Anti-Psychiatry movement

[Fiction]

The anti-psychiatry movement has been a long lasting movement that has claimed that psychiatry does more harm than good. One aspect of this is Psychiatric labelling. So basically, if someone is experiencing psychiatric symptoms, is it helpful for them to have a label for it. I was wondering what you guys think?

I find myself completely in two minds about this.

On one hand, psychiatric diagnosis allows for enhanced research, potentially enhanced treatment for the patient and perhaps reassurance to a patient that it's not their fault they are how they are, it's a disorder or a disease.

However once a psychiatric diagnosis has been given, it often sticks. For example in Rosenhan's study. Rosenhan and some of his researchers posed as psychotic patients and where all admitted to psychiatric hospitals. After admission, all acted as they normally did, without psychotic symptoms. Despite this, the average stay was 19 days, many where only released on the conditions of taking medication and all where discharged with the diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission, which is not the same as being labelled sane. This was in 1972, so things may well have changed by now but I still think it gives things to think about. The fact that the diagnosis sticks might not be helpful to the patient, it might offer stigma or even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also does it undermine our right to be different?

I personally think labelling should be used sparingly, and only when the patient is in distress or they are a danger to themselves or others. I think it things such as autism, and ADHD it is not useful. Treatment may be useful, and extra help during development, but giving the child the label may change the way in which adults and peers react to them, and inadvertently cause more problems than it solves.

So what does everyone else think?

[Hyper]

...

A diagnosis is not a label.

How it is perceived or used is a different story. The study you cite also could just be argued shows the inability/partial ignorance of the system itself.

Awareness & education tends to cure stigmas quite well but it takes time.

i think that you using the word label already demonstrates a big problem... Why can't we see a diagnosis as simply a diagnosis why does it have to be a ''label'' is someone being categorized? Victimized somehow? Not really... It's just a medical diagnosis.

Diagnosis is needed to actually help people with severe mental illnesses. What people, employers and society think & do in general is again just a result of how informed and educated they are on the subject.

[Fiction]

...

A diagnosis is not a label.

How it is perceived or used is a different story. The study you cite also could just be argued shows the inability/partial ignorance of the system itself.

Awareness & education tends to cure stigmas quite well but it takes time.

i think that you using the word label already demonstrates a big problem... Why can't we see a diagnosis as simply a diagnosis why does it have to be a ''label'' is someone being categorized? Victimized somehow? Not really... It's just a medical diagnosis.

Diagnosis is needed to actually help people with severe mental illnesses. What people, employers and society think & do in general is again just a result of how informed and educated they are on the subject.

The argument is that through society it becomes one. You just reiterated my point, I never claimed the diagnosis was meant to be a label but that it becomes one through society.

And I did say that in severe mental illness it is useful and necessary. I was talking about spectrum disorders such as ASD, where young children who are only just on the spectrum are diagnosed and it changes the way that they are treated. There are extremely well documented studies of the changes in adult interaction with children with both ASD and ADHD that has been diagnosed.

Please don't act like I'm stupid. This was an issue that was discussed by someone from the Autism Research Group. I was wondering what people who actually had various psychiatric disorders thought of this.

[SethfromMI]

a diagnosis sometimes has been used as a label, even if it is not what the doctors intended, however, it has done more good , esp in more recent years, last several decades

[Typhlosion]

As far as I know, psychology and psychiatry have gone a long way since 1972. In that same year, homosexuality was still listed as a mental condition, surprisingly.

I don't see why a diagnosis is now labeling someone. Really, such a diagnosis is usually kept in private between the doctor and patient, and is only disseminated at the discretion of the affected person. Yes, there is lot of stigmas and misconceptions attributed to those with mental issues, so condition names/existences shouldn't be thrown out into the open unless absolutely necessary, or at least so until a greater public understanding of the condition is met. On the other hand, a diagnosis can be very helpful for orienting what path should be taken to approach and ameliorate the issue.

What I have heard negatively from psychiatrists is prescribing excessive doses during treatment.

There are extremely well documented studies of the changes in adult interaction with children with both ASD and ADHD that has been diagnosed.

What would provoke these changes? The presence of the children or information given, before the encounter or during? After? I'd really like to see this or these studies.

[IconoclasticHeretic]

Psychiatry has a dark history of being used as a method of power and control over its patients. Political dissenters, homosexuals, women who questioned puritanical gender roles, crossdressers, or others with unconventional interests outside of the socially accepted "norm". Even in modern times, it is often misapplied. A child likes metal music and draws a picture of someone dying, conservative stuff white people see this as a problem and have him tested, diagnosed, and medicated; essentially robbing him of his autonomy and often mental clarity as well as forcing upon him possible addiction and physical health complications. Another child is unruly in class. Rather than thinking of a new way to educate her according to her needs or holding off on school for a while, instead she is diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Ritalin. Other eccentricities or neuroses may be just a matter of preference that don't require treatment unless the patient specifically asks for it.

I believe psychiatric care is important and saves lives and helps many. But the system is filled with bureaucracy, red tape, dehumanizing treatment, patronizing professionals, overuse of medication, and an ominous past/stigma. Unless someone is a danger to others, I don't believe any decisions should be made for them regarding their care or treatment and they should always be well informed.

I speak from experience with the systems, as well. I have been "diagnosed" with several disorders, none of which I care to disclose here, at this time.

[Arkansasguy]

The anti-psychiatry movement has been a long lasting movement that has claimed that psychiatry does more harm than good. One aspect of this is Psychiatric labelling. So basically, if someone is experiencing psychiatric symptoms, is it helpful for them to have a label for it. I was wondering what you guys think?

I find myself completely in two minds about this.

On one hand, psychiatric diagnosis allows for enhanced research, potentially enhanced treatment for the patient and perhaps reassurance to a patient that it's not their fault they are how they are, it's a disorder or a disease.

However once a psychiatric diagnosis has been given, it often sticks. For example in Rosenhan's study. Rosenhan and some of his researchers posed as psychotic patients and where all admitted to psychiatric hospitals. After admission, all acted as they normally did, without psychotic symptoms. Despite this, the average stay was 19 days, many where only released on the conditions of taking medication and all where discharged with the diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission, which is not the same as being labelled sane. This was in 1972, so things may well have changed by now but I still think it gives things to think about. The fact that the diagnosis sticks might not be helpful to the patient, it might offer stigma or even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also does it undermine our right to be different?

I personally think labelling should be used sparingly, and only when the patient is in distress or they are a danger to themselves or others. I think it things such as autism, and ADHD it is not useful. Treatment may be useful, and extra help during development, but giving the child the label may change the way in which adults and peers react to them, and inadvertently cause more problems than it solves.

So what does everyone else think?

Psychiatry is pretty much bunk.