Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

No Retorts?

I notice that all of the external links and resources are decidedly anti-biological psychiatry. Considering the scientific strength regarding genetic dispositions of certain disorders (such as bipolar and schizophrenia), perhaps some counterpoints should be included in this article in order to keep it neutral?

As it stands, this article is psychiatry-bashing, and most of the sources are either disputed or not taken very serious by other medical scientists.

Additionally, I don't understand how IQ factors into this article. Most psychiatrists use IQ as a peripheral tool, and most psychiatrists are aware that bell-curve studies are bunk.

-- Randy, 09 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.207.72 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article *should* either be turned into an article on arguments critical of biological psychiatry *or* subsumed into the article on b.p. but given a more balanced set of perspectives but saying the arguments are not worthy of note because they are not taken seriously by mainstream people in the field misses precisely the point that it consists of criticisms of the field itself.Historian932 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

contrived controversy?

I question if this is really a controversy. Is there an active debate going on or do we have fringe critics who are largely ignored? Are there secondary sources which have reported on this issue? Citations would be appreciated. --scuro (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is a true controversy you might as well attribute the sources...which I did. --scuro (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No this is actually a real controversy. We see it is ADHD, depression, anxiety to name a few. There have been many books published and many comments on this dispute in scientific journals as well as the lay press.--Doc James (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Sources 21 and 22 are both found in peer-reviewed journals, and #22 is a print journal and not even open-access. What exactly makes these unreliable? 99.230.117.211 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this can be found at Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy/Archive2#New 'Focus on biochemical factors' section. The first article is an explicit opinion piece (which would thus be subjected to minimal, if any, peer review), the second published in a social-science rather than medical journal. The authors are an anti-biomedical partisan with a slim resume & a social work academic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the anon. It is very difficult to imagine how "In a further article they state" is not adequately supported by a reference to the article in which they do, indeed, state such things. I believe that this ref is perfectly adequate for the sentence as it is written. It looks like you are trying to get a source which supports a rather stronger claim than the one actually made by this sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sources warning. The fact that the sources here aren't popular with the biologistic establishment doesn't mean they aren't legitimate encyclopedic sources. When the president of the American Psychiatric Association says something in a reputable journal, opinion piece or not, it can be referenced very credibly. And the warning about "primary sources" was gratuitous and self-serving, since no one has presented evidence that the Wiki authors who contributed here are affiliated with any of the authors referred to. Durwoodie (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all Antipsychiatry is Scientology

I see no distinction between anti-mental health and anti-psychiatry on wikipedia...nor do I see a distinction between the anti-psychiatry groups that are mental health client friendly versus those who view the mental health clients as psychiatric conspirators and therefore part of the evil psychiatric problem. There is no mention of anti-psychiatric pro mental health groups. The overall view of this article paints a picture of Antipsychiatry being a Scientology thing. --Recovery Psychology (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead clearly distinguishes the "Antipsychiatry movement" from Scientology: "mainly from the Antipsychiatry movement and certain religions, especially Scientology." If it "paint[ed] a picture of Antipsychiatry being a Scientology thing" it would have said "including" not "and". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article paints a picture of anti-psychiatry being a Scientology thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

This controversy is DEFINITELY a fringe controversy, so the criticism of psychiatry should be outweighed heavily by support for it. Instead, this article is exactly the opposite, portraying anti-psyciatric views almost to the exclusion of pro-psychiatric ones. I know very little about psychiatry, and even less about the "biopsychiatry controversy," so I am in no position to edit the article, but it clearly needs a huge NPOV overhaul. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing how much things have changed in the last 50 years. During the Vietnam war the opposite was the case.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Eebster, if you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, then how can you say that it is a "fringe controversy." Keep in mind that psychiatry is a multitrillion-dollar industry and any critics of it will be kept on the fringes with the use of money. Durwoodie (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The "controversy" should not be minimized because it is "fringe" as long as its relative prominence is described more or less accurately...(I do think the article should be retitled somehow, not sure how)...it is also unbalanced as well and needs to be rewritten but in a way which doesn't lend undue weight to *either* side.Historian932 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is some top quality evidence which speak about the biopsychiatric controversy in ADHD

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf

--Doc James (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

Anyone interested in adding to the ADHD article. Lots of controversy there right now with some editors trying to remove all comments and references to ADHD controversial nature.--Doc James (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In 1950, approximately 7,500 children in the United States were diagnosed with mental disorders. That number is at least eight million today, and most receive some form of medication. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Re ADHD medicated children CONCLUSIONS: By 36 months, the earlier advantage of having had 14 months of the medication algorithm was no longer apparent [1] Unomi (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Missing Component

