tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post2078620221282900849..comments2024-03-18T03:28:36.581-04:00Comments on Shrink Rap: What's Really InsaneUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-4910179777339613402011-06-15T03:29:35.627-04:002011-06-15T03:29:35.627-04:00I just found this article, http://www.msnbc.msn.co...I just found this article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41002034/ns/slate_com/, Mental illness' not an explanation for violence <br /><br />An exert:<br /><br />"Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, online sleuths turned up pages of rambling text and videos he had created. A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."<br /><br />For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.<br /> <br />Seena Fazel is an Oxford University psychiatrist who has led the most extensive scientific studies to date of the links between violence and two of the most serious psychiatric diagnoses—schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, either of which can lead to delusions, hallucinations, or some other loss of contact with reality. Rather than looking at individual cases, or even single studies, Fazel's team analyzed all the scientific findings they could find. As a result, they can say with confidence that psychiatric diagnoses tell us next to nothing about someone's propensity or motive for violence."<br /><br />Of course, it is easier to just deprive people of liberties instead of taking a look at the facts. Sigh!<br /><br />AAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-74068394533301785732011-06-10T20:46:33.611-04:002011-06-10T20:46:33.611-04:00Thank you, everyone, for a more civil tone. It...Thank you, everyone, for a more civil tone. It's much easier to read and consider your viewpoints and to have a discussion this way.<br /><br />Passion is fine. Dissenting viewpoints are fine. My objection was with the delivery, so thank you all for the responses.<br /><br />AA: I have absolutely no problem with "Medicines hurt me" or "I do better off medicines." It's when it turns in to "Medicines hurt me so no one should be on them" that I feel it's insulting, and even then, if the delivery is not hostile, mean, or judgmental, even that seems fine. I may not agree, but that's okay. Any shot you have a twinkie you could donate to me?Dinahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09227988351623862689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-12696164949280737222011-06-10T14:01:02.428-04:002011-06-10T14:01:02.428-04:00"What would be a better solution?"
Leav..."What would be a better solution?"<br /><br />Leaving him aloneRob Lindemanhttp://natickpediatrics.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-32665746396469131682011-06-10T13:39:53.072-04:002011-06-10T13:39:53.072-04:00P.S. You might say, "But he was a danger to o...P.S. You might say, "But he was a danger to others! He was a threat to others!" But does not this conclusion require interpreting what was going on? It requires some judgment. Who should make that judgment? The current laws allow a two physicians to do so, reviewed later by a judge. What would be a better solution?jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077223398907532291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-37714776665742272462011-06-10T13:35:17.303-04:002011-06-10T13:35:17.303-04:00Leslie wrote, " I don't agree with that l...Leslie wrote, " I don't agree with that law and would like to see it change to prohibit involuntary hospitalization of people who are oriented and who have committed no crime."<br /><br />So here was the last situation in which I involuntarily hospitalized someone, over 25 years ago: I was called to an apartment by the building superintendent. My patient had been hearing voices, thought that the devil was sending signals to control him that were coming out of the electric wall sockets, so he pried off the covers with a screwdriver and was trying to stop the devil by pulling out the live electric wires with his bare hands (read this again, it's true that he did this). Apartment a total wreck. He disheveled. Not suicidal. Not threatening anyone. No laws broken. We all (parents, super, and me) were scared to death of what this could lead to.<br /><br />I went to the police station and signed an emergency petition for him to be brought to a hospital.<br /><br />What would you have done in my place? And, imagine no psychiatrist had been there. What would the super have done, and what would the police have done if left to draw their own conclusions?<br /><br />One point I am making is that, even without psychiatrists, people will take action that might be far worse for the patient than what a psychiatrist might do.<br /><br />I hope this is addressing some of AAs questions. They are good questions and should not be ignored.