Talk:Thomas Szasz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

explanation for deletion

I took the following sentence out:

"Moreover, serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion" and the evidence that schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are brain diseases is overwhelming."

for the following reasons: (1) mental illness is most definitely not approached scientifically; and (2) the evidence for mental illness being a brain disorder is distinctly underwhelming.

In support of my two points above, I offer:

- psychiatrists vote on what constitutes a mental disorder and gets included in the DSM - there is no objective way to determine (such as a biochemical test) any mental illness - psychiatric research is heavily subsidized by pharmaceutical companies - psychiatry has yet to find any biological basis for any mental illness - psychiatry is closer to criminal justice than to medicine - the biochemical imbalance theory is discredited by several factors, including spontaneous remission of schizophrenia even decades after diagnosis - the World Health Organization confirms that schizophrenics do better without treatment - Dr. Loren Mosher and others proved that non-drug therapy has better outcomes - the categories in the DSM are broad, vague and the symptoms overlap

Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I'm one of the main authors of the libertarianism page, though I've been mostly absent from Wikipedia for a few months. I'm writing a paper on the subject and spending quite a bit of time on Szasz. I was wondering if:

  1. You would be interested in reading it. If nothing else, it will provide quite a bit of fodder for this article.
  2. You would be interested in telling me if there are any other good arguments against Szasz that I am missing
  3. You would be interested in telling me if I am being unfair to Szasz's argument in my paper and what counterarguments of his I am missing.

The paper is due Wednesday. If you are interested, email me or post your email address here so I can send you a rough draft. Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

CCHR

I saw the following in the article:

Together with the Church of Scientology, Szasz co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) in 1969 to fight what it sees as human rights crimes committed by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

Would it be more accurate to say that CCHR fights psychiatry and mental health profession, except as practiced by the Church of Scientology? According to CCHR materials, psychiatry and psychology are inherently bad - the problem is not abuses but the fields themselves. Further, any criticism of CoS's methods is notably absent.

So, how would this be for NPOV:

Together with the Church of Scientology, Szasz co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) in 1969 to fight psychiatry and other mental health professions, except for the Church of Scientology auditors.

Michael Voytinsky 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because the Church of Scientology doesn't practice psychiatry either - its auditing sessions aren't psychiatric sessions where someone can potentially be institutionalized. Either way, one could say that Szasz doesn't have a problem with the field of psychiatry so much as he does with involuntary treatment.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.109.101 (talk • contribs)
With respect, CoS has a history of involuntarily confining people - see Lisa McPherson. Further, according to CoS teachings, some mentally ill people, such as homosexuals, should be locked up.
CCHR has a problem with psychiatry and psychology in general - its view is that the pratice of both is fundamentally harmful - and Szazs is one of its founders. Further CCHR's anti-psych position has remained unchanged since it was founded, so there is, at the very least, a considerable overlap between its views, and Dr. Szasz's. Michael Voytinsky 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Calton

In answer to your queries which were "rv - are you claiming that mental illnesses are NOT regularly approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion? Also, rv Scientology whitewashing"

Yes, I am saying that there is nothing scientific about how mental illnesses are approached and measured. Why on earth are you referring to civil libertarians as Scientologists??? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that mental illnesses are NOT regularly approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion doesn't pass the giggle test -- it's a factual statement that says nothing about how well or badly they do it (akin to saying "Some restaurant owners claim that McDonald's cooks hamburgers") and you've declined to provide any citations to the contrary.
Why on earth are you referring to civil libertarians as Scientologists? And where would this reference be? On the other hand, you deleted "Scientologists" in favor of "civil libertarians" (hence the "rv Scientology whitewashing" summary) -- would you mind showing me the ACLU's -- you know, actual civil libertarians -- official use of Szasz's arguments, as opposed to a Scientology front group appropriating the label?
Oh, and if you were paying attention, you might have noticed how to spell my name. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of how "well or badly they do it," because that is central to this issue - the scientific method includes making conclusions based on observable evidence that has empirical proof for it. A determination of mental illness, though, is completely subjective and means something different to each person - there is no standard as to what exactly is or isn't a mental disorder. So I'd agree that the people who practice psychiatry *think* they're practicing the scientific method, when it's quite clear that psychiatry is not science like geology is.

One only has to interview a psychiatrist to see how unscientific their brand of "medicine" is. And slurring people who are anti-psychiatry by calling them scientologists is common throughout all psychiatry-related wiki articles. If you're interested in the ACLU's position, check it out yourself. I don't actually take orders from anonymous posters. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

The following sentence heads the "Criticism" section:

Some people argue that Szasz's theories deserve refutation only because they are often cited by Scientologists and other anti-psychiatric groups.

Now, there is a citation at the end of the article, but the only point it actually supports is the fact that Szasz's theories are cited by Scientologists, which is such a well-known fact I don't think it really required citation. It does not support the portion of that statement which is far more eyebrow-raisingly questionable, which is "Some people argue that Szasz's theories deserve refutation only because..." I bolded the last words because this is rather an extraordinary claim; surely the issue is whether or not Szasz's claims are refuted, and how they are refuted, rather than an argument about whether they deserve to be refuted.

The only construction I can put on this which explains what it's doing in the "Criticism" section is if the intent of the sentence is something like "Some of Szasz's critics regard Szasz's ideas as so plainly absurd that they would not deserve the response of a refutation, if not that they are often cited by...." However, if that's what it's intended to mean, I feel it might be too POV. It's definitely too POV when it's accompanied by the vague "some people". If we can't find a reference to someone actually stating this about Szasz's theories in about, oh, a week or so, let's remove it. If someone finds an actual quote to this effect we can decide then what to do with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

please use talk page before radically changing article

Again, I am taking the offending sentence out. "Moreover, serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion" and the evidence that schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are brain diseases is overwhelming."

There is nothing scientific about the approach to mental illness. There is no objective test for it. Symptoms are grouped together in the DSM and many conditions have overlapping symptoms. Psychiatric diagnosis is often in error. There is no "overwhelming" evidence that these conditions are brain diseases. Indeed, there is no credible evidence whatsoever. Schizophrenia might be associated with certain brain abnormalities but it is not clear which arose first, the abnormalities or the condition. Schizophrenics do best without psychiatric treatment, according to the World Health Organization. That doesn't do much for the brain disorder theory.

