Concern over shrinking numbers of UK recruits to psychiatry

I think the reason people are opting out of training to be a psychiatrist is beccause psychiatry has only ever seen negative results. Everyone has a purpose to help not to make people worse. T

I have helped people who had seeked psychiatrists help but had only found betrayal. overdrugging, the use of savage methods such as electroshock, sexual abuse are the reasons psychiatry is discredited. doctors want to help and are bound by the hippocratic oath. Psychiastrists violate it too often.

I have dealt with many people who had received psychiatric treatment and who were totally betrayed and lost everything, including their families, home, jobs etc as a result. Who would want to go into a profession which ruins people? Real medical doctors help patients to get better. Psychiatrists kill them.

Declining recruits to psychiatry indicate that today's young doctors are more aware. I only ever met one person who claimed to have been helped by this arm of medicine. That was in 1982; he commited suicide in 1984.

I find it sad that so many people are so negative about psychiatrists and psychiatry. If it wasn't for some very sensitive and professional psychiatrists I would probably be dead. We don't usually hear about what psychiatrists do right, because people who have been helped rarely sing it from the rooftops. There are really awful situations and perhaps psychiatry does not have a great history. But there are also excellent psychiatrists out there who are good doctors and who do care.

Those who have been helped by psychiatry sustain it for a short time and then never sing it from the rooftops as they are not in a condition to show they are happy but show a false happiness which is short lived, Thsese people are a waste of space and aare a waste of money which the NHS is to be increasing its spending to above 20 million pounds in 2010.

According to the Inquiry into Mental Health patients suicides carried out by the University of Manchester in December 2006 (see link) http://www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/psychiatry/research/suicide/prevention/nci/reports/avoidabledeathssummaryreport.pdf In the UK there are an average of 1300 Mental Health patient suicides a year (ie: 25 a week). Of these, 49% of the patients had been in contact with psychiatric services in the previous week & 19% in the previous 24 hours. In 86% of these cases suicide risk was considered to be low/absent! If a "professional" psychiatrist cannot predict in this short space of time that someone will kill themselves how do they expect to "predict" that a child will grow up to be a criminal because of their gene pattern? They can't. The entire subject of psychiatry is based on a false premise and is fraudulent pseudo science. For every failure to produce a result they scream for more funds claiming they can't do their job without more research. More funds, more drugs, more side-effects, more false diagnoses. NHS funds are being poured down the drain. This is a rip off bigger than the current MP expenses scandal and it's been going on for years. I'm glad the modern medical student is starting to see through the smoke & mirrors for what it really is.

Do you know any one who has actually got better after having had psyciatric treatment? I certainly don't! I know of friends and family who have had their lives ruined by the treament or the use of the drugs they were given -I know 3 peoplle who have committed suicide after treatment- I know people who are on drugs for the rest of their lives..... but I know of no one who is leading a normal life after having seen a psychiatrist. However, they are making billions for the Drug Companies!

Psychiatrists are having a finger in many pies, like Education, the Courts, the Prisons, Government and Councils, Health care, etc. etc. If Psykiatry was really a Science that worked - like engineering, would we not then have less mental problems, less crime, better education, less need for drugs and more sensible things coming out of Governments and Councils? As far as I know they do not even get a successrate that matches the pacebo effect - which means they are outright destructive and you are better off seing a medicine man if you have mental problems.

I'm not a psychiatrist, a patient or a mental health professional, but I'm incredulous at reading some of the anti-psychiatry comments above. The message seems to be 'psychiatrists are bad; nobody should train as a psychiatrist'. Where does that leave us? Psychiatry makes people worse so they should be left to get on with their mental distress without expert help? Psychiatrists only want to abuse people, but doctors want to help, so people with psychiatric problems should be treated by general practitioners instead? If psychiatry is based on a false premise, is this the false premise that understanding a patient's mental condition can help the patient to improve that condition? If medicine is supposed to do without psychiatry, what basis does it have for treating psychiatric illnesses? Should it ignore mental disorders or hand over their treatment to counsellors with no medical training? That seems an unfair responsibility to place on the counselling profession. I would be interested to know what the anti-psychiatry commentators advocate in place of psychiatry. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that we're talking about qualified doctors here, who feel discouraged from specializing in psychiatry. We're not talking about psychologists who fancy having a go at practicing in mental health without any medical training.

I am sure there are individuals who genuinely wish to help others within the ranks of the mental health industry. I am certain that where help has occurred it comes from someone with a willingness to listen to anothers troubles & giving them helpful guidance on dealing with their problems. What is wrong is the psychiatric belief that the mind is a physical object that can be treated with physical means ie: drugs, electroshock, surgery etc etc. You wouldn't fix a radio by drowning it in chemicals, hitting it with a hammer or plugging it into the National Grid - the human mind does not take kindly to similar abuse.

Surely the major reason why there is a shortage of psychiatrists is that the UK persistently fails, to save on the budgets of health administrators and politicians only concerned in the short-term, to train enough doctors in general. And there are more attractive branches of the medical profession than psychiatry - not least because of the unattractive statistics about psychiatric patients, notably suicide rates, that have been mentioned in previous comments. From the doctors' point of view, such outcomes place them, amongst other worthier considerations, at risk of being accused of professional negligence, with all that entails. This is although the scale of suicides by psychiatric patients is such that they must usually be due to lack of medical knowledge, and perhaps indeed to the fact that human beings have autonomy to make choice, rather than negligence by doctors. There is, however, a scandalously untapped pool of very able and skilled people who could be deployed to help people with medical troubles, i.e. psychology graduates. The popularity of psychology, and therefore the willingness of universities to provide courses, is such that there are huge numbers of well qualified psychology graduates who fail to enter the psychology profession. It has been suggested to me that in fact only about 10% of psychology graduates in fact reach Chartered Status (which incidentally means that some accredited Psychology degrees probably send just about none of their graduates into jobs as psycholgists). However, NHS Trusts desperately advertise for Clinical Psychologists, even though they have many fewer posts for the profession than they ought to have. Again, the reason is that there is a massive bottleneck because the NHS does not provide opportunities for psychology graduates to get their professional training. And very many psychology graduates apply for every training place offered. The country needs more clinical psycholgists for humanitarian reasons, not least to reduce the incidence of suicide. But given current economic circumstances perhaps I could point out that employing more clinical psycholgists should be cost-effective by making more people employable, and more directly by reducing the needs for services provided by other professionals, including doctors and social workers. A second point: one of my interests is community psychology. Many of the problems with psychiatric treatment that have been repeatedly reported in previous comments arise because psychiatrists work in hospitals and make their patients come to see them. So they only see (and in effect blame) the individual, and, influenced by the culture of other parts of the medical profession, look for physical causes and treatments for mental woes. Advances in medical knowledge over the past generation have shown the importance of physical issues such as chemical imbalances for psychiatric problems. All the same, much mental distress is caused because those suffering are in impossible social and economic conditions. If psychiatrists, and psychologists, got out of their hospitals and surgeries more to visit their patients at home, I am sure they would soon see needs to campaign for changed circumstances to make life bearable for their clients, rather than, unethically to intervene with treatments such as drugs to make their patients comply with outrageous conditions.