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077223398907532291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-80657647578099636092011-06-10T10:23:45.781-04:002011-06-10T10:23:45.781-04:00AA, I don't think that statement by Dinah abou...AA, I don't think that statement by Dinah about medications is odd at all, given how strongly non-medication routes to recovery have been repeatedly and excessively advertised; I'm not against exploring or even trying such avenues if one feels that would be best for them, and I'm not against (nor do I think Dinah is) against letting people know about such things, if you aren't constantly shouting it from the rooftops every chance you get. It seems a bit excessive to me to constantly promote such things. Then it is at least strongly implied if not outright said that psychiatry is bunk, in essence. When that sort of thing is stated right next to a whole host of non-medication recovery options, or at least by the same person, the negative attitude(s) about psychiatrists and their use of medications in any kind of treatment seems clear to me.Sarebearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09208596053319110470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-84041746412860224102011-06-10T06:43:12.673-04:002011-06-10T06:43:12.673-04:00I totally agree it is important to use civil langu...I totally agree it is important to use civil language at all times no matter how you feel about an issue. And again, I am quite appreciative of the shrink rappers for allowing viewpoints that don't agree with theirs without censorship. That is quite rare on the blogosphere and is much appreciated.<br /><br />Having said that, I am perplexed at some of Dinah's points. Even before Duane and Rob ever showed up on this blog, I sensed quite a bit of defensiveness about posts that raised some issues in psychiatry even when they were quite civil. I was getting the message, "hear no evil, speak no evil" even if that wasn't your intention.<br /><br />In my opinion, you have tried to turn this into an issue of pro psychiatry vs. antipsychiatry when then are many gray areas involved. I pointed out that pro psychiatry people who are in the mental health system are scared to death to seek treatment thanks to the new commitment laws in our state even when in crisis. That is very serious and frankly, I am disappointed that no psychiatrist has responded. <br /><br />I know you can't say too much on a comment by someone like me but surely, you are aware in general that having this type of legislation can scare away people who need help but fear being swept into the system involuntarily. How do you reassure them that this won't happen?<br /><br />My point is that in the past, I have raised what I felt were thought provoking issues like this only to be ignored.<br /><br />Regarding Rob's positions, I know what I am about to say won't be popular but frankly, I find them refreshing. I was beginning to wonder if any medical professional on this earth gave a darn about the erosion of civil liberties in mental health. Reading Rob's posts greatly encouraged me that one person at least cares and will fight for what is right.<br /><br />Finally, this comment from Dinah:<br /><br />""I find the vehement discussions against medications as being insulting to those who find them helpful and want to take them. Psychiatry is about more than a prescription pad.""<br /><br />Once again, I am totally perplexed and feel proves that this issue is more than just about Duane and Robb.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, a few commentators were adamant that they did better off of medications vs. being on them. They were only talking about their own experiences and said nothing against folks who were taking meds. Therefore, I am unclear how this is insulting.<br /><br />That would be like saying I am insulting junk food eaters because I state that junk food has a negative effect on me. That doesn't make sense.<br /><br />Anyway, I do agree that we all need to be civil no matter what.<br /><br />AAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-44116271105576480522011-06-10T02:23:41.757-04:002011-06-10T02:23:41.757-04:00I have been feeling that many comments posted here...I have been feeling that many comments posted here recently are angry and aggressive and are destroying the blog. I don't think it would be out of line to start to prescreen posts made here, or allow readers to flag posts as having inappropriate content.<br /><br />Some of the posters seems to want to change the face of psychiatry, so I think it might be more worthwhile for them to write editorials for newspapers, articles for newspapers, a book, or a blog of their own. If they don't wish to do that, then perhaps consider that we have read your point of view... about 20 times.... and it is time to go. The more hostile you (all 3 of you) are, the less I regard what any of you say with credibility.Sunny CAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11451116932556227816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-61505984813311298252011-06-10T01:05:50.618-04:002011-06-10T01:05:50.618-04:00What I like about this blog is that there are so m...What I like about this blog is that there are so many different and passionate viewpoints. I am glad that Duane and Rob post here, I think they spur debate and debate is good. I also like to read the other side of things, too, because it challenges my thinking and opinions. THere's room for all, I think. Well, maybe, except for the scientologists (only kidding).