This is pure silliness. There is indeed overwhelming evidence that these conditions are neurobiological disorders. Here is a bibliography to review: [1]. The idea that people with schizophrenia do better without pyschiatric treatment is extreme POV and I doubt that any respectable organization holds that position. I am restoring that section and adding the cite.--65.87.105.2 20:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact that there are article about a thing does not imply that this fact is true. Can you infer from the fact that there are a lot of articles and books about astrology that astrology is true and it can predict future?
About the allegged psychiatric prooves about biological disorder, who and how they made the tests? Psychiatrists have no way to make a test to prove what they belive. A psychiatrist told me that this is a very good thing becouse in this way nobody can tell them that their theory is wrong. Anyway anything that can not be check if it is false or not is not a thing that can be called science or that can call science in its behalf (see for instance Karl Popper). In many cases psychiatrists told that someone have done a measure that nobody has done. For instance they claim that it was scientific measured by neuroscientists that a reduction of serotonin level is present in depressed people's brain cells. However neuroscients neither have a way to measure such a level. For a non antipsychiatric point of view on this argument see for instance what have been found in a study ([2])that has really analized where the allegged prooves came from and what is behind the very rich market of antidepressive tratments. AnyFile 16:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, see, it's not "pure silliness." It's very accurate. Neither the Stanley Foundation nor its brainchild, the Treatment Advocacy Center, are accurate sources of information. Re schizophrenics doing better without psychiatrict treatment, this is not POV! This is what the World Health Organization found! And I'm thinking the World Health Organization is indeed a respectable organization, certainly more so than the preposterous Stanley Foundation. I think you should be doing your own research before telling others to do the same. Your tone is very offensive, by the way. Are you a psychiatrist? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 00:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If the World Health Organization holds that position, please provide a citation. I can't find any support for your statement. From reading the WHO site, they seem to be quite supportive that caring for individuals with mental illness includes "provision with essential drugs" --24.55.228.56 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

They are very famous studies that Robert Whitaker deals with extensively in Mad in America. I will find the cite for you. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

PubMed has them but there's a charge to enter the site. [3] I'm sure one of the anti-psychiatry websites has a version up. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a high school debater who uses Szasz's theories. I just wanted to say that the argument that mental illnesses are chemical imbalances is flawed for two reasons (at least from what I've read from Dr. Szasz's work):
1) While chemical imbalances may exist in the brain (I'm not a neurobiologist and wouldn't know), that doesn't mean that schizophrenia is a disease. While chemical imbalances might be diseases, emotional differences are not.
2) Because of the way the Therapeutic State functions according to Szasz, the state can label any personal behavior to be "dangerous" or unacceptable to society - therefore, any unwanted behavior is by fiat a disease.
To at least understand what Szasz talks about when he says mental illness doesn't exist, read his latest article in the Independent Review. I mean, who knows, maybe Szasz is wrong - but that's not for us to say. We're simply stating his theories, not presenting our own ideas of them (December 22, 2005).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.65.116 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced claim of influence on Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus

I edited the sentence "Szasz's work has influenced thinkers as diverse as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Michel Foucault, and Anti-Oedipus authors Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari," removing the reference to Deleuze and Guattari. Anti-Œdipus was written in 1972, far before the francophone world (and much of the anglophone world) had heard of Szasz, though R. D. Laing certainly had considerable influence on Guattari. Furthermore, I cannot find any interviews or articles where either of the two even mention Szasz, although they do mention Laing quite frequently (and not always favorably, see for example Guattari, Felix. "Laing divisé." La Quinzaine littéraire 132 (1972)). Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari are often lazily grouped with Szasz. If someone can find a primary source document which refutes my claim feel free to revert the sentence with citation. I left the mention to Foucault intact despite the fact that Foucault's main work on psychiatry occurred much earlier than Szasz's, since Foucault discussed Szasz in later interviews in the seventies and there is considerable overlap between their views. I will read through the relevant articles in Dits et écrits, a collection of essays and interviews of Foucault, to find out how he represented his work's relationship to Szasz's. Frankieist 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

CCHR membership?, try cofounder

Not only did he cofound the CCHR, but he publicly extolls the virtues it, produces content for it...in a word there has been a long and continuing relationship between the CCHR and Szasz. Is that overfocus?...and who really has POV issues here? --scuro 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And on their board of advisors [4] (although probably an emeritus position). I believe that he was a keynote speaker at this years' annual dinner 2007-02-17, but I don't have a reference for that. AndroidCat 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
“Emeritus position” may be right. Just for the record, when I relocated the section two days ago I copied and pasted it first to my Word processor. The removal of the photo was an accident. —Cesar Tort 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for explaining that. I do agree that the section shouldn't be the lead section, but I didn't think it belonged under Criticism. BTW, the article briefly mentions the Thomas S. Szasz Award, but doesn't explain it. As of 2004, CCHR now awards it, "named after CCHR co-founder, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at Upstate University, Syracuse, New York. The award is presented for outstanding achievement in exposing or eradicating human rights abuses in the field of mental health." [5], but I'll leave that for others to decide if it should be mentioned here. (Added: There seems to be some confusion about who awards it. [6]) AndroidCat 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this solve the CCHR-related neutrality problem?

I have removed the extended reference to Szasz's atheism and replaced it with a statement about his relationship to CCHR which is posted to the official Szasz web site. Whatever the merit of the section's existence, it seems to me to now be impartial. I don't understand the objection to the picture of Szasz and Cruise. Szasz himself clearly had no objection to being photographed with Cruise. Nicmart 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo is ok with me. We only have to address what I just posted above. —Cesar Tort 08:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Convention for using ellipses

In the US, the convention for quoting a paragraph in which the first sentence is truncated is to place the ellipses at the end of the truncated sentence and to leave the expected space between sentences. That is how I originally meant it to be, but I didn't do it quite right. Now I have correct it. Nicmart 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to check the WP convention and manual of style here. I’m not sure if truncated ellipses are suitable for WP since sometimes they appear separated (one ellipses on a line the other on another line). —Cesar Tort 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pov tag: CCHR membership over-focused

AndroidCat:

You haven’t responded fairly to what Lapaz wrote above about your copyedits:

Because it overfocuses on his membership to the CCHR and on the Scientology aspect, and thus lends a POV style to the article as one user here has well shown. If the reader wants more information on the CCHR, there is plenty available and linked from here to go.

He is right: the photo you inserted today already appears in another WP article. Nicmart replied to Lapaz above:

I agree. As a facet of his many years as an opponent of psychiatric falsehoods and the use of force, his CCHR association is trivial.

I wonder, AndroidCat, if you are not trying to use this as a straw man argument to diminish Szasz’s reputation among the intelligentsia? Nicmart is absolutely right: Szasz’s association with CCHR is trivial. By placing this stuff at the middle of the article you’re giving it a POV style. Therefore I am placing a tag. The photo should be removed.

Tito58 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to respond before it's "fairly"?
  • I replaced the photo that Cesar Tort removed without discussion Mar 8th.
  • I shifted the very NPOV section out of Criticism, where it didn't belong, but I didn't put it back as the lead section.
I really have to wonder at the POV of people who want Szasz's co-founding and continuing association with CCHR to go away. The section that you have tagged sticks to the minimum simple cited facts, and it is your OR that it is trivial. AndroidCat 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The objection is to the fetish of the anti-Szaszians and anti-Scientologists to push this minor part of his life to the fore. Szasz obviously has no objection to working with Scientologists or to be seen in public with them. But relative to the sum of his lifetime labors, the relationship is trivial. I think some of Szasz's supporters (of which I am one) worry to much about Szasz being smeared by linking him with Scientology, but that's not because there are not those who do try to smear him with the link. It isn't as though Scientology conducted the Spanish Inquisition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicmart (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Dotted with errors and misunderstanding of Szasz

This article well illustrates the problem some of us have with Wikipedia: it is terrible. Badly written, not demonstrably knowledgable of the subject, factually wrong in several respects, and with clear bias against the subject.