Bad analogy, Mark. First you say what's wrong with psychiatry is the belief that the mind is a physical object that can be treated with physical means including surgery. Secondly you say you wouldn't fix a radio by drowning it in chemicals, hitting it with a hammer or plugging it into the National Grid. Well, no: what generally works for a broken radio is surgery! The mind is demonstrably not a radio, and psychosurgery is seldom used nowadays, only ever as a last resort and only with the patient's consent. I suggest you start again.

The ONLY reason psychosurgery may be being used less in the present is because they just drug, drug, drug the patient. Same effect, just less blood, less liability for the Psychiatrist , because they are only following the on label guides. There always has and always will be something sinister about Psychiatry, with good reason, what goes on behind locked doors to a commited patient is everyones nightmare. And there are thousands of statements from psychiatric survivors to attest to my comments. Deep sleep treatment, ECT not EST anymore because the word SHOCK in the title knid of gives it away ! Psychosurgery, Chemical coshes, \\insulin shock, wow I am on a roll here and I am only a Layman, and probably dont know half the "healing" treatments that psychiatry uses. Real Drs don't want to become Psychiatrists because on the whole they are decent , caring people who want the end product of a well and happy patient, and lets be real guys , psychiatry does not in the majority of cases even come close to this ideal !

No, the ONLY reason psychosurgery is used less in the present is NOT because they just drug, drug, drug the patient. There are other factors at play here too, such as the ethical imperative NOT to go poking people's brains about unnecessarily.

Put it this way - the word "Psychology" originally mean't study of the Soul (Psyche). Towards the end of the 19th Century the concept of the Psyche as a non-tangible thing was obliterated from teachings on the subject and thereafter the subject of Mental treatment became one of physical cures only - some of which were basically licensed torture - on a physical object (the brain). I for one am sure that the source of human conciousness transcends physical chemistry. The only cures I have ever seen ease a troubled mind and bring back peace and sanity was a kind, well intentioned human being and the use of proper communication - not force or brutality, no matter how "qualified" the practitioner. This is the basic reason why psychiatry fails consistently. I speak as the nephew of two brilliant individuals who died as a result of psychiatric maltreatment. Psychiatry is a tragic waste of life and money that could be spent on more useful causes.

Mark, you're wrong. At the end of the 19th Century, the two main approaches in psychology became behaviourism and the Freudian psychodynamic. The former ignored the 'mind' as an object of study altogether as you suggest, but the psychodynamic approach did not. Behaviourism dominated until the 1950s, but in the latter half of the 20th century a plurality of approaches emerged, including cognitivist, existentialist and humanistic, as well as the currently-fashionable biomedical approach (neurology, genetics and biochemistry). Current teaching in psychology does not obliterate the psyche as a non-tangible construct - far from it. The 'cures' you speak of have their intellectual basis in current humanistic and cognitive-behavioural teaching. They don't appear out of the blue and are not generated by well-intentioned lay-people having a go and seeing what they can do. I agree with Frederic Stansfield's argument for more clinical psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists. Someone in need of therapy can have to wait for a year to see someone they can talk to about their problems as things stand. However, I don't accept the view being put forward in some comments above that psychiatrists have no part to play in the provision of a comprehensive mental health care system.

In defence of psychiatry: on 28 May, you wrote that you're not a psychiatrist, or a mental health professional. I question that. You sound too good. You're using the lingo they use and you're doing a real good job of apologising for them.

http://www.craegmoor.co.uk/news/industry/18046735/mhf_joins_pharmaceutical_schizophrenia_initiative_in_awareness_drive.aspx

Thanks, Mark Padley. You know, I always thought it should be possible for an educated person to talk knowledgeably outside their own area of expertise. You have just confirmed this to be true. I feel like I've missed my vocation.

Perhaps he/she is a Pharmaceutical rep or PR agent?? See this link: http://www.craegmoor.co.uk/news/industry/18046735/mhf_joins_pharmaceutical_schizophrenia_initiative_in_awareness_drive.aspx The pharmaceutical industry has a symbiotic relationship with psychiatry in the same way that Warmongers have with Arms dealers. More invented "mental diseases" (see how the Diagnostic Statistical Manual has blossomed over the years to hundreds of "ailments" from just a few in the beginning - so the shrinks can claim Insurance payments from patients on disorders they invented). Eli Lilly through its PR firm Burston Marsteller created the front group "Pharmaceutical Schizophrenia Initiative" a cartel of drug companies that have lobbied the UK government over the last decade to take their more expensive atypical medicines - all paid on the NHS. Money & graft is at the bottom of this. Psychiatrists are often paid by drug companies for glowing reviews and promotion on drugs later found to be harmful: http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/nih-requires-emory-to-disclose-all-conflicts/ This could not happen if you had an ethical professionals at the heart of it. The common denominator of the school shootings in the USA was that the shooters were on psychiatric drugs and their behaviour pattern radically altered for the worse prior to the deaths. When these tragedies occur the psychiatrists come out with a damage control story blaming and misdirecting the investigations onto the fact that the kid listened to Heavy Metal Music etc etc. The data on the school shootings is here: http://seroxatsecrets.wordpress.com/ There is plenty of evidence out there that psychiatry is a failed "science" and needs to be abolished. Psychiatry is destructive & plainly so. We don't alternatives anymore than we need an "alternative" for war. Those in need are better off talking to their friends, ministers etc.

