i think that there is truth to some of the psychiatry claims and there is truth to some of the anti-psychiatry claims. i think that the majority of pscyhiatrists are trying to help, but i think that sometimes that 'help' is misguided, sure. at this stage it doesn't sound like anybody is trying to force you to do anything, they are trying to help you. drugs are but one option, however, and it can be wise to look at many options before deciding which option to go with. there is this notion of informed consent and i would hope that you would be able to discuss this with your mother and your pschiatrist so that you can mutually come to a decision that everybody can live with.

> Of course, it is always administered against the will of the child. What child wants to be stigmatized?

i don't think that is true. i think that some children take ritalin willingly because they find that it helps them not get into so much trouble. instead of people viewing them as being willfully disobedient people think that their behaviour is the result of something that is outside their control. this can actually result in less stigmatisation / blame.

whether there are mental disorders or not is controversial. some people (like szatz) argue like this:

disease is a term that only applies to bodily complaints.
a mental complaint is not a bodily complaint
therefore there is no such thing as mental disease.

most people would say that the first premise is controversial. one could certainly dictate that the term disease only applies to physical disease but that would be a stipulation. most philosophers, psychiatrists and psychologists would deny premise two. they would say that mental diseases ARE physical diseases. i have heard it said (and i have sympathy for this) that the trouble with szatz is his dualism...

> She does not know that psychiatrists have always used diagnostic terms to stigmatize and control people -- for example

psychiatry does indeed have a regrettable past. what is at issue, however, is whether present use of psychiatry is as regrettable as its past or whether it has progressed on from some of the past abuses.

Shorter (in his book 'History of Psychiatry') contests Focult's claims that institutions arose due to capatilism etc. he also contests the notions that schizophrenics used to gambol across the country side al day. before institutions many people were chained to beds etc by their family.

> * black slaves who ran away to freedom suffered from drapetomania;

one psychiatrist suggested that (and he was wrong) that was never accepted in any edition of the DSM or ICD.

> * women who rebelled against being controlled by men suffered from hysteria;

that most certainly wasn't their only complaint. many of them volountarily sought out treatment and reported significant improvement after being prescribed visits to the spa, being attended to by a caring clinician, etc etc.

> Of course, none of those behaviors was a disease.

yes. and most people would say that psychiatrists were wrong about those cases. thats okay, scientists often get things wrong. psychiatry is a relatively new field but many would say that it is progressing.

ADHD is not a disease.

what do you take a disease to be?

i'm interested in the anti-psychiatry movement because i'm interested in some of the research that has been done that has found unfavourable results as far as the drug companies are concerned. i think it is important to balance drug company funded research with research that is funded by other sources. i do have a problem, however, that a lot of the anti-psychiatry claims seem to be based on sweeping generalisations without research to back them up or they go with anecdotes of a favourite case or two or the quality of research is terrible. thats okay though because most of the drug company sponsored research is the same.

i think that the anti-pscyhiatry movement is important in its focus on cognitive and (even probably more emphasis on) the social causes of pathological behaviour. i think that psychiatry has increasingly moved towards biological reductionism where the mechanisms that cause pathological behaviour are thought to be neural at base and they have systematically ignored cognitive and social causes.

but clearly the way that other people relates to you has an impact on how you see and think of yourself and that has a subsequent effect on how you act. the genetic, neurological, cognitive and social all have a causal effect on our behaviour.

the anti-psychiatrists also typically focus on disorders that are nearer the 'neurotic' end of the spectrum. i think it is correct that there is an over-emphasis on medication in this present generation (prozac is the new spa treatment or application of magnet or a cheaper substitute for a caring relationship with a clinician or radical social interventions where we actually get people out of their drug infested slums for example).

but anyways... end of rave now...