Although his association with Scientology is a small aspect of his work and career, it appears early in this article, and without mentioning that Szasz is an atheist who has never himself been a Scientologist. The early appearance in this article of Szasz's collaboration with Scientology serves his critics (and Scientology.) In a 500 page biography of Szasz, the Scientology association would rate about two paragraphs.

The criticism section says that Szasz's detractors claim that his view of mental illness is a "fringe position." If we are talking about a genuinely scientific endeavor, which psychiatry claims to be, then it is a farce for psychiatrists to characterize any view of psychiatric practice as "fringe." In science a theory is either proven or unproven. That psychiatrists derogate Szasz in this way ironically lends support to Szasz's claim that psychiatry is unscientific: scientific controversies are not decided by popularity contests. As with many other historical examples, only a couple of scientists once believed that gastric ulcers were caused by a bacterium, those "fringe" scientists were showered with the sort of opprobrium heaped on Szasz, yet their theory is now the accepted explanation for which they have now received the 2005 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine. (Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. -- Richard Feynman, American physicist.) Isn't it in the very nature of establishments to consign dissidents to the fringe?

This again under Criticism:

"Some people argue that Szasz's theories deserve refutation only because they are often cited by Scientologists and other anti-psychiatric groups.[1] Szasz himself conducts a traditional psychoanalytic practice for individuals with problems of living; there is nothing in his writings to suggest that he has any experience with or ever treats patients with serious mental illness. Moreover, his critics maintain that serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion."

This might have been an appropriate place to mention that Szasz is not a Scientologist. It is not true that "Szasz himself conducts a traditional psychoanalytic practice..." He has been retired now for many years, except for writing and public speaking. And what is the source for the characterization of his prior psychoanalytic practice? Should it go unmentioned that there is not a single psychiatric diagnosis that can be confirmed with a biological test?

Under Szasz's main arguments:

"Szasz is associated with the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s. He has attempted to distance himself from the connection, though, noting that he is not opposed to the practice of psychiatry if it is non-coercive."

Who associates him with anti-psychiatry and why is this unstated? He is an adamant critic of those who have associated themelves with the term "anti-psychiatry," such as Ronald Laing. Szasz has not "attempted to distance himself from the connection" with anti-psychiatry. He has always been forthright about his profound disagreements with the anti-psychiatrists. The characterization of his having "attempted to distance himself" is false, just as it would be to claim he has "attempted to distance himself" from Methodism by mentioning his atheism, or "attempted to distance himself" from sobriety by advocating the right to self-medicate.

Another quote in this section:

"Although Szasz opposes psychotropic medications, he favors the legalization of illegal drugs."

Szasz does not "oppose psychotropic medications." (He would say that the very idea of opposing a medication, rather than opposing its use and misuse, is irrational.) He opposes forcing people to use any drug involuntarily, including psychiatric drugs, aspirin, or penicillin. He believes that individuals have the right to voluntarily consume any drug, including "psychotropic medications."

I doubt that Szasz has ever written that involuntary hospitalization is a "crime againt humanity," and no source is offered to support this. He speaks of injustice done to individuals by psychiatric practices, including hospital imprisonment.

Szasz has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles, yet his voluminous output is ignored. The web site szasz.com. dedicated to his life and works, is replete with information, including discussion of matters such as his association with Scientology and his views on anti-psychiatry, but it seems that those who contributed to this entry prefer mostly to rely on second-hand information or their speculations.

As one of the prominent American intellectuals of the past 50 years, Szasz has an interesting history. For instance, his academic freedom was attacked and severely limited because of his dissident views. He provides some biographical information in the book "Szasz Under Fire," but none of that history is reflected in this Wikipedia entry. He came from a prominent Hungarian family and emigrated to the U.S. with the Nazi arrival looming. There is also a biographical chapter about him in Jim Powell's book, "The Triumph of Liberty."

The article makes no mention of prominent (not "fringe") intellectuals who have supported Szasz's criticisms of psychiatry, including Karl Popper ("Freedom - yes, psychiatry - no!") and Milton Friedman. You will not learn this because the article is not even-handed. (I would argue that Popper is at the very center of science, and he was favorably disposed to the core of Szasz's critique of psychiatry.)

Hi, there. I agree with you that Szasz's arguments are clearly misunderstood here. However, Szasz did say that involuntary treatment is a crime against humanity, a statement with which many psychiatric survivors and civil libertarians agree. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't doubt you, but I think it should be referenced if he said it. -- nicmart

Neither Popper nor Friedman have any credibility in the field of psychiatry. Popper was a second-rate philosopher with quack views on psychiatry. Friedman is an economist so it is not clear to me why anyone would look to him as an expert on mental illness. --24.55.228.56 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't take somebody within the field to understand the field. Journalist Robert Whitaker is a great example. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Whitaker is just another fringe antipsychiatry advocate who relies on Peter Breggin's quack research as the basis for his antipsychiatry nonsense. Like Szasz's 1960 theory, it is all old hat and inconsistent with modern science. I am not impressed.--24.55.228.56 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Whitaker is a distinuished Pulitzer-nominee. Whitaker took a serious look at Torrey's claims and found his methodology seriously flawed. It's not at all "old hat" and there is nothing scientific about modern psychiatry. How typical of you to smear even Whitaker. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Breggin is not a quack. And Torrey certainly is a quack and also a fascist who has set back mental patients' rights even further. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Breggin is arguably the biggest quack in America. Don't want to take my word for it? Checkout Quackwatch.org.--24.55.228.56 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For honesty's sake, shouldn't you mention that Quackwatch is the web site of a psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett? Nicmart 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is true, Quackwatch is a conventional psychiatrist website.The fox in charge of the henhouse so to speak.--Mark v1.0 05:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer to read a researcher's work and draw my own conclusions. You might want to try this approach yourself sometime. Breggin makes a lot more sense than mainstream psychiatry does. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But, while we're on the subject, what does quackwatch.org have to say about Robert Whitaker? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Whitaker has no medical credentials, he can only rely on quacks, he can't become one himself.--24.55.228.56 20:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, such a different view you have. See, for myself, I was impressed that a serious journalist such as Whitaker, who had no axe to grind (i.e. no vested interest in the outcome either way) looked at all the available evidence and came down firmly on the side of the "quacks." Somebody a little more open-minded than yourself might want to take a minute to think about that. But carry on with your insults and sneering, if you prefer. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've put you in for a "request for comment" due to your obnoxious behaviour on wiki. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a laugh and very hypocritical. Afterall, you are the one who has called people "facists" and "a##holes" on wiki. Plus, you are an admitted member of a extremist group and yet you continue to edit mental health articles after repeatedly being advised that you shouldn't do so. I suggest you review your own behavior.--24.55.228.56 03:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't do it to amuse you, 24.55. It's for the benefit of wikipedia. And I don't belong to any extremist organizations. The only people who have advised me not to edit are people such as yourself with an unwarranted fear of mental illness and consequent hatred of the mentally ill. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nonsense. Whitaker is a distinuished Pulitzer-nominee." That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. One nominates one's SELF for a Pulitzer. Submit a published article or photograph to the committee and you too become a Pulitzer nominee. Being a Pulitzer nominee isn't much of a credential, it just means he knows how to use a stamp to mail a letter with an entry fee. Scotto 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The arguments in Robert Whitaker’s book Mad in America have never been refuted by psychiatrists. Never. Any honest person who reads this exposé would easily see that biological psychiatry has no scientific basis. Furthermore, one does not need to read Whitaker or to have academic credentials to spot a pseudoscience. Occam’s razor and the unfalsifiable hypothesis are the surest “litmus paper” test to spot a false science. Biopsychiatry does not pass the test [7]. 15 March 2006. Cesar Tort