<br /><br />Jesse, okay, let me try again. I'm a little slow tonight in the area of comprehension. Yes, I would agree that the laws make it possible to hospitalize someone against their will if they are determined to be a threat to self or others. But, I don't agree with that law and would like to see it change to prohibit involuntary hospitalization of people who are oriented and who have committed no crime. I think the "threat to self or others" is too subjective and too broad. I don't think it's right to hold someone against their will if they are oriented and have done nothing wrong. I do believe there is such a thing as rational suicide, although I know many will not share that world view. I think someone can be depressed and fully understand the ramifications of destructive decisions.<br /><br /><br />@ Moviedoc, I typed out a response to you earlier but then my laptop froze. Sigh. You raise some important points that I want more thoroughly address, but now I'm sleepy. I will try again tomorrow. For now, Zzzzz....<br /><br />LeslieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-71999941563067647782011-06-09T23:19:44.149-04:002011-06-09T23:19:44.149-04:00Jesse, I meant ok, cool to your earlier comment no...Jesse, I meant ok, cool to your earlier comment not to the latest one. ;-). On the later one, I would have to respectfully disagree because I think it's too subjective.<br /><br />LeslieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-36853783104383430392011-06-09T23:17:46.637-04:002011-06-09T23:17:46.637-04:00@ Jesse, ok, cool. :-)
Leslie@ Jesse, ok, cool. :-)<br /><br />LeslieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-71779879652551255472011-06-09T22:40:40.421-04:002011-06-09T22:40:40.421-04:00This sentence is inaccurate: "In general I ag...This sentence is inaccurate: "In general I agree with the standard being to err on the side of the patient's right to make decisions unless he is deemed an imminent danger to himself or others."<br /><br />I believe it is that the patient can make all sorts of decisions under those circumstances, save those that continue the dangerous behavior involved. He can be hospitalized involuntarily if he meets those criteria, and only those criteria. If this is wrong please correct me.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077223398907532291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-58827381747103130702011-06-09T22:32:23.465-04:002011-06-09T22:32:23.465-04:00"I think it's as Roy mentioned once, many..."I think it's as Roy mentioned once, many times the disagreement is about where to draw the line. I would err on the side of a patient's right to make decisions if they're oriented X 4 and not committing crimes."<br /><br />In general I agree with the standard being to err on the side of the patient's right to make decisions unless he is deemed an imminent danger to himself or others. And now in Maryland he cannot be medicated involuntarily unless he is shown to be, in the hospital, right then and there, dangerous.<br /><br />I know quite a few people who made serious suicide attempts, were saved by good medical care, and then went on to be able to live successful, happy lives. If we were to say, "look, he chose to die, why are you trying to revive him?" are we not preventing that person from changing his mind? A person who has small children he loves dearly and later is so glad he did not leave parentless, with a parent who suicided? <br /><br />So, Leslie, I support the advocacy you are doing. It is important to call attention to these issues. You are writing about forced medication. This is another side of that difficult question.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077223398907532291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-44302506864786625792011-06-09T22:26:37.183-04:002011-06-09T22:26:37.183-04:00Leslie: Competence is more complicated than that. ...Leslie: Competence is more complicated than that. A person who is hearing voices could be quite competent to decide to whom they wish to leave their estate, or to assist their attorney in their defense. (Let me hasten to add that all docs face the dilemma of whether a patient is competent to consent to treatment.) Competence to consent to treatment would hinge on whether the patient understands the treatment, the illness or symptoms, the potential adverse effects, and the likely outcome of no treatment. Not knowing what year it is might be irrelevant. As