Edit: Michael Padley, not Mark...

I'm glad you're in a postion to speak knowledgeably on a subject which is outside your area of expertise. By the way, I still think you're a psychiatrist or a mental health professional. But if you're not, and on the point of missing your vocation in life, don't fret. We now know the psychiatric profession will welcome you with open arms. Go fulfil your vocation. The profession needs you.

I'm glad you're in a postion to speak knowledgeably on a subject which is outside your area of expertise. By the way, I still think you're a psychiatrist or a mental health professional. But if you're not, and on the point of missing your vocation in life, don't fret. We now know the psychiatric profession will welcome you with open arms. Go fulfil your vocation. The profession needs you.

No, I'm not a rep for a pharmaceutical company, nor do I work in public relations! I'm a tutor working in tertiary education. I teach psychology at a very modest level. I do not teach propaganda either for or against psychiatry. I teach psychology because there is huge popular interest in the subject and I couldn't pay my bills if I didn't. I encourage my students to question received wisdom and not to believe everything they read. To take up one of Mark's points, I ask my students to question the proliferation of newly discovered mental disorders. I pose the question of why these new categories need to exist, and what arbitrary criteria have been set to prevent the diagnosis of newly labelled affective disorders applying to almost anybody who feels a bit down once in a while. I also ask them to consider if eventually psychiatrists might not invent a condition to explain just about every variation in human emotion and behaviour! So, no, I do not uncritically accept that psychiatrists are right in every instance, nor that theirs is the only valid opinion in matters of mental health. I don't buy into any of the conspiracy theories you're promoting, Mark. Nobody trusts pharmaceutical companies, and why would they? Doctors of every specialism are in league with pharmaceutical companies, so why single out psychiatrists for special condemnation? Twice as many American boys are on ritalin as have been diagnosed by their general practitioner as having ADHD. In most cases no psychiatrist was involved in either making the diagnosis or prescribing. Yet in the comments on this article we see plenty of love for 'real medical doctors' and very little for psychiatrists. I will take issue with your last comment too: 'those in need are better off talking to their friends', etc. That's okay in the first instance, but is it really fair on friends, family and work colleagues who have been worn down by listening to the same problems to expect them to be carrying out upaid and informal psychotherapy and let medical and counselling services off the hook? Furthermore, I think you and I have different expectations of the extent to which talking therapies alone can treat and manage illnesses which have some medical (genetic, neurological or biochemical) basis, like schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder.

There is no medical test that demonstrates any such thing as a "Chemical imbalance". Yes - there are such things as damaged anatomy & nervous structure which will bring about non-optimum conditions. However, outside of this there is no evidence that any of the phenomena you mention have a "medical basis" - if there was Psychiatrists would be able to demonstrate such. Again, the subject is based on false premises & it fails as a result.

I'll say it again, they drug, drug, drug and they are all in the pockets of big pharma and get away (literally) with murder, I mean its the PERFECT alibi , your honour do you really belive this clinically insane patient or ME , a qualifed psychiatrist, we did what we had to do to save the patient, unfortunately the cure killed/maimed/wrecked/destroyed (delete as necessary) him. If it was'nt so awful in reality you would have to laugh at it all, its so farcical. I have family members that had there whole adult lives addicted and numbed because of psychiatric abuse, so you can spout all the clever words you want, rationalise all you want, and justify all you want , I SEE the products of psychiatry in my family.

Dear "In Defence of Psychiatry". PS: Thanks for disclosing your financial interest in this discussion: ("I teach psychology because there is huge popular interest in the subject and I couldn't pay my bills if I didn't...")

I'm laughing out loud at the idea that my "financial interest" in this discussion in any way clouds my view! My window cleaner earns more than I do. The bus driver earns more than I do. I teach because I'm good at teaching. I teach FE because there are not enough university teaching posts to make use of my skills in a university. I teach psychology because there is, as I said, a great deal of popular demand for it. I would much rather teach English Literature, but no-one wants to learn that in the industry I work in. Let me ask you who you would prefer to be teaching psychology in my position: a convert and a proselytiser who thinks psychiatry is marvellous, or a sceptic like me who has no professional interest in psychology whatsoever, who can handle the subject objectively and can help students make up their own minds about what's true and what's false? Anyone who reads my previous comments with an open mind will see that my defence of psychiatry was a very modest one. I am hardly psychiatry's champion! All I am saying is most of the views directed against psychiatry are emotive, subjective and prejudiced, and I haven't seen any convincing case made for excluding psychiatry from the treatment of people experiencing mental distress.

I just wanted to add one thing, if psychiatry delivered what it says it is delivering, there would not even be this discussion, would there ? If there where thousands of happy satisfied customers walking the streets, telling their friends how wonderful they now feel after a dose of psychiatry, there would be no problem, I run a humble building business, word of mouth is what it is all about, it tells the real story of how well I do what I say I am going to do. If any psychiatrist can roll out his last 20 patients and they start telling their friends and loved ones and me that they had great value for money I think the discussion would end there and people would be asking for psychitric treatment, but no psychiatrist can because simply, THEY SELL AN UNWORTHY AND UNWORKABLE PRODUCT. If I built houses like they treated their patients I would be out of business , bankrupt and probably in court a lot defending myself.

Dear "Defense of Psychiatry". I share with you your love of great English literature and hope you can find a way to follow your true goals instead of the unhappy halfway house you currently occupy. If you are truly as objective and open minded as you claim to be then you will be wise to check out the few web links that I have mentioned in this thread before you continue this discussion. These are FACTS and not (conspiracy) "theories". It is a brave man/woman who can admit that they have been fooled and an fool who continues to blindly assert rhetoric in the face of facts to contrary. I hope you will you use the great responsibility you have as a teacher not to mislead your pupils with tainted data. I am a tax payer and I like to know where my money is going. Good night.

