A Problem with Psychiatry
This link: talks about temper tantrums in the DSM and
how too many a week, 3 is apparently too many, can lead to a diagnosis.
But here is the problem:
How many temper tantrums
should a “normal” person throw? Children may not be able to speak English, but
they are still reacting to their environment.
How many tantrums should
a child throw when confronted with a verbally and physically abusive father? If
a single mother spends her days in a drug-induced stupor, what is the "proper"
behavior for a child? In both cases “their parents may be unable to control
them at home,” but that is a problem with the parents and the home, not the
child.
Obviously, no father or
mother is going to admit the true cause of the tantrums. The incentive for the
abusive father, abusive mother and psychiatrist is to silence the child: often
through the use of life-altering medication. These practices can change the
child, but it does not change the underlying environment the tantrums were
reacting to.
The problem springs from
the idea that you can segment off some behavior as “unnatural” and that you
can/should change it. What if these disorders are simply normal behavior that
is two standard deviations from the mean? What if “depression” or “tantrums”
are a natural human reaction to a death in the family, or severe verbal abuse?
The danger is obvious:
It was not long ago (40
years) that homosexuality was not only considered a disease, but a crime in the
US. Currently, Russia, China, and parts of the Middle East harbor intense
anti-homosexual sentiments that extend into the law. The West may not have had
the ability to change sexual preference in 1972, but medical technology is increasing at a
startling rate, and the medical technology to turn off libido already exists,
which may be a “good-enough” substitute if oppressive legal systems are
punishing homosexual actions, not desire.
This problem is not
limited to sexual preference with regards to gender; “kinky” sex is a diagnosable behavior. What if these sexual
practices fall within the range of “normal” human behavior? Why should we be
shamming, and medicating, people for normal behavior that falls outside the
straight-jacket of cultural acceptance? This is especially disconcerting
because “normal” is defined by an elite group of psychiatrists who themselves
view these problems disproportionately through a Western, upper-class lens;
there is no objective 3rd party.
While there is no doubt
that some of these issues can be chalked up to a “chemical imbalance,” this
explanation remains dubious at best. How is a psychiatrist sure that the
behavior is due to an imbalance in the brain and not a natural outcome of
horrible circumstances-or just normal human preferences? In order to define
part of the human population as “nonstandard,” psychiatry must first label part
of the population as “standard”- the epitome of hubris. How can a psychiatrist
know what “natural” human behavior is; if “normal” is just a “statistical
average,” then what makes the average correct-and why does that justify the
medication of statistically fringe behavior? Just because something is uncommon
does not make it wrong.
When intense religious
belief was the norm, assuming we had the same psychiatric institutions, would
we medicate atheism as an illness? Would that make the religious population any
more correct, any more rational? How long before scientific advances allow
cultures, and governments, to bend “abnormal” individuals into predefined
stereotypes?
Liberty has never progressed
linearly; we can move backwards. Places like Russia already legally
discriminate against homosexuals, among many others; how long until they move
beyond discrimination and decide, instead, to remake the people they disagree
with?
A Problem with Psychiatry
This link: talks about temper tantrums in the DSM and
how too many a week, 3 is apparently too many, can lead to a diagnosis.
But here is the problem:
How many temper tantrums
should a “normal” person throw? Children may not be able to speak English, but
they are still reacting to their environment.
How many tantrums should
a child throw when confronted with a verbally and physically abusive father? If
a single mother spends her days in a drug-induced stupor, what is the "proper"
behavior for a child? In both cases “their parents may be unable to control
them at home,” but that is a problem with the parents and the home, not the
child.
Obviously, no father or
mother is going to admit the true cause of the tantrums. The incentive for the
abusive father, abusive mother and psychiatrist is to silence the child: often
through the use of life-altering medication. These practices can change the
child, but it does not change the underlying environment the tantrums were
reacting to.
The problem springs from
the idea that you can segment off some behavior as “unnatural” and that you
can/should change it. What if these disorders are simply normal behavior that
is two standard deviations from the mean? What if “depression” or “tantrums”
are a natural human reaction to a death in the family, or severe verbal abuse?
The danger is obvious:
It was not long ago (40
years) that homosexuality was not only considered a disease, but a crime in the
US. Currently, Russia, China, and parts of the Middle East harbor intense
anti-homosexual sentiments that extend into the law. The West may not have had
the ability to change sexual preference in 1972, but medical technology is increasing at a
startling rate, and the medical technology to turn off libido already exists,
which may be a “good-enough” substitute if oppressive legal systems are
punishing homosexual actions, not desire.
This problem is not
limited to sexual preference with regards to gender; “kinky” sex is a diagnosable behavior. What if these sexual
practices fall within the range of “normal” human behavior? Why should we be
shamming, and medicating, people for normal behavior that falls outside the
straight-jacket of cultural acceptance? This is especially disconcerting
because “normal” is defined by an elite group of psychiatrists who themselves
view these problems disproportionately through a Western, upper-class lens;
there is no objective 3rd party.
While there is no doubt
that some of these issues can be chalked up to a “chemical imbalance,” this
explanation remains dubious at best. How is a psychiatrist sure that the
behavior is due to an imbalance in the brain and not a natural outcome of
horrible circumstances-or just normal human preferences? In order to define
part of the human population as “nonstandard,” psychiatry must first label part
of the population as “standard”- the epitome of hubris. How can a psychiatrist
know what “natural” human behavior is; if “normal” is just a “statistical
average,” then what makes the average correct-and why does that justify the
medication of statistically fringe behavior? Just because something is uncommon
does not make it wrong.
When intense religious
belief was the norm, assuming we had the same psychiatric institutions, would
we medicate atheism as an illness? Would that make the religious population any
more correct, any more rational? How long before scientific advances allow
cultures, and governments, to bend “abnormal” individuals into predefined
stereotypes?
Liberty has never progressed
linearly; we can move backwards. Places like Russia already legally
discriminate against homosexuals, among many others; how long until they move
beyond discrimination and decide, instead, to remake the people they disagree
with?
