I'm fairly certain that very little such evidence exists, because this is not the concern of psychiatrists, they just want to treat the person, not define categories per se. But I believe that psychiatrists allow the public to form this flawed understanding because they think it will lead people to treat people with depression with more sympathy and treat depression like a real problem. To me the more honest approach would be to simply say that unhappiness is a real problem and any approach or treatment that works should be considered.
If you'd look you'd find plenty of evidence of the sort that you think doesn't exist. Try a popular book like Against Depression as a starter. I think that the existence of such evidence also invalidates the rest of your prejudices that you express.
Most drugs on the market today have side effects that are serious to most people. Also the fact is that now a days it seems that almost all kid have "ADHD" or "ADD" and are getting put on stimulants for it. I don't get it at all. I was put on antidepressants when I was young and it really could have fucked me up if my parents kept listening to my doctor.
ADHD is overdiagnosed and under diagnosed. (It's just badly diagnosed, really.)
On the one hand, parents get their kids prescribed stimulants (which necessarily entails a—usually fake—ADD diagnosis) for the same reason university students go pick up illicit stimulants: they think it'll "make" them study. That is not the problem that ADHD causes, nor is that the benefit stimulants provide, but it's what parents think.
On the other hand, many people only discover as adults that they've had ADHD their entire lives, and have suffered unnecessarily through 3+ decades of being unable to motivate themselves to do homework/projects before they're overdue, or practice anything, or focus on reading rather than (badly) multitasking five different things, or put themselves to bed before 4AM, or even remember half the things they need to bring with them when they leave the house.
As for the stimulants: A lot of people do great on stimulants. And yes, the stimulants have side effects that some people experience. Many don't. Or the side effects are quite manageable compared to not taking it.
I have personally seen it help 2 persons I know well, don't know anyone who has hurt by stimulants that have been legally prescribed and used. (but I know one who quit because the cost/benefit wasn't there).
As for why people did well without stimulants in earlier times the answer might also contain: they didn't necessarily. Not finishing even basic schooling was more common.
Also there were more less rules and more options that didn't require sitting >5 hours a day.
If Psychiatry wants to "turn itself around", it needs to do some house cleaning.
In a recent "skeptic" magazine [1], Harriet Hall, M.D. had this to say about the situation:
"Psychotropic drugs are far from ideal. They don’t work well for everyone, and they can sometimes cause devastating side effects. But they do save lives, and they do allow some patients to lead a more-or-less normal life. They are the best we have at the moment. " (emphasis added)
This is an apology for the status quo, and distracts from the main issue. My girlfriend is one of the ones for whom "psychotropic drugs" don't work at all - in fact, I believe that the psychotropic drugs that she's been prescribed have a lot to do with her present predicament. Haldol - sold as an anti-psychotic - is well known to cause the condition it supposedly treats. Dr. Hall states that these drugs "save lives", but I wonder what the ratio of "lives ruined" to "lives saved" is.
There are non-psychotropic drugs that have been very helpful for my girlfriend, but her psychiatrists don't know to use them. I've spent a few hours today revising my latest petition to the courts asking them protect my girlfriend from the palliative treatments that she has been ordered to endure. The main thrust of my argument is that the medications aren't working because they do not address the causes of her condition. The causes are perfectly obvious to me, but the doctors have all been "shooting in the dark", hoping that the next pill will work better than the last one.
Psychiatry's trouble is that it tries to treat emotional problems using drugs.
That's also the entire point of psychiatry.
It's in a crisis because "stabilizing" people by numbing their brains does nothing to help them face their problems. A profession of cleaners whose main technique was to sweep everything under the rug would also face crisis at some point.
Thats not the problem, its a tool to solve a situation. If someone is emotionally suffering so much as to not perform a job, not get out of bed, talking with them will not save their lifes. Treating the symptoms is one very legitimate way of dealing with a disease.
> Psychiatry programs attract medical students with lower board scores and fewer academic honors on average compared to other specialties.
It sounds like a self-reinforcing problem. Psychiatry's bad reputation leads to it having less qualified practitioners, thereby justifying the poor reputation.
I personally do not place much value in the field. It seems to monopolize on creating problems where none existed, and thereby increasing profits. In particular, the fact that most treatments seem to be lifetime is suspicious.