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked by the ignorance and ill-feeling towards psychiatrists expressed in the responses here. I suggest reading this http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/5/641 to start with, then follow the trail.

I notice some supporters of psychiatry try to make out that any criticism of psychiatry is a result of ignorance or 'stigma', meaning prejudice against a handicap. This seems to me far from the truth. As people become better informed they become more aware of the shortcomings of psychiatry as the least scientifically-founded branch of medical practice and the one with the most benighted history.

THE SHRINKING DEMAND FOR SHRINKS As a former Magistrate, retired Justice of the Peace and a current volunteer charity worker in Addiction Prevention & Avoidance Training AND in the Addiction Recovery Training field, I have for 21 years been regularly in contact with psychiatrists, and many of their patients and former patients, and it is not difficult to understand why the more intelligent in the U.K. medical profession are shunning specialisation in psychiatry. According to the “Dictionary of the Mind, Brain and Behaviour” (by Dr Chris Evans the well known clinical psychologist, author and broadcaster) the definition of psychiatry concludes with: “The trouble with psychiatry today is that it is still without a working theory, not just of the mind but also the disturbed mind. Even a definition of mental illness is not easy to come by, so perhaps it is not surprising that to this date psychiatric methods have inevitably been of a hit or miss variety”. According to the authoritative and highly respected Black’s Medical Dictionary: “Psychosomatic diseases are illnesses resulting from the effects of excessive or repressed emotions upon bodily function or structure. They effect vast numbers of patients who are not out of their minds and yet do not have any organic disease to account for their illness.” And again - according to psychiatrist Angela Gibbs in her book: “Understanding Mental Health” she starts by asking: “What is mental illness?”, to which she gives the reply: “This is the first of many questions on mental health which cannot be answered conclusively.” “Theories abound” she writes and in the chapter: “What causes mental Illness?” she tells us that usually only a partial answer can be given because not enough is yet known about the causes of mental illness.” Who in their right mind would want to join the crew of an obviously sinking ship which, in terms of cure, has seldom if ever completed a single voyage, which has no compass, no sextant, no standard charts, no port of destination, several different captains wanting to head in different directions, no knowledge of engines, sails or even oars and a plethora of theories and opinions on “treatments” and experiments which regularly injure and kill passengers and disaffect crew members. All this, plus on close inspection, the discovery that it is not a real ship, but a ghost ship virtual image on some “Game Boy’s” computer screen. Today’s psychiatry was spawned by Wilhelm Wundt (born 1832) and “developed” by Pavlov (1849), Freud (1856), Adler (1870) and Jung (1875). Hardly a modern science when compared to the work of today’s mental health giants like Emeritus Professor Thomas Szasz, L. Ron Hubbard and Dr Matthias Rath MD. But it is still the work of Wundt and practices such as Electric Shock Treatment (ECT), Narcotic Shock Therapy, psycho-surgical operations such as pre-frontal lobotomy and leucotomy which, along with the prescribing of harmful and addictive drugs such as Prozac, Ritalin, methadone, buprenorphine (Subutex), the benzodiazepines, the strong tranquillisers and many others which dominate in the field of government supported psychiatry today. It is not the “marked drop in the recruitment of medicine graduates into psychiatry which is threatening the UK’s academic standing in the discipline”, but totally the reverse. It is the deserved reputation of failed psychiatry as pseudo-scientific which reveals to intelligent medical graduates the folly of entering a “discipline” lacking in knowledge, responsibility and control, and whose main role (beyond damaging mental operations) is as the U.K’s pusher of addictive pharmaceutical prescription drugs. Professor Howard of the Royal College of Psychiatrists wants to make the curriculum “more sexy” and exciting, and is calling on Stephen Fry – a truly enjoyable and interesting actor / author – to urge medical students to specialise in psychiatry. However, Stephen is also a well-known homosexual. At the time of his birth, his sexual preference was listed by psychiatry as a severe mental illness, but this was reversed when it became clear that many psychiatrists themselves suffered from severe problems of sexual deviance and sexual relations with patients. If Her Majesty the Queen was even faintly aware of what really goes on in psychiatry then, like today’s perceptive medical graduates, she would quickly remove her patronage from this failed and still further failing pseudo-science. Far from there being concern over the shrinking numbers of UK recruits to psychiatry, we should rejoice in the fact that it is the UK which, in this 21st century is leading the flight away from this 19th century foreign, essentially political science which we now know has been used more as a manipulative methodology than as a benevolent and healing treatment in the true spirit of the medical profession. E. Kenneth Eckersley. FIOD, FCMI, HonMPHMA(Int), HSDC, MCIM, MFDAP, MABFDFE (Brussels), Former Magistrate, Retired Justice of the Peace, Founder & Chief Executive Officer of both C.E.P.T.R.A. and A.R.T.S.

RD: You say you shouldn't be shocked by the igorance and ill-feeling towards psychiatrists. Am I to think then that you are shocked? I think it's right that you should be shocked, but not by attitudes towards psychiatrists, but by the fact psychiatrists and mental health professionals like yourself have to continually apologise about the profession and the results. Doesn't that tell you something?

Of all the arguments martialled by Kenneth Eckersley against psychiatry, by far the most compelling is his observation that psychiatry is foreign! If it's foreign it can't be any good, can it? Long live Her Majesty!

Does this guy really exist ? I was sort of with him up to this point: 'However, Stephen is also a well-known homosexual. At the time of his birth, his sexual preference was listed by psychiatry as a severe mental illness, but this was reversed when it became clear that many psychiatrists themselves suffered from severe problems of sexual deviance and sexual relations with patients. If Her Majesty the Queen was even faintly aware of what really goes on in psychiatry then, like today’s perceptive medical graduates, she would quickly remove her patronage from this failed and still further failing pseudo-science'. Thank you E. Kenneth Eckersley FIOD, FCMI, HonMPHMA(Int) etc etc for giving me a good laugh after two hours of continuous and very boring typing.