a forensic psychiatrist I have evaluated individuals for testamentary capacity and competence to stand trial. It requires as much as 2-3 hours interviewing the patient, reviewing records, talking to other people, etc. More importantly I would never perform such an evaluation on a patient I was treating. Such an evaluation must be scheduled weeks in advance and is not cheap. So us treaters fly by the seat of our pants, usually assuming a patient is competent, and most probably are.moviedochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03617061594621924756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-29627574704674453252011-06-09T22:14:55.377-04:002011-06-09T22:14:55.377-04:00Leslie, I was not addressing you at all and I thin...Leslie, I was not addressing you at all and I think you are making very good points. Very clear. It is indeed a contradiction to consider a person unable to sign consent but then pressure them to do so. There are many contradictions, none of the systems work perfectly.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077223398907532291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-21685210574780836292011-06-09T22:01:32.667-04:002011-06-09T22:01:32.667-04:00Jesse, not sure if you are speaking about me, but ...Jesse, not sure if you are speaking about me, but just in case, I really don't believe I have used my own experience with involuntary treatment to generalize about all patients and all psychiatrists. I understand there are people who post who hate all psychiatrists - I am not in that camp. My tongue-in-cheek comment about forcibly treating all Texas psychiatrists, and all men in their twenties and all new moms was written not because I believe it should happen but to illustrate why I think it's a bad idea to soften the laws and make it easier to forcibly treat (not saying you or anyone else here supports softening the laws but there are many like Torrey, et al who do). In fact, Earley himself admits to lying and saying his son threatened his life to get him admitted because he didn't meet the criteria for admission. That's like me deciding to break into a supermarket and steal all the food so I can feed people who are starving and arguing in defense of the greater good. I don't agree with that line of thinking.<br /><br />There is a lot I do not share here, but in my own defense I have witnessed the informed consent process I would imagine over 100 times over the years (since my hospitalization), and due to my own experiences my graduate work was in the area of health care ethics. I focused on informed consent, and I am very passionate about patient rights. <br /><br />I do not have any issue with voluntary outpatient psychiatric treatment as long as it is truly voluntary and people aren't being threatened or coerced - I think most of the time outpatient care is truly voluntary and that's fine. So, no one who treats only voluntary psychiatric patients should take what I say personally because that's not what I'm talking about. I had a therapist post-inpatient psych treatment who I think the world of and who helped me tremendously in the aftermath - she doesn't hate psychiatrists either and shares my opposition to involuntary treatment.<br /><br />Jesse, you ask why it is hard to acknowledge the consent of someone who is hearing voices. That is a very good question. Why would a physician have someone who is hearing voices sign consent if they felt the patient was incompetent? It seems to me that if the physician feels the patient is incompetent they would understand that pressuring and/or threatening a patient to sign consent is not ethical. And, I think that's very often where I have most of the issues with inpatient care - if the psychiatrist believes the patient is so ill that they cannot make decisions for themselves then why in the world would they have them sign consent for inpatient treatment - I just don't get it.<br /><br />If I have dementia and I think it's 1946, I don't sign an informed consent. Period. There is no cajoling or threatening the patient to sign - if they're not oriented they don't sign. There's no, "If you don't sign then we're going to have to sign for you and put you in the nursing home." I have never once seen someone with dementia who was not oriented pressured to sign a consent form. It would be unethical to do so. Yet, I have experienced and observed psych patients being threatened or coerced into signing consent forms for inpatient treatment. Now, maybe it just happens in Texas, I don't know. Do all psychiatrists do this when admitting patients? No, they don't adn I don't think it's an issue at all in outpatient treatment (with the exception of AOT). So, when there's a post about involuntary treatment, I think it's very important to address patient rights. <br /><br />I think it's as Roy mentioned once, many times the disagreement is about where to draw the line. I would err on the side of a patient's right to make decisions