I admit to not wading through every word of this tedious debate, but has anyone on any side mentioned that many of Szasz's critics have a vested interest, a profit interest, in opposing him? Many of his critics are on the Left, and they energetically criticize many industries for taking positions in their self-interest, but not the mental health industry. Nicmart 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Myth of Mental Illness publication date

The book was published in 1961. I don't know why someone keeps changing the year to 1960. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicmart (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Influence

"Szasz's work has influenced thinkers as diverse as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, and Michel Foucault." I don't know much about Friedman, but surely in the cases of Popper and Foucault Szasz was more influenced than influence..? Prometheus912 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe (not sure) that he wrote his first book before Foucault’s dense and opaque and extremely irritating and boring treatise on psychiatry. And Popper behaved as a real coward about psychiatry: a shame since he could have easily debunked it. Tito58 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This is one of the worst entries I've read in Wikipedia. It is the archetypal example of feuding sides tearing the subject's carcass to shreds. The partipants ought to be ashamed that a dispassionate presentation of Szasz's beliefs and career is not even vaguely arrived at. Take the CCHR membership. That it is real there is no dispute, but it is a footnote in Szasz's intellectual life. In a 600 biography it might merit 2 pages, and most of that over the controversy it has raised. There is no dispute that Szasz is not a Scientologist, and that the organization was created to oppose psychiatry. It was founded long after Szasz had become psychiatry's most prominent critic, and it has had little-to-no effect on his prominence (or lack thereof). He freely acknowledges all aspects of his association with CCHR, but that he "produces content for it" is treated like a matter of international intrigue. Perhaps I've missed it: what content does he produce for it? The reference to Peter Breggin's opposition to NAMI is silly and irrelevant, so I have removed it. Likewise, the long list of mental health organizations that disagree with Szasz is foolish. Why not list every mental health organization in the world? After all, Szasz is a critic of what they believe and do. I condensed that list. There is room for all of Szasz's key views to be presented, and those of his critics to be properly represented. But, as it stands, this entry is awful, and it will remain so until that far-off day when the quality of the entry is more important than attacking or defending Szasz. Nicmart 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes: attention on the subject is over-focused. What we really need is a published source stating that Szasz has never had any political power in the organization. All CCHR decisions are taken by the church. Do you know that source? I know that Szasz is only a nominal founder of CCHR since I have talked with CCHR officials. But we still need a published source. Why doesn’t Szasz himself make a statement? —Cesar Tort 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are you obsessed with CCHR?.--Mark v1.0 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is important that Szasz still publically produces content for the CCHR which he helped found. This an organization still is under the umbrella of Scientology. Here is a organization/religion that clearly has a belief system that is not objective. In an objective biography the long association and nurturing of the CCHR would warrant significant attention because it goes to the root of what he believes in.--scuro 12:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying Szasz is a scientologist? Szasz produces content just for the CCHR? and you bring "objective" into this? are you freaking kidding me?--Mark v1.0 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Relax chum, it helps with objectivity. You are putting words in my mouth to make your point.--scuro 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted bad external link

Some of the external links are of questionable reliability. One just led to site with nothing of Szasz so I deleted it.--Mark v1.0 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the lawsuit (hearsay) link, it can't be substantiated, so I deleted it. It isn't relevant even if true.--Mark v1.0 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

Is he a member of the Church of Scientology? How did his relationship for the CCHR come about if he isn't? Can any of that be explained? gren グレン ? 13:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Szasz felt so isolated by the academic establishment that he tried to advance his cause through the CoS. But he has never been a scientologist —just like me. I do some anti-psychiatry activism in Mexico and, though I have some scientologists friends and even have spoken against psychiatry in their auditoriums, I have never taken any of their courses. Szasz and I are secular humanists. Just that simple. Cesar Tort 15 March 2006.
Request:
I would like to know more about Szasz's connection with the CoS.
Did he go to them or did they go to him.
I once read that stated he would work with ANY group that opposes psychriatic abuse.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.5.26 (talk • contribs)
He is not involved with the cult but rather CCHR - it's a scientology front froup to push Hubbard's anti-psych beliefs and they use Szasz theories as justification for their stance. Stating he is involved with the CoS is a big stretch. Cruise worships the guy from what I cansee- quoting him word for word quite often - Glen TC (Stollery) 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Szasz gets very well paid for the keynote addresses he delivers in CCHR auditoriums. —Cesar Tort 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Cesar Tort has not a clue how much Thomas Szasz is paid for his addresses. Tort wavers between expressions of admiration for Szasz and vituperative attacks on him. Tort's views are idiosyncratic and unreliable. Nicmart 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I do have a clue… —Cesar Tort 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he gets paid for his keynote adresses or not, but it seems to be true to me that he has taken over the viewpoint of Scientology about people who are not successfull in earning money. I've read something about this opinion of Szasz in a foreign language, i.e. in German language, only. That's why I have to refer to my memory, no english source available. Austerlitz 88.72.3.133 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
One can only surmise why you try to recall what you think Szasz may have written, or someone else may have written about him, in German "about people who are not 'successfull' in earning money" (sic) when he has made his opinions crystal clear in his voluminous English writings. Perhaps an ant resembles a cow if you view it with a high-powered microscope. Nicmart 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Just read it by your own, its from his book "Cruel compassion" [8] It has been sold in english language, too. Austerlitz 88.72.8.126 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why can't you bother yourself to quote things rather than to insinuate them? If any person alive is more clear than Szasz about his beliefs, I can't think of who is might be. Nicmart 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Szasz' views are very different to scientologists' views.

Scientologists believe in conspiracy theories, for example, that September 11 was caused by psychiatrists. They also believe that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). Nobody in the secular psychiatric survivor movement or in the critical literature by professionals (like Szasz's) holds such views.

Anyone who reads both the Antipsychiatry article and the Scientology and psychiatry article can see the big difference. The roots are also different. Classic antipsychiatrists like David Cooper and Ronald Laing had ties with the political left of the 1960s; Szasz, with the civil libertarians of the right. On the other hand, Scientology started as a mix of Aleister Crowley’s magic, Freud’s abreaction therapy and bad science-fiction.