I do like his metaphor of the ship, though. That was very elegantly put.

Margaret Anne - non sequiter but a typical attempt to derail the thread. We may as well ask if you exist.. If you care to do your research on subsequent versions of the DSM (Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) you will see what he is talking about. You will also find that Negro slaves that wanted to run away from their masters in 19th Century America were considered mentally ill. This is fact. The fact that this is not necessarily well known just speaks of general public ignorance. Do your research. The Earth is no longer considered flat by the way - in case you hadn't noticed.

What has runaway negro slaves being classed as mentally ill, before psychiatry even existed, got to do with a discussion about the rights and wrongs of psychiatry? If you're going to accuse Margaret Anne of derailing the thread do try to stick to the point yourself.

Psychiatry in its existence has introduced a number of wacky ideas - the runaway slaves one was relatively early. ADHD & caffeine disorder are some of the more recent ones... you just have to look at the history of psychiatry and you will understand. Psychiatry is unscientific, ubnworkable & fraudulent.

Harry Paget Flashman etc etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman Mmmmm

I just think that people that are able to observe what is in front of them can see that as psychiatry and psychology started with more influence in the society, it is declining: Education, marriages, drugadiction, even Companies influenced by their methods that don´t work. I was in the University of Mexico when the psychologist were complaining that they didný have jobs, that they and pedagogist should be in schools, companies. After some years, I saw they got into those fields changing education programs " more modern methods", influencing teachers so they convice them that "they were the experts, that if a child couldn´t learn was because of problems, they could take care of". I´ve lived personally this change in education and I am witness of what they are doing: drugging children from eary age. I was a director of a school and one mother came with her child telling me she "lost three years in his son life because of psych drugs, as he was hiperactive". I trully believe that those refusing to study those "pseudo science" are completly sane people and I admire their menthal sanity.

GOOD NEWS! I am very pleased to read these good news. If one takes a good look behind the curtains of the so-called "Gods in White" in the field of psychiatry one might find the most appalling crimes, ranging from drugging and rape of patients and offering non-workable solutions to administering dangerous psychiatric drugs to babies and children. The famous "imbalance of the brain" is a hoax. Doctors exist to fix and handle physical body illnesses and conditions. But this does not apply to the mind! The mind cannot be treated as "just another part of the body". Therefore psychiatry and all its atrocious methods does not work and should be abolished altogether! Therefore - GOOD NEWS! I hope there will be less and less!

THANK GOD IT'S DECLINING! It's becoming harder and harder for any one with intelligence and compassion to justify using this pseudo science. When I was 10 years old I heard of someone close having just recieved ECT. Even at that age I was disgusted at this 'treatment'. I was sure it had been banned YEARS ago. So it's taking time but people are waking up to what this subject really is and really does. May it continue to decline-hopefully at a rapid rate.

All that's declining is the number of UK medical students opting for this specialism. The same number of psychiatrists will continue to be employed, but they will be EU and Commonwealth psychiatrists. If that's what psychiatry's detractors would prefer then so be it.

I have been training in psychiatry for 4 years and I can honestly say it's been a waste of my medical degree. Psychiatry is very unscientific, it should not be a medical specialty.

At last, a self-proclaimed psychiatrist writes! What took you so long?

Most of the other commenters have said it all for me extremely well so I don't nreed to repeat their highly justified concerns about the pseido-science of psychatry. Fact ot the matter is all the so-caled "mental illnesses" of psychiatry trace back to an underlying, undetected and untreated PHYSICAL illness. This can be anything from a broken bone to a glandular disorder, vitamin deficiency to a food intolerance or allergy. Heal the physical problem and the person experiences a mental/emotional resurgence. Recent advances in medicine and nutrition have left the crude hit and miss of psychaitric drugging back in the Stone Age. Nutrition is safer and more effective than drugs. Why are we still drugging people when we don't need to? Why see a psychiatrist when you would fare better seeing a proper doctor or a nutritionist? The demise of psychaitry is to be celebrated. It won't be missed.

Steve, if you read carefully what the other detractors are saying, it is that psychiatry mistakenly attributes mental illnesses to a physical cause, which is the basis for treating patients with drugs, ECT, etc. What psychiatry is commonly presumed to neglect is the socio-economic causes of psychological distress. I'm sure all those people who thought their mental distress was down to loneliness, poverty, underemployment, social exclusion, frustration, grief following bereavement or the after-effects of trauma will be greatly relieved to be told their problems are largely the result of vitamin deficiency or food allergy. The trouble with dismissing psychiatry out of hand is that the causes of mental distress are so various that all sorts of pet theories come to the fore which are themselves no more scientific or all-encompassing than that which they seek to replace.

I think its quite obvious that what Steve is getting at is: that if you are going for a physical approach (psychiatry has it all down to genes, chemicals, brain wiring etc etc) then handle the correct physical problem ie: fix the bad diet - kid is eating the equivalent of a pound of sugar a day instead of protein etc or the guy is acting cranky because he has a slipped disc and is in pain and hasn't slept. Of course there are upsets in life that affect people and ultimately that is handled by proper caring communication, education or change of environment. Psychiatry is based on the wrong premise - gets consistent bad results & is a failure. Its very simple. If you thought a car had a petrol engine and kept trying to run it on diesel fuel you would have problems - guy rips the engine apart trying to find "whats wrong with it". Psychiatry thinks the mind/soul/spirit is all physical - tries to treat it with physical force & fails. "Defense of Psychiatry" - what is your truthful motive on this forum? I don't believe you are simply frustrated English literature teacher teaching psychology to pay your bills - if so why are you such an apologist for psychiatry?

So, UK Doctor, what are you going to do now? Have you picked a real specialty to study this time?

By the way, respect for sticking your neck out and telling it how it is.

Mark, I have declared the basis of my limited expertise in this matter. Why don't you declare yours? Are you a doctor, a science lecturer, a sociologist, philosopher or homeopath? If you think where I'm coming from has any bearing on the weight of my arguments, then where you're coming from must have some bearing on yours. And yes, it's quite obvious what Steve's getting it: he's another kind of biological reductionist and an advocate of the cause of nutritionism, itself very lucrative for both the food industry and 'nutraceuticals', and for private practice in complementary medicine.