The future is really about making advance in understanding the human brain and neurosciences. If AI could be really good at anything, it's really about making solid steps in psychology and have opportunities to stomp down myths.
Doesn't scientology have some kind of weird self-declared feud with psychiatry? I wonder if they've perhaps been sowing FUD whenever and wherever possible.
Last week I posted a section [1] from Robert Whitaker's book Anatomy of an Epidemic about how Scientology was probably used to deflect attention from the ineffectiveness of commonly used drugs.
The basic lie that psychiatry is based upon, is that there is a sickness where there is suffering.
Not neural phenotype, that yes can suffer, but have been useful for various enterprises and endeavor of humans kind. Manic-Depressive where our "suicidal" explorers, alcoholics stopped us from being nomadic, gays pressured into churches formed the first institutions and created contract security. The list continues near endless.
If psychiatry would be a honest science, it would look upon cause and effect, asking what did this or that creatures side effect accomplish do to pay the ferry-woman. And can we optimize that- can we create creature constellations which produce new ideas like a machine.
But it does not want to know, it wants to heal, which it can not heal as long as it cant resequence DNA in a living human. It doesn't even want to know the possible consequences if it could cure.
Do not interpret this statement as a general dismissive of proper treatment. Treatment of some neuronal constitutions allows some humans to live in this society. But i want to know what society trades personal meh-ness for.
[+] [-] phren0logy|9 years ago|reply
There are fair criticisms of psychiatry, there are bad psychiatrists, but mostly there are crappy generalizations. Good psychiatrists have an understanding of what medications can and cannot do, and a well-rounded view of the person they are treating as a whole human being.
I work with the mentally ill who are involved in criminal justice, both juveniles and adults. I can assure you, having more psychiatrists would help a lot of people.
[+] [-] heygiraffe|9 years ago|reply
I was diagnosed with depression by a psychologist. I got a referral to a psychiatrist, and I was told that the psychiatrist would probably want to do his own assessment of where I was at & what kind of therapy would best benefit me.
Nope. It was, "You've got such & such diagnosis; let's try such & such drug. Bye!" Some years later, I was treated by another psychiatrist. Same deal.
Second, I've read a fair amount about various psychoactive drugs. One thing I've noted in the literature is that often drugs are only found to be effective when used in combination with other kinds of therapy: counseling, etc. So if I am taking a psychoactive drug regularly to treat some condition, then I always get regular counseling for that condition as well.
I have mentioned this practice of mine to both psychiatrists, and both indicated their approval. But in both cases, counseling was never mentioned until I brought it up. I'm thinking that, if I were a psychiatrist, then I might insist that my patients get regular counseling in addition to my treatment. To avoid even recommending it strikes me (in my highly inexpert opinion) as an awful practice, possibly rendering psychiatric treatment ineffective. One might even call it a violation of professional ethics.
So, my questions.
1. Would you say my experiences related above are typical?
2. Would you say that these experiences point out problems (with the two psychiatrists at least, and with the profession as a whole, if the answer to #1 is "yes")?
3. If these are problems, then what do we do about them?
[+] [-] mattnewport|9 years ago|reply
In a nutshell for those not familiar with the book, he presents convincing evidence that most psychiatric medicines have no significant short term benefits over active placebos and in fact worsen long term outcomes and that the profession has been complicit in presenting unsupported hypotheses about chemical imbalances in the brain causing conditions such as depression as established fact and in pushing drugs as the primary means of treatment without sufficient evidence of their efficacy and largely ignoring worrying evidence of long term harm.
I'll admit to having a pre existing suspicion of psychiatry stemming from taking a degree in psychology in the UK but after reading this book and digging more deeply I have to say it looks far worse for psychiatry than I previously imagined.
[+] [-] Joof|9 years ago|reply
Obviously it's a complicated profession. The medication changes your brain and often only has moderate success. Sometimes the medications can put you into a bad mood (and who do we blame? Probably the doctor). Diagnosis are partially based on subjective information.
I was ruined myself by a psychiatrist that over prescribed benzos and later tried to use her authority to sell 'multilevel marketing' goods and services. It's hard to blindly trust someone based on their degree after that.