Furthermore, scientologists are religiously committed to never take psychiatric drugs. Not even the most prolific critic of psychiatry, Szasz, holds such commitment. Szasz even published a book about the right of adults to take illegal drugs. Also, many secular critics of psychiatry may take, say, Valium to get some sleep. A pious scientologist would never do that on principle.

Another major difference is the total rejection of psychology by scientologists. No secular antipsychiatry activist reaches that extreme!

Szasz is only a nominal founder of CCHR. In real life Szasz has never had any power whatsoever in an organization ruled by faithful scientologists. In fact, many of Szasz’ views are heretical ―e.g., “our right to drugs”― and even evil for the church’s dogmas ―e.g., his agnosticism about post-mortem survival (reincarnation is a central dogma for scientologists, who really abhor materialism). But Szasz has not broken with the “secular” branch of the Church of Scientology, CCHR, and probably never will.

Strange bedfellows… Tito58, 18 December 2006


The "pointless" photo

Since Szasz co-founded CCHR, he is still on their Board of Advisors, he still attends their annual awards dinners, and possibly gets very well paid for it (claim by Cesar Tort above), how is a CCHR PR photo of him at one of those dinners arm-in-arm with one of CCHR's celebrity supporters "pointless"? AndroidCat 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it overfocuses on his membership to the CCHR and on the Scientology aspect, and thus lends a POV style to the article as one user here as well shown. If the reader wants more information on the CCHR, there is plenty available and linked from here to go. Lapaz 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Thus lends a POV style to the article..." For God's sake the whole article- save for one small paragraph on criticism and an accompanying counter to it--is predominantly pro-POV. For someone who's been so controversial, so criticized and who is, by a vast majority in the field today, relegated to the fringes of the there's very little criticism in the article.71.50.11.38 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As a facet of his many years as an opponent of psychiatric falsehoods and the use of force, his CCHR association is trivial. The emphasis on CCHR (and no, I'm not a Scientologist) is like a history of Ford Motor Company from the viewpoint that the Mustang is the most important part of it. It is emphasized by those who think his association with CCHR brings him descredit. Nicmart 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If we're reviving this discussion, I have no problem with the article mentioning that his "Founding Commissioner" position on the CCHR board of advisors is powerless. The question is how to cite it. The reference is there to show that he didn't just co-found the CCHR and then walk away with no further connection since 1969. AndroidCat 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Threaded discussion on Szasz and the CoS has been continued here.
Since I have a lot of work to do in the real world, I’m removing this page from my Watchlist. I hope, however, that someone else will address the POV issues in the current article. ―Cesar Tort 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Szasz himself about Scientology Thomas Szasz, here, in German language [9]

Austerlitz 88.72.14.248 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • what he said about himself and Scientology (still in German):
"Ich bin kein Scientologe und war es nie. Scientology ist eine Religion, und ich bin ein überzeugter, bekennender Atheist. Ich habe die CCHR aus denselben Motiven mitgegründet, wie ich Jahre davor zusammen mit dem Soziologen Erving Goffman und dem Juraprofessor George Alexander die American Association for the Abolition of Involontary Mental Hospitalization (AAAIMH) ins Leben gerufen habe. Die CCHR ist auf mich zu gekommen, weil sie sich meinem Kampf gegen die Institution Psychiatrie anschließen wollte, nicht umgekehrt. Diese Unterstützung begrüße ich, denn: Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund. Dies allerdings nur insoweit er meinen Feind bekämpft, nicht unbedingt in der Verfolgung anderer Ziele. Amerika und Großbritannien, Roosewelt und Churchill haben Seite an Seite mit der UDSSR und Stalin gekämpft. Deswegen sind weder die Briten noch wir Stalinisten geworden. Ich widme meine Arbeit seit über einem halben Jahrhundert der Bekämpfung psychiatrischer Sklaverei, das heißt der Abschaffung der staatlich sanktionierten Gefangennahme von Menschen unter medizinischer Schutzherrschaft – eine Praxis, die in den letzten Jahrzehnten zu einer staatlich sanktionierten zwangsweisen Verabreichung von Drogen an unschuldige Menschen ausgewachsen ist. Im Kampf gegen den therapeutischen Staat hätte ich die Unterstützung von Juden, Katholiken und Moslems sehr begrüßt, auch wenn ich deren religiöse Prinzipien und Praktiken genauso ablehne wie die von Scientology."

I hope that I or somebody else is going to translate this.

Austerlitz 88.72.14.102 02:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm noy sure if it's all 100% accurate, you might want to check it, but that's the gist of it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad2 (talk • contribs)

The above are translated words of Sazsz, as explained above by Austerlitz. —Cesar Tort 02:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Drogophobia

The word "drogophobia" is used early in the article, and defined somewhat later. It gets 0 Google hits other than this article. Could someone verify that this is the actual word used in the original source, and if so, cite that source? The word should also be defined on its first use in the article, since it is, apparently, extremely rare. --Trevor Burnham 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the words should be removed from article. Any objections? —Cesar Tort 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

  • Online discussion groups or chat forums
  • Personal webpages and blogs
  • Multiple links to the same website
  • Fundraising events or groups
  • Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
  • Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

English translation

Cher confrère, je trouve vos coordonnées sur le site AEP,sur lequel vous trouverez aussi les miennes [10]. nous pourrions échanger nos idées,l'avancée de nos travaux? Je participerai au congres international en Italie en octobre2005,et vous? bien cordialement. jean-yves métayer, LE HAVRE FRANCE

Quick translation of above for convenience:

Dear associate, I found your name and address on the AEP site, on which you will also find mine. http://zenartis.site.voila.fr

We could exchange ideas, the progress of our work? I will take part in the international congress in Italy in October 2005, and you? very cordially jean-yves métayer

LE HAVRE, FRANCE

I'm confused. Is the French haven talking to me? To Szasz? Dave 04:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I removed "(This is a surprise to most people with serious mental llness and their families.)" because it implies that wikipedia has a stance on whether there are mental illnesses or not. The article is about Szasz's views, not the authors beliefs. Prem, Florida

Wikipedia doesn't take a position on whether there are mental illnesses? Does wikipedia acknowledge heart disease or cancer? Does wikipedia take notice of whether the earth is round? LOL! --Agiantman 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
It ought to take a position on whether there is a part of the anatomy identified as "the mind," and whether a biological basis for "mental illness" has ever been authenticated by autopsy. It should also document the endless trail of useless diagnoses and treatments proffered by psychiatry. Also, whether any biological test (urine, blood) validates any psychiatric diagnoses. Nicmart (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. That's what NPOV is all about. Kurt Weber 23:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Wrong! Wikipedia does take a stance about the most preposterous claims, the so-called due weight policy. ―Cesar Tort 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Szasz's criticisms don't hinge on 'Dualism'

note from peter105:

I am not happy with the article's claim that Szasz's objections presuppose a Cartesian dualist philosophy of mind, whereas modern psychiatry accepts a purely physical view of mental illness. It's true that most psychiatrists believe that psychological phenomena are products of brain activity, i.e. they are physical in nature. The philosopher Descartes had argued that mind and body were distinct substances, hence 'dualism'. However, Szasz's points are largely unaffected by this opposition because a) psychiatrists are still heavily dependent on normative and sociolological (not rigorously physical) criteria of mental illness; b) even if you had an exhaustive knowledge of how the brain works, how would you decide which states should be considered illness and which health? The only way would be to rely on value judgments, notions of what sort of behavior a 'normal' or 'healthy' brain would produce, and this would open the way for Szasz's arguments. (You might say something like "unhappiness should be classified as a malfunction" - but that is plainly wrong: if you've just lost your family in a plane crash and you aren't unhappy you are very abnormal!)

