Full disclosure: I’m training to be a psychologist (not psychiatrist)

I’ve been browsing here a lot since Genzedong got quarantined, as I had been expecting a full removal soon after. The general community here is so positive and funny, I found myself preferring it to the subreddit.

I decided to break from my lurking ways to comment on an unfortunate trend I’ve noticed: A few, maybe just one or two, users trying to bring legitimacy to anti-psychiatry rhetoric. These users are getting a great deal of attention for their posts, and they seem to me to be legit comrades, regularly posting in other subs as well. I think these users are genuine, and I don’t intend to make this about them, nor am I about to speculate about their personal reasons for perpetuating these messages. I will say only this about them: There is a worrying tendency to fully dismiss the experiences and views of mental health professionals, saying that speaking to us is “like speaking to a wall,” and encouraging other users to simply ignore our responses. I think I only need to describe this sort of behavior for the troublesome qualities of it to become self-evident. No more needs to be said on it.

Now, I want to speak first to the kernel of truth in the anti-psychiatry lie, because this is somewhat personal to me.

Following the death of my 24 year old brother in 2020, I had a very hard time maintaining my professional life for a little over a year. He was not only my closest friend, but also the only person with whom I could share my political thoughts openly, expecting that he might be feeling similar. Simply put, he was the only socialist I knew.

At my field placement at the time, I was often working with people who were hospitalized. The fact that capitalism contributes to mental illness was not a new concept to me, but seeing how many of our patients were homeless, and knowing that, sometimes, they were sent back to the streets after we had gotten them “back to baseline,” was devastating for me. It was the sort of disruption that makes a person question the field they are in.

Cut-to October, 2021, I’m the only student in a classroom, explaining to 6 professors why my performance is slipping lately, and I find myself explaining that I feel impotent as a therapist, eventually yelling something rash to the effect of “If we actually wanted a psychologically-minded approach to helping these people, we’d be giving them houses!” Further, I was boiling in anger so slowly I almost didn’t notice it, because I had no one - zero people - in this liberal-as-hell program to discuss my beliefs with. No one outside of it. Just no one. I was surrounded by people who loved to talk about “systems,” but couldn’t form a coherent thought about the economic system that undergirds all of the ills of these other systems.

It is true that therapy and psychiatry are often bandaids for people living in a sick society. It is true that many of the problems we seek to address are exacerbated or outright caused by living in a capitalist system. It is true that therapy addresses the suffering of individuals, when that suffering is often the result of communal discord.

It’s deeply unhealthy to get stuck there though. I was for a time, and my outpatient clients likely suffered lower quality treatment from me during this time. I know everyone around me suffered a lower quality me.

We are historical materialists. Because of the suffering caused by capitalism, it can be easy to lose sight of the materialist understanding of capitalism as an inevitable and necessary next step beyond feudalism, leading to socialism. Capitalism is not an entity you can diagnose as evil and then determine that everything birthed from within it is therefore also evil. That’s idealism. The fact that psychiatry and therapy inherited flaws from operating within a capitalist system says absolutely nothing about their inherent nature, the intent of them, nor their impact.

Now let’s get more specific. This entire dance of tying capitalism and psychiatry together utterly ignores basic realities - like the fact that some mental illnesses seem to be primarily organic, that is, relating to the person’s biological make-up, their “wiring.” Primary examples of this include ADHD, Bipolar and Schizophrenia. If you suppose a person with schizophrenia or bipolar would suddenly be highly functional, absent medication, in a world where we’ve reached international communism, you are simply making a massive, uneducated guess. We don’t know that, and anyone who has spent considerable time among the severely mentally ill population will tell you that it seems extremely unlikely. Further, we haven’t reached communism, so it seems reasonable to suggest we do what we can for people who are suffering currently.

A lot of anti-psychiatry rhetoric seems to come from the neurodivergent crowd, specifically people with ADHD and/or autism, who have felt mistreated by the field of psychiatry because they aren’t disordered, just different from the type of person who succeeds under capitalism. There is a lot of truth to this, and I wish I had better answers for these individuals. Perhaps under communism, people with ADHD and Autism will feel no need for therapy. Then again, perhaps they’ll still suffer from higher rates of depression than other people, simply because they find it harder to fit in socially. A lot of unhelpful speculation is required to even have that conversation. I’m more interested in helping people with the problems they say they want help with in their lives, at this point in time.

Now to get on to what most people think of when they think of psychiatry and therapy. When I’m helping someone with OCD learn to work past their compulsions effectively enough that they can finally do something enjoyable with their time, no one gives a flying fuck if capitalism has to do with why they can’t stop checking, and re-checking that everything in their home is “just right.” When I’m helping a socially anxious person find human connection, or a depressed person find something rewarding to engage in, again, the discussion of how their mental illness is a result of capitalism feels trivial in the face of their suffering. Yes, every single one of my clients deserves revolution. No, I’m not capable of bringing about that revolution on my own, but I can help my clients make friends and find meaning in the lives they do have under this capitalist system.

The last problem with anti-psychiatry being tied to Marxism is more pragmatic: People who are curious about communism come to this site. Most people’s (with very unfortunate but real exceptions) experience of psychiatry and therapy will not map onto the exploitative machine described by the anti-psychiatry folks any more than their experience of the medical field does. This means that any curious liberal who comes into this space looking for answers is going to be immediately turned off.

Anyway, I’m really thankful for this place and hope this post doesn’t make me a pariah around here in the future. Thanks for reading, comrades.

Edit: A previous version of this post contained language that was unfair to the anti-psychiatry crowd. This was a mistake pointed out to me in the comments, and I see what they mean. I’ll do better with that in the future.

  • @saul_pimonOP
    link
    8
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    How so? We barely even know how the brain works;we don’t know if schizophrenia even works like psychiatric models describe it.