if they're oriented X 4 and not committing crimes. <br /><br />LeslieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-62822340358246127362011-06-09T21:29:53.601-04:002011-06-09T21:29:53.601-04:00"If everyone is thinking the same thing, then..."If everyone is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking." <br /><br />George S. PattonDuane Sherryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10482281700165504817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-52429352327628290322011-06-09T21:11:14.197-04:002011-06-09T21:11:14.197-04:00I think we should view Duane as a challenge. He wa...I think we should view Duane as a challenge. He wants to throw the baby out with the bath water and sees psychiatry as monolithic (which it is not). Having read his posts at Steve Balts blog I know he doesn't hate all psychiatrists. I can empathize with him based on his earlier comments. We should all work on not taking anything he says personally, and try to bring out the best in him. I agree with much he says. Imagine if we could harness that passion. We psychiatrists certainly don't know it all yet, don't have all the problems solved. I'll bet Duane will help if we give him a chance.moviedochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03617061594621924756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-42601110655294245102011-06-09T20:55:06.193-04:002011-06-09T20:55:06.193-04:00One tendency I've noticed on the blog is for a...One tendency I've noticed on the blog is for a writer to go from his or her own experience with involuntary treatment and forced medication to generalize not only about all patients but all of psychiatry and all psychiatrists. That does not lead to useful dialogue. <br /><br />I, like Dinah, do not treat any patients involuntarily. When we talk about a person's consent for anything, we have to ask how we judge whether a person can give meaningful consent. Leslie, for instance, has (rightly, in my view) pointed out that a person in therapy may become so attached to a therapist that then her consent is not really free if she is asked permission for her case to be taped. Or, most certainly, if the therapist wants to date his patient, the consent is not valid. <br /><br />So if we can agree that the consent of a fully functioning, successful patient can be compromised, why is it hard to acknowledge that the consent of a person hearing voices, seeing demons, believing her skin is rotting off and that she is really the devil incarnate, can be even more invalid? and if it is invalid, what should be done in the most extreme cases, not in the least? <br /><br />I have learned a lot reading this blog. There are quite a number of intelligent and perceptive people posting their experiences. But the all-encompassing attacks on psychiatry as a profession are less than helpful. They drive away other visitors from this site whose voices also should be valued.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077223398907532291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-25132904666217805232011-06-09T20:36:45.397-04:002011-06-09T20:36:45.397-04:00And for what it's worth I have commented off a...And for what it's worth I have commented off and on since near the beginning of this blog. I just never picked a name. Found it through Doctor Anonymous back in the day, so it's not like I'm new here. I find the debates interesting. I think it would be boring if we all agreed.<br /><br />LeslieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-90487995603098985422011-06-09T20:25:44.390-04:002011-06-09T20:25:44.390-04:00In all fairness, this post mentions involuntary me...In all fairness, this post mentions involuntary medication so it makes sense that people are going to have strong opinions about that. If it were about voluntary treatment by patients who wanted it, then there would be no debate from me.<br /><br />I understand you are outpatient and treat only voluntary patients, but that's not what this post was about. I have no issue with patients who seek out treatment voluntarily and have said so on multiple occasions.<br /><br />LeslieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-13169239126619940092011-06-09T18:45:07.685-04:002011-06-09T18:45:07.685-04:00==continued from above===
