6.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Psychiatry Network | 2/4 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Psychiatry_Network | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:09:07.013684+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== The role of scientific knowledge in psychiatry === There is a strong view by CPN that contemporary psychiatry relies too much on the medical model, and attaches too much importance to a narrow biomedical view of diagnosis. This can, in part, be understood as the response of an earlier generation of psychiatrists to the challenge of what has been called 'anti-psychiatry'. Psychiatrists such as David Cooper, R. D. Laing and Thomas Szasz (although the latter two rejected the term) were identified as part of a movement against psychiatry in the 1960s and 1970s. Stung by these attacks, as well as accusations that in any case psychiatrists could not even agree who was and who was not mentally ill, academic psychiatrists responded by stressing the biological and scientific basis of psychiatry through strenuous efforts to improve the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis based in a return to the traditions of one of the founding fathers of the profession, Emil Kraepelin. The use of standardized diagnostic criteria and checklists may have improved the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis, but the problem of its validity remains. The investment of huge sums of money in Britain, America and Europe over the last half-century has failed to reveal a single, replicable difference between a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and someone who does not have the diagnosis. The case for the biological basis of common psychiatric disorders such as depression has also been greatly over-stated. This has a number of consequences: First, the aggrandisement of biological research creates a false impression both inside and outside the profession of the credibility of the evidence used to justify drug treatments for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia. Reading clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of depression, for example, such as that produced for the UK National Health Service by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), one might be fooled into believing that the evidence for the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is established beyond question. In reality this is not the case, as re-examinations of drug trial data in meta-analyses, especially where unpublished data are included (publication bias means that researchers and drug companies do not publish negative findings for obvious commercial reasons), have revealed that most of the benefits seen in active treatment groups are also seen in the placebo groups. As far as schizophrenia is concerned, neuroleptic drugs may have some short-term effects, but it is not the case that these drugs possess specific 'anti-psychotic' properties, and it is impossible to assess whether or not they confer advantages in long-term management of psychoses because of the severe disturbances that occur when people on long-term active treatment are withdrawn to placebos. These disturbances are traditionally interpreted as a 'relapse' of schizophrenia when in fact there are several possible interpretations for the phenomenon. Another consequence of the domination of psychiatry by biological science is that the importance of contexts in understanding distress and madness is played down. This has a number of consequences. First, it obscures the true nature of what in fact are extremely complex problems. For example, if we consider depression to be a biological disorder remediable through the use of antidepressant tablets, then we may be excused from having to delve into the tragic circumstances that so often lie at the heart the experience. This is so in adults and children.
=== Meaning and experience in psychiatry === There is a common theme, here, with the work of David Ingleby whose chapter in Critical Psychiatry: The Politics of Mental Health sets out a detailed critique of positivism (the view that epistemology, or knowledge about the world is best served by empiricism and the scientific method rather than metaphysics). A common theme running through Laingian antipsychiatry, Ingleby's critical psychiatry, contemporary critical psychiatry and postpsychiatry is the view that social, political and cultural realities play a vital role in helping us to understand the suffering and experience of madness. Like Laing, Ingleby stressed the importance of hermeneutics and interpretation in inquiries about the meaning of experience in psychiatry, and (like Laing) he drew on psychoanalysis as an interpretative aid, but his work was also heavily influenced by the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. The most forceful critic of this view was R. D. Laing, who famously attacked the approach enshrined by Jaspers' and Kraepelin's work in chapter two of The Divided Self, proposing instead an existential-phenomenological basis for understanding psychosis. Laing always insisted that schizophrenia is more understandable than is commonly supposed. Mainstream psychiatry has never accepted Laing's ideas, but many in CPN regard The Divided Self as central to twentieth century psychiatry. Laing's influence continued in America through the work of the late Loren Mosher, who worked at the Tavistock Clinic in the mid-1960s, when he also spent time in Kingsley Hall witnessing Laing's work. Shortly after his return to the US, Loren Mosher was appointed Director of Schizophrenia Research at the National Institute of Mental Health, and also the founding editor of the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin. One of his most notable contributions to this area was setting up and evaluating the first Soteria House, an environment modeled on Kingsley Hall in which people experiencing acute psychoses could be helped with minimal drug use and a form of interpersonal phenomenology influenced by Heidegger. He also conducted evaluation studies of the effectiveness of Soteria. A recent systematic review of the Soteria model found that it achieved as good, and in some areas, better, clinical outcomes with much lower levels of medication (Soteria House was not anti-medication) than conventional approaches to drug treatment.