[+] [-] gonehome|9 years ago|reply
Even for relatively more understood things like depression it's not like we can test the serotonin levels to validate it before SSRIs and then check them after.
It seems to be a mixture of this seems to work, but given the high variation among people and general complexity of mental states the science is difficult.
[+] [-] haaen|9 years ago|reply
(1) https://www.amazon.com/Admirable-Evasions-Psychology-Undermi...
[+] [-] e40|9 years ago|reply
Also, "the system" (insurance companies, the courts, etc) sometimes make it very, very hard to get someone the help they need.
I had a mentally ill colleague that was very difficult to help. His family was ready and willing, but it was just impossible, given the legal constraints on everyone, to get him the help he needed. He was homeless for 6-9 months before he was committed and then got back on his meds and was able to go home.
[+] [-] morgante|9 years ago|reply
I'm skeptical of any medical profession which seems to build and depend on lifetime customers.
[+] [-] bitL|9 years ago|reply
However, recently there was an unexpected result regarding schizophrenia suggesting it might be just a result of a genetic bug of extensive deletion of redundant neurons in the brain, a bio-computational problem when you look at it with the eyes of a hacker. If confirmed, this would invalidate a lot of previous research and force the whole field to take a bit different, algorithmic view on many issues.
[+] [-] internaut|9 years ago|reply
Differences between human groupings. Race. Class. The Brain or Mind. Sexuality. Future/Past analysis. Most of economics.
Most interesting subjects contain taboos and dangers that should you cross them, shall ruin your career or life. That is why if we're really as smart as we think we have to use the Dark Arts. I don't know what would happen to a modern day Darwin but I doubt it'd be pretty.
The most controversial debate on science I ever saw was on Intelligence Squared on the subject of Organic Farming. My intuition is that one side felt strongly enough that they rigged the vote, and that the moderator knew it too when he saw the results.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smegel|9 years ago|reply
Long term brainwashing can do that to people.
Would you respect someone who has studied Scientology for 10 years, just because it's a long time? I think in that case, the longer the worse.
Psychiatry is no different, pseudo-scientific quackery that exists largely to provide politically comfortable answers to questions society does not want to confront.
Oh, and to rubber stamp who the courts excuse for crime.
A generation of boys on ADHD drugs, thank psychiatry for that.
It is a corrupt and disgraceful occupation.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dredmorbius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marsrover|9 years ago|reply
There never really asked how I felt or seemed to care about me in any way shape or form. Just, "Here's your drugs, see you next month."
I have a horrible opinion about the entire profession of Psychiatry and at this point do not trust any of them in the slightest. I have not seen one in years. These days if I have a degenerated mental health in some form (whether that be inability to focus, sleep, or bouts of anxiety), marijuana is my go to solution.
[+] [-] superuser2|9 years ago|reply
Psychiatry is distinct from psychology and other forms of talk therapy.
When all you have is a hammer, etc.
The separation is amusingly pronounced. Even for a teenager it is pretty much totally up to the patient whether to see a psychiatrist, psychologist who uses empirically validated methods, psychologist who doesn't, LCSW, GP, etc. and they will all tell you wildly different things.
It doesn't help that most people haven't heard of, or don't know the difference between, many of those things.
[+] [-] dougmccune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alleychnt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphorm|9 years ago|reply
however, it is a plant, and cannot be patented, so instead we made it illegal.
[+] [-] nwah1|9 years ago|reply
I'm glad the author called for his colleagues to focus more on the whole body, since realistically lifestyle and nutritional changes can have as profound effects as drugs, with no side effects.
I tend to think subclinical deficiencies in various nutrients can play a big role. Most people are already aware of the imporant brain benefits of Vitamin D and Omega 3, but there's others.
Tryptophan:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405680/#RSTB201...
Lithium:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/should-we-a...
Uridine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080753/
Magnesium:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry...
NAC:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044191/
[+] [-] AstralStorm|9 years ago|reply
Even at subclinical dosages there are sometimes side effects from those.
Dietary changes have a ton of shoe effects as well. Even the dieteticians cannot really find precise enough consensus on these.
