Psychiatry, is it science?

A science has informing the public as part of its duty as a science, and in this psychiatry seems to have major shortcomings.
This is pure political BS, as well as anthropomorphic nonsense. Scientists have the duty to pursue knowledge with as much objectivity and ethicality as they are capable of. "Informing the public" is the duty of politicians and educators, each in their specific roles. Science is a resource to be used to educate and inform, it is not a social service.
 
Dave1001 said:
Jeff Corey said:
See Merc's post 225. Dr. Humenanski is a MD psychiatrist. Dr. Loftus and the others testifying against Humenansky were psychologists. In general, psychiatrists are more likely to buy into the repressed memory myth than psychologists, in my experience.
And how likely are psychiatrists to buy into the repressed memory myth?
I think it depends upon how many are still in the Freudian stage of development.

No, seriously. You say that "In general, psychiatrists are more likely to buy into the repressed memory myth than psychologists, in my experience." But are psychiatrists likely to buy into repressed memory myth in your experience? Or not?
 
Scientists have the duty to pursue knowledge with as much objectivity and ethicality as they are capable of. "Informing the public" is the duty of politicians and educators, each in their specific roles. Science is a resource to be used to educate and inform, it is not a social service.

I think most science ethicists (including scientists who are science ethicists) would probably disagree with that assessment. I think they would include informing the public of relevant scientific results as part of the ethical duty of scientists.
 
Psychologists do not. Psychology is a "soft science" in the same realm as anthropology, polisci, and sociology. Licensing varies, but typically requires a PhD, PsyD, or at least MA, for clinical practice. This doesn't preclude those with less education from acting as "counselors", however. Like most of the soft sciences, there is no established single or primary modus, and many different more-or-less competing theories and models exist, with various degrees of support and adherence. And like other soft sciences, is far more prone to woo than the hard science are; though as many at JREF have noted, the hard sciences are not entirely free of woo either. The less precise the science, the more woo there is.

"Therapists" or "Counselors" don't necessarily require any training at all. Depending on the state and field of practices, the typical therapist will have a Masters, but not necessarily in Clinical Psychology per se; but possibly in "Social Work", "Behavioural Counselling", or even "Divinity", as long as a certain amount of CP training is part of the degree (requirements vary). No medical background is required at all.

Psychoanalysis is not, as many people think, a sub/superset of psychiatry, nor is it related; but is rather an outdated school of psychology/psychotherapy. Although in the US admission to psychoanalytic training has been mostly restricted to MDs, that has loosened up a lot in recent decades, and many are from non-medical fields. In Europe and Latin America, there has never been any such restriction, and many more psychoanalysts are from non-medical backgrounds.

I think it's a mistake to conflate woo psycholanalysis type stuff with what's done in the psychology departments of research universities and what published in the peer-reviewed research journals they are affiliated with. The psychology and psychological research done by those departments is no more "soft science" than what biologists or epidemiologists do. Evidence based research, that's supposed to follow the scientific method, empiricism, etc.
 
Um, they are seperate areas, psychiatry is a subset of medical psychology?
Not quite, Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology are very different disciplines, although they do overlap to some degree. Psychology is not based in medical science, but is a "soft" social science like sociology or anthropology.
And as i stated, most of the bad practice in woo beliefs is by non-psychiatrists. Although I am certain woo psychiatrists exist and do dangerous things, there are different credentials and different legal defintions, most of the crazy woo stuff has been therapists and counselors.

There are examples of egregious malpractice in any medical field. However, the existence of negligent or outright criminal surgeons does not invalidate the field of medicine. Indeed, there has been a serious problem for quite some time with hospitals and other regulatory bodies turning a blind eye to improper practice by many well-established physicians (most frequently in the realm of drug/alcohol abuse); as well as a historical attitude of elitism and esotericism involving such incidents, and the field of medicine in general, by regulatory organizations such as the AMA. This is a large part of why there is such a distrust of doctors in popular culture.
 
.

Psychologists do not. Psychology is a "soft science" in the same realm as anthropology, polisci, and sociology.
Although I would agree that many areas in psychology are 'soft' my experience is that there are major differences between psychology and social sciences such as anthropology and sociology.

Every psychology department I have ever studied or worked in emphasises laboratory research, experimental methods and quantitative analysis.

The other disciplines emphasise observational, interview, survey and discourse analysis methods, and qualitative analysis is more dominant.
 
Not quite, Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology are very different disciplines, although they do overlap to some degree. Psychology is not based in medical science, but is a "soft" social science like sociology or anthropology...