Just in case anyone is wondring: I don't have any connection whatever with the nutrition industry or complementary medicine. I just care what happens to people and like to see them well. Yes, I certainly am an advocate of nutrituion because it is safe and it works. I am opposed to psychiatry becuse it isn't and doesn't. Mark made my point for me much more eloquently than I did, so thank you for that. I should also point out that not long ago I used to work in drug rehab. I did a lot of work withdrawing addicts from drugs. i was struck by how much harder psychiatric drugs were to withdraw from than even street drugs like heroin and how much deeper and long-lasting was the damage they did. I never heard of or encountered someone who had to endure an agony of withdrawal from a vitamin or live natural yogurt. Seems to me that nutrition and medicine used intelligently to fix the underlying physical illness is a more intelligent and effective approach and they render psychiatry obsolete. If i were depressed or had some apparent mental or emotional problem the absolute last thing I would do would be to let a psychiatrist anwhere near me and i would not touch their dtugs with a barge pole unless I was hell bent on self destruction. If you can treat an infection with penicillin, why use leaches? With psychaitry out from under their feet sociaty's real healers can get on with the business of making people well.

There are distressing issues such as a bereavement, povery and so forth. These are sane reactions to bad situations NOT mental illnesses and should not be treated as such. Drugging someone or operating on their brain is not the way to deal with it, especially as such approaches damage the person still further. To deal with social issues such as bad housing, loneliness and so forth we need economic and social reform, to help someone through a bereavement and so forth we need family and community and Man in affinity with Man, not drugging or brain operations. When you are bereaved, lonely or living in bad housing it is not much help to be told you have a diseased brain into the bargain and having a pill with dreadful side effects shoved under your nose is no subsititute for care, companionship and community, not to mention a benign economic system and sensible government. To bring about effective reform and a healthy society we need bright, alert, well people on top of their game and psychiatry does not produce these. In fact it produces the opposite. I can understand why British medical trainees with a purpose to heal people are shunning psychiatry. I suspect that other countries are going to run into similar problems and believe that is already the case in the United States and the government there are, like ours, having to import Third World psychiatrists to drug their population for them. But it looks as if the cat is finally out of the bag so far as psychiatry is concerned. Is that light I see at the end of the tunnel?

If psychiatry is in such a mess and full of evil incompetent psychiatrists, isn't that an arguement for some decent doctors to take up the task of sorting it out? Encouraging highly qualified doctors to turn their back on psychiatry will surely only open the door for those many of you are keen to vilify to rise to (or remain in) positions of authority and leadership. A couple of comments in defence of psychiatry : Brain surgery is almost never carried out these days for psychiatric conditions, and implying that this is a mainstay of 21st century psychiatric practice is simply wrong. And psychiatry is certainly not the only branch of medicine where treatments have come in and out of vogue. The history of medicine is full of practices that seemed correct at the time but with new evidence turned out to be useless or even harmful. If modern day psychiatry is to be condemned for previously proposing homosexuality was a mental illness, then modern day surgeons should be condemned for once believing pus dripping out of wounds was a sign of healing and was to be encouraged. Maybe one day, cretans will be proved to exist, but until then I think psychiatry has a role to play in dealing with the more severe forms of mental illness.

As a trainee psychiatrist, I would say the very reason that makes Psychiatry such a fascinating and rewarding specialty is the rapid advance in our understanding of mental illness occurring in our present day, as compared to relatively mature understanding of physical illnesses. A radical revision of the DSM is expected in a few years, along with amazing advances in the biological basis of brain function along with increased practice and testing of psychological/psycho-analytical theories. True, for medical students thinking about psychiatry, it seems a world away from traditional medical disciplines, but your medical knowledge and analytical skills are an essential basis for going in to the field, skills which are unique to those who have trained in Medicine. Some of the above commentators are saying that psychiatry should not be practiced because 'we have no understanding of how the mind functions'. Such black and white thinking doesn't help people who are unwell and need support, rather we should support the evolution of psychiatry in the way that anti-psychiatrists such as Szasz, RD Laing and Goffman have had an impact to the betterment of the profession.

Apart from Kenneth Eckersley, is there anyone else contributing to this discussion who considers deceased science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard 'one of today's mental health giants'? A lot of what has been written would be consistent with Hubbard's views, and the views that continue to be espoused by the Church of Scientology. For those who are not already familiar with these views, they can be accessed readily enough on Wikipedia or numerous other websites.

Following expat doc's train of thought, most of the published sources Eckersley uses to bolster his position are dated (for which you cannot fault their authors, Evans and Gibbs) or very doubtful. Chris Evans doesn't seem to have published anything about psychology since 1978. I've no idea who Angela Gibbs is, but her comments quoted by Eckersley seem entirely reasonable and shouldn't be read as either pro- or anti- psychiatry. Matthias Rath, on the other hand, is a very controversial figure: an entrepreneur who sells vitamins as a cure for cancer, HIV and AIDS.

Still wondering what UK Doctor is going to do now. Doc, are you still reading this? If so, have you picked a real specialty to study this time or are you going to stay with psychiatry? How big's the mortgage?

Mmmm.... My mention of Scientology seems to have closed down the discussion completely! Maybe contributors were reluctant to disclose their support for L Ron Hubbard as it's a bit of a giveaway .... Or maybe "the evils of psychiatry" is now yesterday's news. Let's hope so - some of the contributors may need the input of a shrink sooner or later, and they are much more likely to have a good outcome if they work with rather than fight against the system (the latter only gets you labelled paranoid and more likely to be placed under the Mental Health Act). Keep taking the (vitamin) tablets everyone!