This page contains very little information about feedback from patients. I personally know dozens upon dozens of psychiatric patients who have received no help at all from psychiatric medication and have usually seen their quality of life suffer from being on a cocktail of eight different meds. Does the fact that they are mental patients mean their experiences with biologistic psychiatry don't count? Durwoodie (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the fact that "patients" (and single editors) are not reliable sources; doctors are. If you find a statistical research (by MDs or PhDs) on the effectiveness of medication, saying that so many patients are unsatisfied with medication treatment, it should be included here. Patients generally are not notable. If I were a patient, and I said I was unhappy with my treatment, I couldn't add it here and use myself as a source. MichaelExe (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if doctors get together and agree to cover up the fact that psychiatric medications don't work, the public is to remain forever uninformed? I don't buy it. Durwoodie (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If a highly educated person decides to look into it and publishes criticism of biopsychiatry (this is an article devoted to this), then it will be included. As long as it meets Wikipedia's standards, it will be included. Your personal and subjective experience will not be included. MichaelExe (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's a well-known fact that conspiracies with more than 1 person involved never stay secret :-) With tens of thousands of doctors all over the world, such a conspiracy is unlikely to exist. Critical sounds always get published, sometimes at the highest levels (see in the article itself, the critical remarks from an APA president, no less). --Crusio (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the original discussion here, several statistical studies comparing treatment methodologies have been completed and published; it should be noted that such studies can and often do take over a decade to perform if you wish to examine the long-term outcomes, and it takes months to actually get the data analyzed and the article written. Of the ones I've read, the best treatment methodologies are those that combine approaches and are adjusted to fit each patient. Medicate-and-forget can certainly cause bad experiences, but that's less an issue with biopsychiatry and more one of general bad practice.75.177.89.14 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did find a notable reference--a book by respected Canadian journalist and author Patricia Pearson called A Brief History of Anxiety (Yours & Mine). Pearson already had an article on her in Wikipedia, and the book was listed in it, but there was no article on the book, so I wrote one. Then all I did is put a reference to it under "See Also" on the Psychiatry and Biopsychiatry Controversy pages. Those references were also deleted by someone who did it skulkingly without identifying him/herself, but it was Crusio, and you can read about Crusio here: [[2]]. The alleged grounds for the deletions was that it's an "obscure anti-psychiatry book" although I am 100% sure Crusio has never read it and knows nothing about it, nor did s/he bother to do the least bit of research into it. I am now CONVINCED that there is a conspiracy among certain scientific-establishment Wikipedia editors to protect their buddies with vested biologistic psychiatry interests. Unhappily, those are the guys with all the letters after their names and the trillions of dollars in pharmaceutical company funding behind them, so little can be done about it by an obscure and impoverished nobody like me. I'm going to move on and write and edit other articles they won't be interested in. Durwoodie (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• As another user has already explained to you on the Psychiatry talk page, the wikilink to the book does not belong there. As for removing it "skulkingly", you only need to look in the page history to see that it was me. As for removing it from this page, look again. You inserted it under "Groups critical of the biomedical paradigm". As one book certainly is not a "group", I only moved the link up to the section before it. As for your assumption that I did not research the book at all: I looked it up in WorldCat and it is held by a grand total of 13 (thirteen) libraries in the US. I think that classifies as "obscure". As for the trillions of dollars behind me, unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has shamefully neglected in the last decades to pay me for doing their dirty work for them... :-) As for your links to my userpage, I think that shows that nothing covert is going on. A weird conpiracy indeed where one of the conspirators edits under his own name and clearly indicates who and what he is. Is Durwoodie your real name? --Crusio (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Crusio did not remove it from this article; he moved it to the appropriate section. See here. MichaelExe (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Two-year dispute

You might not want my input, because I'm no longer "trusted" around here to write neutrally. I was accused and found guilty of "POV-pushing". But if you agree with me that "adding material which supports a viewpoint" is not at all the same thing as POV-pushing, then perhaps you won't mind if I put in my 2 cents. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In future please place any posts such as the one above on your talk page. This page is to be used about discussion of the article in question, not pursuing what appears to be a personal 'grudge' or matter. If you are unfamiliar or new to editing Wikipedia please feel free to consult the following pages as they will provide you with a wealth of knowledge about how to properly edit Wikipedia:

• Welcome to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• FAQ
• Help Desk--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, If you get topic banned, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unbanned.[3] - SirChuckB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.84.3 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused, ahistorical and ill-defined article.