[+] [-] nibs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1_2__3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Neeek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphorm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] force_reboot|9 years ago|reply
For example, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that depression is qualitatively different from being unhappy, or that depression can't be caused by events that would make a typical person unhappy, or cured by the opposite. And I'm fairly certain that very little such evidence exists, because this is not the concern of psychiatrists, they just want to treat the person, not define categories per se. But I believe that psychiatrists allow the public to form this flawed understanding because they think it will lead people to treat people with depression with more sympathy and treat depression like a real problem. To me the more honest approach would be to simply say that unhappiness is a real problem and any approach or treatment that works should be considered.
[+] [-] epistasis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuzionhk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|9 years ago|reply
On the one hand, parents get their kids prescribed stimulants (which necessarily entails a—usually fake—ADD diagnosis) for the same reason university students go pick up illicit stimulants: they think it'll "make" them study. That is not the problem that ADHD causes, nor is that the benefit stimulants provide, but it's what parents think.
On the other hand, many people only discover as adults that they've had ADHD their entire lives, and have suffered unnecessarily through 3+ decades of being unable to motivate themselves to do homework/projects before they're overdue, or practice anything, or focus on reading rather than (badly) multitasking five different things, or put themselves to bed before 4AM, or even remember half the things they need to bring with them when they leave the house.
[+] [-] reitanqild|9 years ago|reply
I have personally seen it help 2 persons I know well, don't know anyone who has hurt by stimulants that have been legally prescribed and used. (but I know one who quit because the cost/benefit wasn't there).
As for why people did well without stimulants in earlier times the answer might also contain: they didn't necessarily. Not finishing even basic schooling was more common.
Also there were more less rules and more options that didn't require sitting >5 hours a day.
[+] [-] codefolder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcj_phx|9 years ago|reply
In a recent "skeptic" magazine [1], Harriet Hall, M.D. had this to say about the situation:
"Psychotropic drugs are far from ideal. They don’t work well for everyone, and they can sometimes cause devastating side effects. But they do save lives, and they do allow some patients to lead a more-or-less normal life. They are the best we have at the moment. " (emphasis added)
[1] http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/archives/21.1/
This is an apology for the status quo, and distracts from the main issue. My girlfriend is one of the ones for whom "psychotropic drugs" don't work at all - in fact, I believe that the psychotropic drugs that she's been prescribed have a lot to do with her present predicament. Haldol - sold as an anti-psychotic - is well known to cause the condition it supposedly treats. Dr. Hall states that these drugs "save lives", but I wonder what the ratio of "lives ruined" to "lives saved" is.
There are non-psychotropic drugs that have been very helpful for my girlfriend, but her psychiatrists don't know to use them. I've spent a few hours today revising my latest petition to the courts asking them protect my girlfriend from the palliative treatments that she has been ordered to endure. The main thrust of my argument is that the medications aren't working because they do not address the causes of her condition. The causes are perfectly obvious to me, but the doctors have all been "shooting in the dark", hoping that the next pill will work better than the last one.
I suspect that "exhaustion" is related to most psychiatric problems. New research linking psychosis to an inability to produce cortisol is a good clue: https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2016/june/stress-hormon...
[+] [-] pc2g4d|9 years ago|reply
That's also the entire point of psychiatry.
It's in a crisis because "stabilizing" people by numbing their brains does nothing to help them face their problems. A profession of cleaners whose main technique was to sweep everything under the rug would also face crisis at some point.
[+] [-] conanbatt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morgante|9 years ago|reply
It sounds like a self-reinforcing problem. Psychiatry's bad reputation leads to it having less qualified practitioners, thereby justifying the poor reputation.
I personally do not place much value in the field. It seems to monopolize on creating problems where none existed, and thereby increasing profits. In particular, the fact that most treatments seem to be lifetime is suspicious.
[+] [-] wbl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forkandwait|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|9 years ago|reply
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/25/in-las-vegas-embattled-f...
[+] [-] alleychnt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokoon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _greim_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcj_phx|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12222898
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Pica_soO|9 years ago|reply
Do not interpret this statement as a general dismissive of proper treatment. Treatment of some neuronal constitutions allows some humans to live in this society. But i want to know what society trades personal meh-ness for.
[+] [-] serge2k|9 years ago|reply