The key concepts used in psychiatry - the ones that describe complaints for which people seek treatment - evolved as a way of talking about observable gross behavior, physical and verbal. Assuming dualism is false and materialism true, we are still far from being able to give neurological definitions of despair, loneliness, ambition, sarcasm, jealousy, self-loathing, or planning to move to Florida. Similarly with anxiety and depression. So Szasz's point remains: the definitions we frame reflect value judgments and cultural norms (some of which may be sensible and uncontroversial.) Neurological studies will yield helpful findings, but to this point what you hear about chemical imbalances and neurotransmitters is very glib and after the fact. I have seen therapists for depression on and off for years and I have yet to have one attempt to test my serotonin level. (Moreover, the drugs which 'correct' the level cause impotence and anorgasmia -if these are indications of a healthy brain it's a miracle the race didn't die out!) It is not even certain that there is a physical definition for depression, apart from any dualist argument, for there may not be a 'fit' between purely neurological descriptions and psychopathological descriptions that are in part normative and sociological. By way of analogy, imagine trying to give a precise physical definition of unfashionable clothing, aggressiveness at bridge, or a good party. Of all the possible 4D configurations of matter in the universe defined over a continuous stretch of time, a subset of them will be ones in which Peter is unfashionably dressed or Roger is bidding his hand aggressively, but try to imagine a purely physical formulation that would sort out these cases from the others.

Having said all that, I concede that psychiatrists have gained a rough and ready knowledge of how to help people with drugs. But the dream that one day psychiatry will be as precise and value-free as physics is doomed, apart from whatever truth philosophical dualism may possess. Peter105 (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read about 10 Szasz books. You are right: Szasz's objections to biological psychiatry do not presuppose a Cartesian dualist philosophy of mind. It's common of critics of antispychiatrists to conjecture they have a dualist agenda. In fact, the most known anti-psychiatrists, Szasz, Michel Foucault and R.D. Laing, never subscribed to dualism. Szasz himself wrote a book on the subject, The meaning of the mind, where he criticizes Descartes in a few pages. —Cesar Tort 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

use of the word disease in the criticism section

As my title suggests, I think the terms 'disease' and 'illness' are quite misleading when making the comparison between mental and physical health. I don't that the mainstream view suggests that depression, schizophrena etc are caused by viruses? I don't know Szasz very well at all but I would suggest that even he would agree that Syphilis is a disease of the brain, schizophrenia which probably does not have an extrenal cause, is not. Kiwifruitrulz (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream view among experts is that schizophrenia is a disease. Thus, it should be called that in the section.Twerges (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm...no, condition is better. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
"Erm...no, condition is better" is not a helpful comment. Why is it better? The medical community considers mental problems to be diseases, most psychiatric medication is prescribed by General Practitioners not psychiatrists, so disease is the conventional term to use. Paglew (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New External Link Suggested

In Oct 2007 Szasz spoke with a small audience (40 or so) at the Centre of Excellence in Interdisciplinary Mental Health (CEIMH)at the University of Birmingham as part of CEIMH's 'Conversations with...' series. The audience consisted of users of mental health services, mental health professionals and academics. The videos of his brief introductory talk and the longer Q&A session with the audience are available at the CEIMH website (see e.g. Szasz Preview) and I suggest putting these in the external links section. If no-one raises any objections in the next week I'll go ahead. KitBull (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Criticisms

The "Criticisms" was completely anemic when I found it. It is apparent that this page is overwhelmingly the work of Szasz supporters. I tried to restore some balance by cleaning up this section and adding a concise mention of a few of the more robust arguments against Szasz that I have come across. I hope more people will add to and improve them in the interest of a more complete entry on Szasz, and that those who disagree with the criticisms will have the integrity not to delete or bowdlerize them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storydemon (talk • contribs)

Where is your signature and timestamp? I think the general population knows and believes in the brain chemical imbalance theory, so to state it here is silly. --Mark v1.0 12:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole book on the subject: Jeffrey Schaler's (ed.) 2004 Szasz Under Fire: The Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics (Chicago: Open Court Publishers). —Cesar Tort 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that this is quite arrogant given the fact that the page on mental illness has no section at all on the critique of mental illness. Since when do people have criticisms? Arguments can have criticisms perhaps, but not people. So such a criticism section would make sense if there were a separate page defending Szasz' arguments; however, this article is about Szasz the person. For example, consider the article on John Locke. David Hume published an influential critique of Locke's work; is there a section about this in Locke's article? Of course not, because that's not what defines Locke's life. I am deleting the criticism section, and please do not put it back unless you can come up with prominent examples of biographical articles that have "Criticism" sections. Alternatively, if you are going to make this page about Szasz' arguments and not about the life of the person himself, then it is only fair that you simultaneously add a criticism section to the article on mental illness. Metsfanmax (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Szasz and the debate over psychiatric pharmaceutical treatment

Hi, I'm doing my PhD on mental illness and paternalism. The article refers to the argument that the effectiveness of pharmaceutical medications undermines Szasz's position, and then claims that evidence of ineffective drug treatment supports Szasz's position. Both claims are highly misleading. Szasz sometimes gets coopted by other authors seeking to cite his work in favour of opposition to the use of pharmaceutical psychiatry. However, that directly contradicts Szasz's own statements on the issue. Szasz argues explicitly for the unrestricted legalisation of all drugs, including psychiatric medication, in The Myth of Mental Illness and other works. He has also repeatedly clarified that he is NOT opposing drug therapy for psychiatric patients, he has never opposed drug therapy and he in fact recommends it on occasion to his own patients (don't have the source on hand, but if you do a search through the medical ethics databases you'll find a series of almost monthly 1-2 page articles he writes, mostly repeating the same claims he always makes - if you do a search through those you'll come across it).