Still wondering what UK Doctor is going to do now. Doc, are you still reading this? If so, have you picked a real specialty to study this time or are you going to stay with psychiatry? How big's the mortgage? As for expatdoc, if I'm reading you right doc, you're saying that if, as a patient, you fight the mental health system, disagree with it or whatever, then you may get labelled paranoid and are more likely to be placed under the Mental Health Act. Doc, if I might be so bold as to point out that this kind of viewpoint might just be one of the reasons your profession is so disliked, assuming you're a shrink of course. Perhaps medicine graduates want to help their patients rather than label 'em and lock 'em up.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the above debate if, in courts of law for example, skilled professional literary critics/linguisticians and linguistically inclined lawyers were to provide their own `expert opinion` on the nature, ideology, linguistic tics, world-view, `constructions`, inguistic malapropisms and multi-compound semantic formulations and prescriptively banal stylistics of `truth-claim` habitually exercised in psychiatric reports when proclaiming their `expert opinion`.....

How dare anyone express an expert opinion in this age of literary criticism, linguistics, nature, ideology, constructionism, semantics, stylistics and truth claims? Whatever is anyone thinking professing expertise or professional knowledge? Why even bother having universities? We might as well all go and open a bakery!

Alas for the `Expert` and his rant: `this age of literary criticism` actually began in ancient times, with such exponents as the classical philosopher Aristotle, and is consequently an highly evolved and sophisticated intellectual discipline. By contrast, psychiatry is a new-fangled determinist-materialist-reductivist doctrine/dogma reliant upon `faith` in the 2oth Century reputation of Freud. The latter did not, contrary to popular ignorance, ev en invent `the Oedipus complex`: ancient Greek mythology did that. No-one needed Freud to state `the bleedin` obvious` about what the Greeks themselv es stated. Whereas literary-criticism/sociolinguistic s possess the skills-set to assess truth-claims, including the insistent and arrogant truth-claims of psychiatry.

Who's ranting, Judith? From where I sit it looks like it's you, twice. I was merely attempting satire.

For definition of satire as a generic or descriptive (or indeed most of all `effectual`) term please consult a dictionary of literary-critical terms...

What would the 'anti-psychiatry brigade' want SERIOUSLY ILL patients to do if psychiatrists were abandoned? Why do they complain and ask for help in the first place? Psychiatrists CAN and DO successfully treat patients, even schizophrenics, with drugs. Surprised? A lot of physical illnesses are treated by medicine which has no evidence-base. Everyone is confused about illnesses which can just be helped by psychological therapies and those which require a combination of drug and psychological therapy. The reason there is little evidence for the causes of mental illnesses is because it is very hard to research into them. This does not mean they do not exist. Just because a doctor cannot completely cure a patient, it does not mean they are a fraud. They can improve quality of life. Other chronic illnesses are incurable. Therefore, other doctors are also a waste of time. Go and talk to patients please. You cannot blame a doctor for patients being ill. We would all love successful treatments. (A schizophrenic not helped by drugs but not helped by any other means).

What would the 'anti-psychiatry brigade' want SERIOUSLY ILL patients to do if psychiatrists were abandoned? Why do they complain and ask for help in the first place? Psychiatrists CAN and DO successfully treat patients, even schizophrenics, with drugs. Surprised? A lot of physical illnesses are treated by medicine which has no evidence-base. Everyone is confused about illnesses which can just be helped by psychological therapies and those which require a combination of drug and psychological therapy. The reason there is little evidence for the causes of mental illnesses is because it is very hard to research into them. This does not mean they do not exist. Just because a doctor cannot completely cure a patient, it does not mean they are a fraud. They can improve quality of life. Other chronic illnesses are incurable. Therefore, other doctors are also a waste of time. Go and talk to patients please. You cannot blame a doctor for patients being ill. We would all love successful treatments. (A schizophrenic not helped by drugs but not helped by any other means).

Some comments are by people who are not up-to-date with modern practices and are still thinking that old methods are still used. People are only forcibly medicated (rarely) if they are a danger to themselves or others, or if their psychotic thinking makes them have false beliefs about their need for treatment and when the drugs will IMPROVE their condition. What would people prefer instead? People to be allowed to commit suicide or harm others? Continue being ill without any relief of very disturbing thoughts? Continuing a very physically poor existence? Remaining dangerously ill? You cannot blame mental health professionals for the unpredictability of mental illness (suicides). Why would doctors go through 14 years of difficult training and have a difficult job (often facing threats and violence) if they did not care for patients? Why are they DOCTORS? Why do they save some patients from dying, if they are all frauds? Who would treat drug addicts, alcoholics, eating disorder patients, anxiety, depression, schizophrenics, 1 in 4 of people etc.?

The sickly pietism of Elaine simply parrots Psychiatrists` usual defenc e of themselves. It bears no relation to reality. They exult in the fact that the MHA renders them 1. un stoppable 2 masters of force majeure 3 utterly unaccountable. The fact is that it is a law which negates all other laws ---including those which supposedly protect the lives and liberties of citizens.

Citizen Sickly pietism? Please inform us what you wish seriously ill patients to do? Kill themselves or seriously harm others? Starve themselves to death? Be very distressed? You have obviously never encountered a seriously ill patient, therefore you have no idea about what is involved. I HAVE. Psychiatrists ARE accountable like any other doctor. The Mental Health Act works in conjunction with the Human Rights Act. A patient can apply to the Mental Health Tribunal if he wishes to query his care.You are the one who is out of touch of reality of psychiatric care. You have no idea of what is involved, so please find the facts out before you write nonsense. They are there to protect psychiatric patients' lives. They are there to improve their quality of life or cure them. Where do you get your ideas from? Have to been held under the act, been on a ward? Are you just biased and prejudiced? Talk to patients who save psychiatrists have SAVED THEIR LIVES. Your view, ie get rid of the MHA, would result in their deaths.

I'm not going to write the psychiatrist's name here as you can all go find it out easily, but what about the case of John Barrett who murdered Dennis Finnegan? The psychiatrist in the case was suspended on full pay, and criticised for letting Barrett out of the hospital. Now the psychiatrist is attempting to sue the Trust for breach of contract and because a report on her inadequacies was humiliating. Where's the accountability? She shouldn't have a job, leave alone sue the Trust. In fact, it should be the psychiatrist who should be being sued. Elaine: how come the shrink in this case allowed a patient to seriously harm, in fact kill, another person? You say we should talk to patients who say psychiatrists have saved their lives. I'd like to talk to Dennis Finnegan, but I can't for obvious reasons.