I must disagree with you there. Psychological science ranges from biopsychology, which studies physiological influences on behavior, the study of sensation and perception,the experimental analysis of behavior, to social psychology, among other specialities.
I have to wonder where you are getting your information. Did you ever take an introductory psychology course? If so, when?
 
hey there! :) It is a tempermant thing many psych majors and social workers are hard knock sceptics. But therapists, well, many have woo as thier middle name. ;)

Haven't known too many psych majors, but the few I have known have been all over the spectrum. Have known and dealt with a lot of social workers, partly due to my partner having two autistic kids and being moderately disabled, and the vast majority of them have been pretty amazingly woo. In fact, a couple of them were responsible for my partner having one of her sons temporarily taken away and stuck in an institution for a couple months because she refused to submit him to a woo program that claimed it could cure his autism by tapping on his head to wake up his brain.
 
Psychiatry is as much a science as any other branch of medicine. Does it have its faults? Absolutely. But, overall, it can greatly improve the lives of many people who would normally be social outcasts and not have any hope of a viable life. I believe that many meds are VERY over-prescribed and that the profit motive in the pharmaceutical industry drives this. This is where psychiatry and just about all other branches of medicine need a huge improvement.

When it comes to the meds, some of the older ones like Haldol that were used (and still used on occasion) to treat psychotic behavior in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder had very serious and debilitating side effects. Newer a-typical anti-psychotics like Risperdal or Zyprexa do a remarkable job at taming some otherwise unlivable delusional thought processes. While these still have side-effects that need to be closely monitored, I would hate to see where some of these patients would be without them. Tom Cruise would have you believe that you can treat somebody with diet and exercise alone—but if anybody would try to tell me that you could get somebody in a severe psychotic episode to cooperate and go into a new diet and exercise regimin, I would say that was very unrealistic. Meds by themselves will not do the trick, but the meds can stabilize somebody enough in a crisis situation. Then with the help of tools like talk therapy, learn to recognize symptoms and take appropriate action before they cross over into their delusional (often euphoric) state of mind.

Psychiatric research has not only saved the lives of countless people with mental health issues, but they have enabled many to lead normal productive lives. It wasn't that long ago that the mentally ill were burned at the stake for being witches or being exorcised due to a demonic possession (unfortunately, the demonic possession belief still exists for many people.). All of this being said, it would not surprise me if figures like Moses, Jesus, Paul, Mohammed and many others were not victims of some sort of mental illness. This would surely explain things like the burning bush.

At the end of the day, practicing medicine is always about testing theories and learning from your mistakes. For now, I think that psychiatry has come a long way in the past 50 years and I'm sure it will advance quite significantly in the next 50.

Is it a science? Yes. Is it fully understood? No. Onward and upward.
 
Interesting thought! Just been a paper in the Annals of Psychiatry showing that the new atypical non clozapine anti-psychotics are actually no more effective and have similar side effect levels to the older drugs - needless to say at considerably higher cost. Clozapine is not included in this research but has problems of its own and requires extremely careful blood monitoring at all times , although it is undoubtedly the drug of choice in resistant schizophrenia.
The fact that the newer atypicals were taken up with such enthusiasm by the psychiatric community worries me as they have been used in all sorts of groups that have been shown to have fatal side effects associated with their use and the massive weight gain seen with drugs such as Olanzapine will undoubtedly lead to a massively increased rate of Type 2 diabetes in the younger groups.
The amount of money wasted in this action and given to the drug companies is not far short of scandalous.
 
Haven't known too many psych majors, but the few I have known have been all over the spectrum. Have known and dealt with a lot of social workers, partly due to my partner having two autistic kids and being moderately disabled, and the vast majority of them have been pretty amazingly woo. In fact, a couple of them were responsible for my partner having one of her sons temporarily taken away and stuck in an institution for a couple months because she refused to submit him to a woo program that claimed it could cure his autism by tapping on his head to wake up his brain.


Ouch, did you contact the supervising agency? Like the inspector general of a state agency. I would at least find out who regulates that agency and contact your state representative and congressional representative.

That is terrible, i did say many, not all are sceptics. But yeah there are a huge number of flakes and bunnies (Bunnies are warm and fuzzy, usualy young and cute and very ineffective).

As someone who has done social service work, most agencies recieve state funds are are accountable to some level of state authority and federal authority, or some county authority. I highly recommend you check out the inspector general or find out who licenses the agency they work for. City council members can be effective , as can county board members but nothing shakes up an agancy like an investigation by the congressional representative or state rep.

In Illinois medical neglect does not involve any sort of alternative treatments.
 
Interesting thought! Just been a paper in the Annals of Psychiatry showing that the new atypical non clozapine anti-psychotics are actually no more effective and have similar side effect levels to the older drugs - needless to say at considerably higher cost. Clozapine is not included in this research but has problems of its own and requires extremely careful blood monitoring at all times , although it is undoubtedly the drug of choice in resistant schizophrenia.
The fact that the newer atypicals were taken up with such enthusiasm by the psychiatric community worries me as they have been used in all sorts of groups that have been shown to have fatal side effects associated with their use and the massive weight gain seen with drugs such as Olanzapine will undoubtedly lead to a massively increased rate of Type 2 diabetes in the younger groups.
The amount of money wasted in this action and given to the drug companies is not far short of scandalous.