More to the point, the issue of drug treatment is completely irrelevant to Szasz's argument. Whilst he believes that mental illness is a social/moral problem, he never claims that drug therapy is not an appropriate solution so long as it is done with a patient's informed consent. When you get down to it, Szasz only has 2 major points of disagreement with mainstream psychiatry (which may explain to some why he was never sacked from his long-held chair of psychiatry, and why he still manages to practice as a private psychiatrist treating many patients): (1) the language used to describe mental illness, and (2) the claim that mental illness deprives the suffer of the capacity for effective autonomy (which underlies both the insanity defence and involuntary psychiatric treatment). There is nothing in his work (and, in fact, there is the occasional statement to the contrary) to indicate that his methods of treating voluntary and consenting patients are radically different to other psychiatrists. (this also undermines the logic of his argument - he doesn't seem to deny the end phenomena of mental illness, just its categorisation in medical, rather than social, terms and he then derives (2) from (1). The 2nd conclusion doesn't follow from the 1st - one can interpret the end-phenomena of mental illness in purely social/moral terms and STILL conclude that it may deprive the sufferer of the capacity for autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.61.113 (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have all of Szasz's books on my shelf. You understand his arguments poorly, which is unfortunate if you have read his works and are "doing a PhD" on related matters. But this isn't the place to argue this, and it is almost certainly pointless to do so. Out into the world heads another academic who misapprehends his subject Nicmart (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section devoid of real criticism

The criticism section is seriously lacking – right off the bat the first sentence is an unnecessary recap of Szasz’s beliefs of which the reader is already well aware from reading the rest of the article: “While teaching at SUNY, Szasz offered private psychotherapy to individuals with "problems in living," consistent with his belief that mental illness is a myth and that drugs do not solve emotional conflicts”

The criticisms that are listed are unattributed: “Szasz's critics maintain that, contrary to his views, such illnesses are now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion” – who are these critics? Are they psychologists, if so the reader would be interested to know. Without attribution it is hard to take these criticms seriously since there are people who disagree with just about anything, to be useful to the reader the section should contain specific references to established scientific and medical organizations such as the AMA, and NIH, and statemenst they have made either about Szasz specifically or the reality of mental illness in general.

Finally, the reference to Jacob Sullum is wholly inappropriate – it is not a summary of the critiques but a dismissal of them by an unknown journalist who is clearly a supporter of Szasz. The Reason magazine for which Mr. Sullum works is far from a mainstream publication - its readers number a mere 60,000 according to their own website and to uncritically quote Jacob Sullum gives the reader the incorrect impression that he is representative of the news media, whereas nothing could be further from the truth- the reference should be removed if for no other reason than its not a criticism of Szasz but praise from one of this supporters

Paglew (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section can certainly be improved. I think that deleting it altogether isn't the right way to go. Controversial persons often attract criticism that's notable, and well referenced information about that is WP:DUE, in my opinion.Sjö (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between criticisms of a person and criticisms of his work. If you wish to comment on the legitimacy of Szasz' theories, perhaps the place to go is the article on anti-psychiatry. However, any page about Szasz should be strictly about Szasz. If peoples' criticisms of his work are relevant to Szasz' life and are notable, then they should be added in the appropriate section in response to the given topic; however, most biographies do not contain criticism sections; for example John Locke, John Rawls, David Hume, Sigmund Freud, etc. Metsfanmax (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You make a telling point. Why should Szasz be treated differently in Wikipedia than any other intellectual. They all have critics, but most do not have sections of criticism in their entries. Nicmart (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Photograph

I got permission from Dr. Szasz to upload a picture a relative of his took, which he sent me; however, I've never used a picture on Wikipedia before so I'm not entirely sure how to do it. The file is uploaded at the Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TSS01.JPG. If someone could upload this, noting that the permission is pending, that would be great, thanks. Metsfanmax (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no longer a picture at that link. There needs to be a photo with the Szasz entry, though. There are two at szasz.com for which permission can probably be obtained by the site owner. Nicmart (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more citations

Thomas Szasz is such a controversial figure that wikipedia article should be based entirely on citations of good sources. There are many people wanting to define Szasz to be either a very bad or a very good person due to his criticism against the modern psychiatry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.78.254.165 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article states 'As Szasz said, having become convinced of the fictitious character of mental disorders'. This is false because of the use of the word 'fictitious'. Szasz used the academic definition of the word 'myth'. A myth is not a 'fiction' - i.e. to deny that it exists, and a quote from Gilbert Ryle is pertinent here; "A myth is of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging in one category in the idioms belonging to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to reallocate them." This has caused much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Szasz's position. Please can this statement be changed. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Change to CCHR section

I have modified the section substantially to more directly reflect Szasz's view of the organization. Rather than having someone speak for him about CCHR and Scientology, I have included a quote, with source, where he explains why the organization was formed, and that he is not involved with, or a believer in, Scientology. I have also removed an unsourced quote about why the organization was created ("clean up") because it was vague and the new Szasz quote makes it unnecessary. The footnote includes a link to both the transcript and the audio of Szasz making this statement about CCHR. Nicmart (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

criticism section

The reference to mental illness being approached scientifically should come out, unless it is balanced by referring to the fact that there is no objective test for it and that the error rate in diagnosis is very high. The Stanley Research Institute is what bankrolls E. Fuller Torrey's Treatment Advocacy Center. The Stanleys' son has a mental illness and it's well known that families of the mentally ill promote a biochemical (i.e. blameless) theory of madness. Psychiatry is what separate from the rest of medicine and that should be noted here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC (talk • contribs)

Dr. Torrey, the Stanley Research Institute, and the Treatment Advocacy Center are not the only ones who believe that severe and persistent mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) are neurobiological brain disorders and that serious mental illness is now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion. That is the opinion of the American Psychiatric Association (the international association of 36,000 psychiatrists), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), the National Mental Health Association (NMHA) and every other mainstream organization on mental health issues. Szasz's view that mental illness is a myth is a fringe view long since discredited by modern psychiatry.--24.55.228.56 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're correct that all the organizations that you list promote the neurobiological model. However, the APA's statement that mental illness is "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion" is demonstrably false. The DSM contains merely checklists of symptoms which can be given any number of interpretations. Causation is simply not dealt with. A chemical imbalance is assumed, in spite of evidence to the contrary. That is not scientific. Many pro-psychiatry organizations are funded by Big Pharma, an obvious conflict of interest. You don't have to believe that mental illness is a myth (I certainly don't) in order to believe that psychiatry is a pseudoscience and a dangerous one. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, every legitimate psychiatric and psychological study on mental illness uses the scientific method. All of the cited studies by the Stanley Foundation follow the scientific method. Mental illness is indeed approached, measured, and tested in scientific fashion. The scientific method is as follows: 1.Define the question 2.Gather information and resources 3.Form hypothesis 4.Perform experiment and collect data 5.Analyze data 6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses 7.Publish results. The scientific method also involves peer review.--65.87.105.2 21:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

However, your argument falls apart at 6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses. The reason is that these conclusions are subjective and are heavily biased on a person's individual experience and not based upon any standard. For an example of how unique "mental illness" is to each individual and how psychiatrists can often draw false conclusions simply because they aren't basing their conclusions off of any facts, read the study by David Rosenhan in "Being Sane in Insane Places" (1973, Science).

