This is another article that seeks to respond to those who question the legitimacy and efficacy of methods psychiatry employs in diagnosing and treating what are described as metal disorders.

The arguments of the critics have some merit. The defense of psychiatry made by the authors relies a lot on the reality of suffering by clients and on the assertion psychiatry does what is might with the knowledge it has available.

My problem with the antipsychiatry critics is their failure to propose methods and modalities to replace the ones they bemoan.

I appreciate the article's conclusion:

Although the foundational and antifoundational traditions differ in their language and claims, both call into question the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. To this extent, the rubric of antipsychiatry is probably warranted for both. We have argued that both critical traditions are founded on several misapprehensions regarding the nature of disease, the role of values in determining the presence of pathology, and on supposed differences between psychiatry and the other specialties within general medicine.

In order to defend itself—and, equally important, to reform itself—psychiatry must understand the nature of the arguments arrayed against it. Not all such criticisms are antipsychiatry and the profession must remain open to reassessment of its diagnostic methods and categories. Furthermore, as many critics would insist, psychiatric practice must take care to protect the civil liberties and ensure the informed consent of those it treats. However, neither psychiatrists nor the general public should be misled or intimidated by psychiatry’s more vituperative critics, whether of the foundational or antifoundational stripe. Neither group adequately recognizes the immense suffering and incapacity associated with psychiatric illness, and despite their humanitarian pretenses, neither group provides a demonstrably effective and humane alternative to psychiatric treatment.