    This was actually the point of the quote you’re responding to, precisely that we can’t know the details what mental health will look like under communism. My argument was that it’s not useful to people right now to speculate about, given that we do live under capitalism and people do have mental health issues they require help with.

    As for your arguments, yes, there are cases where people are put on meds where the side effects are worse for them than what the medication was intended to treat. However, this should absolutely not be news to anyone being offered medication. By that I mean that it is standard practice to be very honest about the potential side effects and weigh potential costs and benefits. Then, as with any other medication, it should be monitored and either changed or altered according to observations and self-report of the individual. I’ve never heard anyone speak of psychoactive drugs as though they should be taken lightly, with no consideration of potential side effects. To take your example of dyskinesia, we must first understand the suffering of psychosis to understand why someone might risk tardive dyskinesia from an antipsychotic. I have sat with individual on antipsychotics and heard their complaints - they can be heartbreaking. “I want to be a cool guy like Jim Morrison, but I can’t even get it up.” However, these individuals also remember what life was like before the antipsychotic. Maybe they still have hallucinations, but they’re more able to handle them. Maybe they experience some delusional thinking, but they’re more able to identify it. Most people on antipsychotics take them willingly, and they can openly tell you both the pros and cons of it.

    A meta-analysis on antipsychotic efficacy with schizophrenia: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736(19)31135-3

    A meta-analysis on antipsychotic efficacy with bipolar: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(19)31135-3/fulltext

    I think you’ll be glad to see the honesty with which authors discuss limitations and side effects, as well as future hopes for improvement. I’ll also include some on the heritability of schizophrenia and bipolar, since I discussed that in my original post:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28987712/ (You may have to pay to access more than the abstract. It’s the biggest twin study on schizophrenia heritability)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637882/

    Mental disorders are often divorced from reality and the DSM-5 seems to try to coerce science into supporting psychiatry; when it should be the other way around (psychiatry should support science, not go against it).

    Many psychiatrists do recognize the limitations of the DSM and a categorical approach! You’re totally right that the DSM and capitalism have led to problems in the field, and I can help explain a large portion of that: insurance. This is a problem for both therapists and psychiatrists, but it becomes more of a problem for psychiatrists. For therapists, if you aren’t self-pay, we have to have a diagnosis in the system soon after meeting a client for the first time. Ridiculous right? It absolutely is. We call these “preliminary diagnoses” to feel better about it, but many of us choose not to discuss the diagnosis at all unless the client desires to, feeling that DSM categories aren’t particularly helpful in forming case conceptualizations. This is especially true of some more recent therapeutic orientations, which consider themselves “transdiagnostic,” such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

    However, the psychiatrist has to have a diagnosis to give meds. This means that if he wants to treat someone for symptoms, but they don’t fully meet criteria of a disorder, he has to provide a diagnosis anyway if insurance is to pay for the patient’s medication. Perhaps you can begin to see how systemic factors that aren’t inherent to psychiatry itself have shaped psychiatry in its current state.

    There is a ton of erroneous studies on psychiatric topics; but this is likely the result of capitalism and the mental illness model. A study even reported on this topic.[1]

    I don’t disagree with this statement, as the replication crisis was a thing that affected psychology and then multiple other fields. I couldn’t see how your review of medications for autism evidenced this though. I’m wondering if you meant to link something else, or I just totally missed what you were saying. My short summary of that article would be “ASD medications are inadequate in treating core symptoms of ASD, but there are hugely variable outcomes (that unfortunately amount to a modest average) for individuals on symptoms related to their ASD.”

    As for the replication crisis itself, I think it’s worth noting that they studied if experts and laypeople could predict the replicability of a study, and both groups were able to do so significantly better than chance, with the experts getting it right the vast majority of the time: 1. https://joachimvosgerau.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/camerer-et-al-2018-nature-hb.pdf 2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2515245920919667

    This is because there are identifiable markers of plausibility in studies. For laypeople, this is more difficult to put to words, but for academics, it comes down to number of participants, effect size, and method. Good science can be done in social sciences; it just requires rigor, which all too often is admittedly not applied.

    Interestingly though, you don’t seem to have a major problem with psychology, the primary social science to come under fire during the replication crisis, but just psychiatry. I assumed you were against both because I had seen that people have previously tried to discuss this distinction on your posts in the sub, to little effect. My mistake with that assumption. Glad you cleared it up here!

    Edit: I meant to include this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592647/ I thought you might appreciate the different perspective on SSRIs. It also provides a generally unique approach to explaining why people take psychoactive medications that don’t perfectly address their primary presenting problem.

      • @saul_pimonOP
        link
        6
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That ASD medications fail to do their job is a somewhat fair assessment of that article, yeah. But that’s not a scandal, it’s something known. It’s a scandal if the potential benefits of the drugs are misrepresented to people, absolutely.

        Hugely variable means that some drugs really helped some individuals on some measure, but did absolutely nothing (and likely caused side effects) for others on that same measure, and the average of those came out to a modest benefit.

        Where my brief summary wasn’t accurate though is there aren’t really “ASD medications,” in that studies have always found they’re only occasionally helpful with symptoms associated with ASD, not the core criteria.

        And yes, critical thinking being emphasized more in our education could do so much to prevent bad science in the social sciences!

        As for your point about psychosis not always being schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder per se, that’s absolutely true. I am not advocating that anyone with hallucinations automatically be put on antipsychotics, with no other investigation! The people I was speaking of anecdotally usually had already suffered from psychosis for years, often along with low affect, a disorganized cognitive style and social difficulties that looked different depending on the person. These weren’t people with a thyroid problem their doctors were missing. Of course mistakes like that have been made before, by therapists and psychiatrists alike. We should always attempt to rule out potential medical explanations.