65.87.105.2, we all know how the scientific method works. Psychiatry is flawed right from steps 1 through 7. Some examples -- 1. define the question -- psychiatrists vote on what constitutes a mental disorder at the APA convention every year. 3. form hypothesis -- psychiatry assumes without evidence that mental illness is the result of brain chemical imbalances. Then they disregard all evidence that works against them. That's not forming a hypothesis and testing it. Psychiatrists keep saying over and over "it's a brain disease" but it's just not supported by the evidence. If schizophrenia were actually found to have a basis in tissue pathology, we would have a new *physical* disease and treatment would be moved out of psychiatry into real medicine. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, they DO have physical evidence of schizophrenia, including neuron loss over large portions of the brain in schizophrenic adolescents at a far greater rate and range than nonschizophrenic, and decreased activation of the frontal cortex. The difficulty in psychiatry is not in figuring out what is happening, but what the causation is - compare, for example, the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, and Schacter theories of emotion. Saying "this occurs, and this makes this symptom vanish" is easy and empirical; the WHY is the hard part.
All that aside, while I'm sympathetic to Szasz's concerns over involuntary treatment, liberty, and improper medical therapy, there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict some of his claims about mental disease (claims which, all things considered, contradict logic - if there's physical brain, it can be damaged or defective, just as an arm can be damaged or defective, and while it is society that stigmatizes, many elements of the biological brain are understood well enough to conclude that the possibility of disease isn't just a hallucination [ironic use of "hallucination]). This article ought to have some substance to it, and its lack of critical perspectives is a major failing. -Akio
I don't understand this focus on schizophrenia and it's causes. The field of psychiatry covers hundreds of disorders, including organic brain disorders caused by injury and birth defects. It's true that the DSM generally does not cover the causes of various disorders, It doesnt have to. The DSM is used to determine the best treatment options based on the facts as observed so far. We know that when a certain amount of criteria are present, it has historically been a sign that a certain disorder is responsible. Of course psychiatrists would love for mental illness to be something that could be "shown on an operating table", but it is a much more subtle science and can only be shown in more subtle ways (changes in PET scans, etc.). We can all argue about chemical inbalaces causing Schiz. or the over-prescription of Ritalin, but to make these arguments the basis of a belief that those who affiliates themselves with the field of psychiatry are somehow, by definition, incapable of adhering to the scientific method is pure nonsense. Beren76
It is not nonsense. There’s no evidence whatsoever that mental illnesses are biological. In a statement released in September 2003 the American Psychiatric Association, which represents 36,000 physician leaders in mental health, conceded that “brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental disorder or mental disorders as a group […]. Mental disorders will likely be proven to represent disorders of intracellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry” (quoted in the Wikipedia article Biopsychiatry controversy). —Cesar Tort 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Among other things, Sullum points out, critics argue that some so-called mental illnesses are genuine brain diseases, although their precise etiologies have not been figured out yet."

What mental illnesses are genuine brain diseases? PLEASE LIST THEM--Mark v1.0 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If we take the standard of the DSM-IV, only those caused by neorotoxins. The rest of them don't have a somatogenic cause (but probably a psychogenic one).
You're right. The whole paragraph is extremely confusing and misleading. I propose to radically change it. Take a look at what I have written about this subject.
—Cesar Tort 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK then I'm cutting it. To my knowledge any genuine brain disease is treated by a neurologist.--Mark v1.0 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph I myself wrote last year. The whole section is still confusing. I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps another critical analyst of Szasz's critique should be mentioned and just remove the whole Jacob Sullum confusing stuff? —Cesar Tort 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the quoted Donald F. Klein believes that a person who feels better smoking marijuana suffers from cannabanoid deficiency? Nicmart (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The "patient" as malingerer

I have moved this material here for discussion:

According to Szasz, the many manifestations of so-called ″mental illness″ are essentially malingering. The so-called ″patient″ has something personally significant to communicate—their "problems in living"—but unable to express this via conventional means they resort to illness-imitation behaviour, a somatic protolanguage—a "body language—which psychiatrists and psychologists have misguidedly interpreted as the signs/symptoms of real illness. Szasz writes:

The significance of the affective use of body language—or generally, of the language of illness—can hardly be exaggerated...It is part of our social ethic that we ought to feel sorry for sick people and should try to be helpful to them. Communications by means of body signs may therefore be intended mainly to induce the following sorts of feelings in the recipient: "Aren't you sorry for me now? You should be ashamed of yourself for having hurt me so! You should be sad seeing how I suffer..." and so forth...[T]he flamboyant "schizophrenic body feelings" encountered today, represent communications in the contexts of specific social situations. Their aim is to induce mood rather than to convey information. They thus make the recipient of the message feel as if he had been told: "Pay attention to me! Pity me! Scold me!" and so forth...[C]hildren and women often can get their way with tears where their words would fall on deaf ears—and so can patients with symptoms. The point is that when some persons in some situations cannot make themselves heard by means of ordinary language—for example, speech or writing—they may try to make themselves heard by means of protolanguage, for example, weeping or "symptoms"...We have come thus to speak of all these silent and not-so-silent cries and commands, pleas and reproaches—that is, of all these endlessly diverse "utterances"—as so many different menal illnesses!

— Thomas S. Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct, [1]
Many authors discuss the malingerer idea, not just Szasz, and where I've seen Szasz discuss it in his writings, he quickly refers to the extensive work of Freud on this subject. Also, very long quotes belong in WikiQuote, not here. Johnfos (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. I can accept the deletion of the lengthy quotation but Szasz's contrual of apparent mental illness as malingering is pertient so I will reinstate it. It is besides the point that "[m]any authors discuss the malingerer idea"; why is that even relevant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Biography?

There is zero biographical info in this article other than his birthdate and academic affiliation. Surely there must be more information on this individual than that! Peter G Werner (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is stuff about I am sure. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to see some biographical information especially about his education. Turkeyphant 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Szasz Under Fire (Schaler, 2005) includes a chapter-long autobiography of Szasz, including information about his childhood and early career at SUNY.Szasz1961 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad sentence

From the blurb:

"He is a defender of counterculture movements, and believes that the practice of medicine, use and sale of drugs, and sexual relations, should be private, contractual, and outside of state jurisdiction."

The commas here are problematic. What is this supposed to mean? --Roman à clef 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I eliminated three commas. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How is Szasz a "defender of counterculture movements"? Where does he offer this defense? Source, please. Nicmart 15:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just removed it and added "suicide". —Cesar Tort 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
... verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses...

I think "confirming or refuting DSM diagnoses" might be clearer. I'd especially like to see the word "falsifying" changed. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Myth of mental illness" section

This article has a long section (placed within a larger section called "Szasz's main arguments") called "The myth of mental illness." I have just removed a template from that section, but that was because the template properly applies to entire articles rather than to only sections of an article. The point the template was being used to make - that the section is written like an essay or personal reflection - seems to be correct. Given that the "myth of mental illness" section has minimal sourcing - the only sources are one of Szasz's books and a YouTube video - I think it should be removed entirely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ADHD

The comment that .."he criticized the use of methylphenidate to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).", is misleading. It is trying to make it sound like he believes in ADHD, yet disapproves the mediacation for it. The main focus should be that he criticises ADHD. This is deliberately misleading, and I am going to delete it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.100.202 (talk) 10 April 2007‎

  1. ^ Szasz, Thomas S. (1974). "7 Language and Protolanguage". The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct (revised ed.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers. pp. 117–9. ISBN 0060911514.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Szasz/Archive_1&oldid=1137250775"