I started Shrink Rap be...==continued from above===<br /><br />I started Shrink Rap because I love to write and I like talking about my work. It is a strange field we have where there is so much controversy and so much uncertainty about how best to treat patients. There’s also the issue that people react differently—to medications, to words, to the way they were treated. If you read our book, or even just the reviews of it, you’ll see that while we are mainstream psychiatrists, we address head-on that psychiatry has shortcomings.<br /><br />You've apologized to another commenter for upsetting them with your comments, so I'm perplexed at your hostile tone towards us Shrink Rappers. We're people who like our jobs, like to write and play with technology, and it feels to me-- and I may be wrong-- that you've decided we're evil people and so it's okay to be overtly hostile, aggressive and insulting on our blog. The funny thing is that we are the ones saying there should be more open dialogue and trying explain our work in a way that we hope will effect positive changes. Perhaps understanding will lead to empowerment by patients-- that would be great! You don’t need to agree with us, but if you’re going to stay here, then at least be respectful of our work.<br /><br />Recently, the Shrink Rap comment section has become a fairly ugly place to hang out. We talked just briefly about moderating or closing the comments, but that would defeat the purpose of the blog, so it’s not going to happen. However, incessant, repetitive and hostile comments towards psychiatrists doesn't do anything to open dialogue and I believe you have shut down discussion. We have been happy, for more than five years, to have readers come to our comment section and simply share their stories, even if they are painful ones, even if they are angry and have distressing stories about psychiatry. Until we started Shrink Rap, I had no idea there was such strong opposition and distress towards psychiatry. <br /><br />The readership of the comment sections of blogs is fairly low---perhaps handfuls. I'm not sure how commenting here will change the world, and you clearly would like to change it. Is there not some more powerful venue then this to invest your time and energy? <br /><br />If I can take a guess, I would anticipate that Rob might say I have a no-not-me attitude and perhaps that troubles him. I'm not sure what anyone would like me to personally take responsibility for, aside from Shrink Rap, where lately it feels like every word gets dissected and attacked, be it mine or anyone elses' and I find it sad that all the hostility of our comment section may be serving to stifle opinions other than those of the most hardy. I hope Sarebear and others will come back, and Jesse asked me where the other psychiatrists are, and I imagine they’ve moved to more welcoming places. <br /><br />DinahDinahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09227988351623862689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-83079409912532046762011-06-09T18:44:42.247-04:002011-06-09T18:44:42.247-04:00Dear Duane and others,
I am an outpatient psychia...Dear Duane and others,<br /><br />I am an outpatient psychiatrist and treat only voluntary patients. <br /><br />I believe my patients would tell you that their treatment is helpful, and many of them feel the medication aspect of their treatment has been life-saving and helped them to feel much better. Those who don't feel that way stop their medications, and those who don't find what I have to offer to be helpful stop coming. The people I see often come in a state of distress, find treatment to be beneficial, and leave feeling better. <br /><br />I find the vehement discussions against medications as being insulting to those who find them helpful and want to take them. Psychiatry is about more than a prescription pad.<br /><br />None of the Shrink Rapper see children in any setting or have had child psychiatry training. No child psychiatrist I have ever talked with has told me they prescribe psychotropics to 3 year old children. They doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but Shrink Rappers are not at liberty to burst in to the offices of other psychiatrists and demand to look at their files. None of us has ever lived in Texas or been in the military or had idea that the Fort Hood tragedy was going to occur. You all seem to hold all psychiatrists responsible for the behaviors of other psychiatrists. <br /><br />---to be continued---Dinahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09227988351623862689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-26562188343638047872011-06-09T18:40:01.458-04:002011-06-09T18:40:01.458-04:00I dunno, Duane, I'm quite sure that most psych...I dunno, Duane, I'm quite sure that most psychiatrists are secure in the conviction that they're doing good work. The problem arises when they do this work on behalf of individuals who don't want their assistance, or when they excuse criminal and otherwise bad behavior by means of diagnosesRob Lindemanhttp://natickpediatrics.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-22517829371857949682011-06-09T17:41:10.033-04:002011-06-09T17:41:10.033-04:00Rob,
An what diagnosis (diagnoses) should psychia...Rob,<br /><br />An what diagnosis (diagnoses) should psychiatry be given, for all the injury they've caused along the way... the disregard for human life?... without remorse?<br /><br />'Sociopathic' comes to mind.<br /><br />Duane Sherry, M.S.<br />http://discoverandrecover.wordpress.com/warningDuane Sherry, M.S.http://discoverandrecover.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com