Hmm, i will have to read that one, the level of side effects may be the same for sedation, but I have seen the lower levels of EPS, drooling and other annoying effects that Haldol and Prolixon had. The atypicals are better in that category, although I had a real problem with one doctor trying to tell him one of my clients had akesthesia from Seroquel, he just wouldn't listen because the incidence is so low.

The side effects of haldol and Prolixon were so huge that they led to major non-compliance amongst client patients, so the trade off for the newer atypicals was mainly based upon that. Clients patients felt better on the atypicals and sometimes responded better than they did to haldol.

The major benefit is the decrease in tardive dyskinesia and nueroleptc malignant syndrome.

It is deplorable the rate that Big Pharma charges for the drugs, in Illinois Medicaid does not want to pay for Zyprexa or Seroquel any more because of the cost. And we are talking a treatment population that is generaly on SSI and qualifies for Medicaid.
 
The article is :
Comparative Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Drugs: A Commentary on Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS 1) and Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE)
Jeffrey A. Lieberman
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1069-1072.

I agree that the symptom of tardive dyskinesia is particularly unpleasant as it can remain even after the drug is stopped but I am concerned that we probably underestimate the effects of the atypicals.
A précis of the paper appears here - http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/63/10/1079

Peter
 
The article is :
Comparative Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Drugs: A Commentary on Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS 1) and Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE)
Jeffrey A. Lieberman
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1069-1072.

I agree that the symptom of tardive dyskinesia is particularly unpleasant as it can remain even after the drug is stopped but I am concerned that we probably underestimate the effects of the atypicals.
A précis of the paper appears here - http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/63/10/1079

Peter


Thanks for the link and citation!

I agree that the side effects of the atypicals is understated, but the former side effect profiles were worse in terms of patient comfort.

As far as the wieght gain issue, that may be true, but it is also true of the use of APs and mood stabilizers in general.
 
Well for one thing psychiatry is inherently associated with the topic of mental health wheareas psychology is not. Unless you are referring specifically to the subset of psychologists known as clinical psychologists, in which case you should say what you mean. If you are talking about whether psychology is evidence-based I would assume you are talking about the academic discipline.

Psychiatry is also an inherently applied field like medicine, wheareas psychology is not.

How does this relate to the claim that Psychiatry was much more resistant to woo than Psychology?
 
Goosh no, but the mental health professionals involved in the RM cases were not psychiatrists, they were therapists or counselors.

Largely, but where the psychiatrists debunking them? And as I pointed out there have been psychiatrists sued for using recovered memories techniques.
I have heard many a wierd thing at meetings I had with therapists. Like sex on TV causes children to mature faster.

In terms of psychiatry I think being cold and impersonal or shaming are big issues.

But how is it resistant to woo in its ideas on how the mind and emotions work? Many practitioners with their greater training might know to look for real evidence, but that does not mean that there are not a lot of woo ideas that are commonly embraced by many psychiatrists
 
I recall stating that you had not proved that there was a wave of prosecutions and convictions based upon psychiatric testimony. There is a difference. i shall read your links and I am sure I will condemn bad practice.

I am not attempting to deflect any thing from psychiatrists, i am asking the sceptic's question, you made a bold assertion and I asked for evidence.

Your psychic powers as to my reasons are amazingly wrong.
No my abilities to search legal records about who was witnesses in many of the cases proved lacking, I would like to see what percentage of the criminal cases based on recovered memory had psychaitrists involved, but will admit that I do not know how to gather the data needed to find that out.

We are both making claims as to what that percentage would be, yours says it is very low, mine says it is much higher say 25%. Neither of us have presented evidence to support our claim.
 
Most people can't tell the difference between science of any sort, and pseudoscientific religion/superstition (eg. "What the Bleep Do We Know?"). That's not the fault of scientists, that's the fault of people persisting in their ignorance.

It is the fault of the scientists when criminal cases come from the pseudoscience. Sure most of the SRA claims did not result in criminal cases, but RA was used in murder cases and others to help witnesses remember what happened.

Still waiting on those examples.
My ability to find out the details of witnesses in criminal cases who depended on recovered memories is limited.
In the scientific community as a generality, no. There were a few very vocal advocates in the psychiatric/psychological field; but the majority of advocates were non-scientists or only on the fringe of the sciences -- "counselors", social workers, psychotherapists, etc. Those whose background education and practice lack scientific rigor.

Any evidence to back up that assertion?
 
Um, they are seperate areas, psychiatry is a subset of medical psychology?

And as i stated, most of the bad practice in woo beliefs is by non-psychiatrists. Although I am certain woo psychiatrists exist and do dangerous things, there are different credentials and different legal defintions, most of the crazy woo stuff has been therapists and counselors.

I get the credentials issue, but in what ways is psychiatry different from psychology? I believe it was you who was stateing that psychaitry was much more woo resistant and evidence based than psychology, how can it be if it is a subset?
 

Back
Top Bottom