>
> On drug therapy: nothing in the DSM mandates or identifies appropriate
> treatments for a specific disorder. In fact, many of the disorders
> identified in the DSM are commonly and effectively treated using
> psychological rather than pharmacological interventions. I don't see how
> the existence of this diagnostic manual encourages drug therapy in
> particular.
>
>
So tell me then - what's with the increase in psychotropic drugs since the
DSM came in (there was a great article done about this in the Counterpunch
newsletter a while back by the anthropologist Eugenia Tsao - since its a
very old issue I'll send you a copy if you drop me and e-mail off list)? The
age of the DSM and the critique of classic psychiatry has been a veritable
goldmine for big Pharma - cheers Foucault, I'm sure you meant well...
What's with the WHO claiming that depression is growing faster than we can imagine and will be a worldwide endemic within a few years? The left loves to claim that this is because of capitalism or consumerism or something such so vague. I reckon its down to diagnostic criteria. So does Adam Curtis (watch his wonderful BBC documentary "The Trap" - its on Google Video).
The unfortunate outcome of objectifying psychiatry is almost too obvious to point to. Now your doctor can diagnose depression - after taking one semesters worth of psych classes... clever stuff...
>
> their treatment accordingly.
>>
> episode or not and they will cater
> Yeah, the "specialized" knowledge of psychoanalysts and three bucks will
> get you a latte at Starbucks. Clinicians are notoriously bad at predicting
> human behavior and treatment outcomes; there is a veritable mountain of
> research on this. One example: Prior to doing his famous obedience studies,
> Milgram described the procedure to some clinical psychologists and
> psychiatrists and asked them to predict how many people would go to the top
> of the shock panel because they were instructed to do so by the researcher.
> These clinicians confidently predicted that only a small number of people
> with serious mental illness (e.g., sociopaths) would apply the maximum shock
> level. In fact, about 2/3 of the participants obeyed the researcher and
> applied the maximum shock level. Moral: prudently ignore any predictions
> that clinicians make. They're typically claims based on authority rather
> than systematic evidence.
>
>
I can't vouch for every psychiatrist, but I'm getting sick and tired of the
criticisms of the "authority" of psychiatry, its gotten us nowhere (although
one cannot doubt how libidinally satisfying many left-wingers find it...).
Most Lacanians can tell a psychotic from a non-psychotic... fact.
Anyway, Milgram's experiment means almost nothing - it assumes that psychiatrists have access to the minds of sections of the population who never enter psychiatric asylums... how could they? They were guessing, plain and simple. Now, if you put a SINGLE patient in front of them they might have a better time of it, no?