So psychiatry is a failed science, unscientific, unworkable and fraudulent, and needs to be abolished, and patients would be better off seeing a dietician for the underlying physical causes for their distress, which may include food allergies and intolerances but may not include neurological anomalies or brain chemistry; and 'so-called' mental illnesses are nothing of the sort, but John Barrett's psychiatrist is to be criticized for letting him out to commit murder? But surely it's wrong to keep people locked up and treat them for illnesses they don't have and which don't even exist, because to do so is just another of the many abuses carried out in the name of psychiatry? Michael, your argument seems inconsistent to me. On June 11th you criticized psychiatrists for labelling people and locking them up. Now you want to criticize a psychiatrist for not detaining a patient under the same rationale to which you were objecting. You can't have it both ways.

Michael Of course everyone agrees that it was an appalling decision and these bloody people (managers etc.) always try to avoid sanctions. I agree that she should be struck-off the register and in court. I get fed up, as doctors and patients do, when every time there is a high profile murder by a psychiatric patient, (rare), it is big headlines, as if they all and the only culprits. We all are the modern lepers due to this. You are being biased, taking a select case and not seeing the full picture. Talk to parents grieving a suicide. I disagree with the present CTO and MHA. It is appalling that patients, 'easy targets', are being unfairly treated. No wonder there is a sudden lack of interest in becoming a psychiatrist as it would be against most morals and ethics. I would like to know how many people are been driven away from the services. I only believe in force as a last choice when other patients/staff/the patient themselves are at risk. I know psychiatrists who have refused to give in to nurses' demands to section someone as they know the psychological effect, so it is always last resort, (uncaring evil doctors?). I do not believe in inadequate unproven nutrition, psychotherapy etc. in all cases. Everyone, including psychiatrists, say the modern drugs are 'hit and miss' in effectiveness but there has been little research. No realistic alternatives unfortunately. People say psychiatrists are a failure as no-one says they have been helped but this is because of the stigma making it a difficult topic in 'polite society'. Vicious circle. We need adequate effective care, but no excuse to refuse help by completely abandoning a far-from-perfect system. This 'care in the community' seems to be worse than before and give inadequate care and a high level of avoidable serious harm and deaths (appalling). Who does get adequate care? Am I still sounding 'sickly pious' (ouch).

I would like to say to Elaine that, by contrast, I do believe in psychotherapy in all cases, but that for some patients and some mental disorders I don't believe psychotherapy is enough. I don't believe that drugs are always the answer either. My view as a lay person (among all the lay people arguing here) is that psychotherapy is generally preferable to drugs, that the wait for psychotherapy is typically unacceptably long, that it's unreasonable to expect patients to sit tight for 9 months to a year without treatment until they can be fitted in for psychotherapy, and that psychotherapy isn't a panacea because sometimes psychotherapy alone won't work.

In defence of psychiatry. I completely agree with you. Sorry, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I thought the list was up to 2 years for severe depression in some areas. What else can GPs do? Unacceptable. I agree the drugs have serious side-effects which make you reluctant to try them and keep taking them. They can make the matter worse and be ineffective, but doctors have difficulty predicting the outcome. Psychotherapy would be a boon to people with serious illnesses to combat the negative psychological effects which are just as hard to live with. That is why the Rethink charity is trying to get Nice guidelines implemented for all patients, not these appalling restrictions.

In defence of psychiatry: I get your point. My point was psychiatric accountability and the fact that psychiatrists aren't being held accountable in cases like Barrett. The psychiatrist involved in Barrett's case failed miserably and now has the gall to sue the Trust. Yeeuch! There are by the way other cases where psychiatric blunders have cost innocent lives. Barrett's isn't an isolated case. I agree some people do need help but jeepers creepers, not the current shrink-think where patients are labelled and fall into the money-spinning kerching trap that feeds Big Pharma. Life isn't a bed of roses and sometimes, talking or sounding off to someone who understands can be highly beneficial. If life was a bed of roses, we'd probably be tree-hugging right now instead of slam-dunking psychiatry.

I just came across this thread... wow! I'm a medical student and I quite like the idea of going into psychiatry. I think the reason why there are fewer psychiatry recruits is for two reasons: 1) Psychiatry isn't taught that well at medical school. 2) They are put off because of the publics erroneous reaction and stereotyping of the mental health profession. People with mental health problems are incredibly hard to treat, there are usually no quick cures, and this is because the damage is usually sustained over a long period of time, stemming back from their childhood, or originating from a part of the brain that is poorly understood. I am fortunate to attend a medical school that gives a high priority to psychiatry, and I have the ability to ignore the people who really don't know what they are talking about. Maybe the people with preconceived ideas concerning psychiatry should try to understand the principles of psychiatry before propagating hate and untruths about this very special field of medicine.

Lorna Well said. Good luck with your degree and I hope all goes well. I am surprised that psychiatry is not taught well as mental illness is so widespread and many people in hospital are anxious etc. Why such a hatred for psychiatrists and other doctors are thought not to be in the pockets of the drug firms? Some other chronic illnesses are not curable and other treatment not successful. Ignorant prejudice? Please do not be put off.

An interesting thread this - I hae worked as a consultant psychiatrist in the nhs fulltime for twenty years. I have worked hard and can only acknowledge the severe limitations of existing treatments - the psychiatry haters here will be pleased to hear that Trusts are moving towards services that have fewer and fewer doctors - this is great news as diagnosis will deteriorate, the safe caustious use of medication will deteriorate and patients and their families will suffer. Countries that lack medical input to their mental health services often offer quite a poor service lumping together people with mental health problems, life problems and undiagnosed physical disorders and thereby mistreating most of them. Excellent news. The ill-informed liberals can sit and smugly judge over their dinner party tables and chatter about how much better it is now. And ignore the suicide rates, the rising morbidity....turn their coldplay records up to drown out the howls of the lost. Hurrah !