Some parts of this article are well written, however, it contains major problems of definition, structure and of addressing the question posed by its title. In my opinion, it should not be the object of this article, given its name, merely to present some arguments in isolation and without any meaningful context for or against the efficacy of a biological model in psychiatry. Nor should it be, in my opinion, the object of this article to continue the controversy in disguised form with rival editors presenting the arguments for or against biological psychiatry (this may not be how the article was constructed, but it certainly reads in that manner).

The object of the article should be to frame and represent the "controversy". Firstly, I think one would have to establish when this controversy began. Biological, social and psychological interpretations of madness have existed in complement and opposition for a LONG time. Support and opposition to biological interpretations of madness have come from within and without the field of psychiatry. Perhaps, most puzzlingly, there is no reference to psychodynamic theory which intellectually rose to prominence in American psychiatry and to a lesser extent internationally from the period after the WWI until the 1970s. This followed a period from the late nineteenth century when biological and hereditary interpretations of mental illness were quite dominant. There's a natural oscillation in the field between biological and psychological or social interpretations of madness.

This is a controversy with many actors, although this is poorly defined in the article. In the first instance, it is a controversy, at least historically, within psychiatry itself. Thereafter, it is a controversy between differing disciplines with rival claims over the ownership of madness. To name a few: psychiatry, neurology, psychoneurology, clinical psychology, abnormal psychology, sociology, etc. There is also an opposition between the discipline and some of its own patients and ex-patients as evinced in the arguments put forward by the psychiatric survivors movement. In the latter case, however, biological psychiatry plays only a part in an opposition built around the coercive aspects of psychiatry and, from their experience, the violent or damaging nature of psychiatric treatment and confinement. There is also the impact of scientology which, America being America, is strongest in that country. However, scientology is not so much opposed to biological psychiatry as all psychiatry and psychology. Similarly, anti-psychiatry At a more diffuse level and properly outside the context of this article, are those who oppose materialist explanations of mental or spiritual phenomena for a range of philosophical, intellectual, religious or other reasons. Finally, there is also a diffuse opposition, or, at least, social disquiet, due to the penetration of academic psychiatry particularly by the pharmaceutical industry. Whether this is, strictly speaking, an opposition defined in relation to a biological model of illness causation is moot.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical psychiatry not antipsychiatry

To my understanding the term antipsychiatry is something which applies only really to the Sixties movement against mainstream psychiatry (R.D. Laing et al)...it is now subsumed under the heading "critical psychiatry" (which is not simply opposed to *all* psychiatric practices in a mindless way).Historian932 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Necessity

Is this article really necessary? We have an article on biological psychiatry. This article appears to be nothing more than a listing of criticisms of biological psychiatry, with only a minimal effort at explaining biological psychiatry itself, and virtually no effort to place these criticisms within a context of the general research community. This creates undue weight almost by definition, and the use of "subject controversy" articles seems to be an attempt to get around the WP:UNDUE restrictions that would apply if this were simply included as a section within the article on the topic itself.

This also raises the question of notability. How notable are these critics? To what extent are the criticisms mentioned in this article taken seriously by mainstream researchers? To what extent have the criticisms mention in this article affected mainstream scientific research or mainstream medical treatment?

This article should probably be deleted and any relevant content included as a section in the Biological Psychiatry article, and treated with the appropriate weight that this content has within that field. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Change of Title of Article?

I'm unfamiliar enough with Psychiatry to recognize if Biopsychiatry is an actual subfield or if it's just a pejorative name for it that fits with a framework of criticism (like 'Big Pharma' doesn't include Vitamin Suppliers). But in the interest of balance if it's the latter I think it might be worth considering renaming the article. Other editors have already mentioned it's towards one-side so denoting the article as a list of Anti-psychiatry arguments would save us work on finding other viewpoints. 31.55.27.141 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biopsychiatry controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106062811/http://www.touchneurology.com:80/looking-beyond-monoamine-hypothesis-a5616-1.html to http://www.touchneurology.com/looking-beyond-monoamine-hypothesis-a5616-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830113155/http://www.umaine.edu/jmb/archives/volume11/11_3-4_1990summerautumn.html to http://www.umaine.edu/JMB/archives/volume11/11_3-4_1990summerautumn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622192702/http://www.moshersoteria.com:80/resig.htm to http://www.moshersoteria.com/resig.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)