I'm not qualified to SAY, but this is how I've always felt.
@meleigh maybe you should go back again and read it all the way through. Dr. Mosher was a part of the APA for 35 years! I agree that prescriptions have flooded the mental health arena, but they are not altogether useless. I find it hard to fully accept the DSM assessment. When a client is diagnosed with "X", they become their diagnosis, so it seems difficult to continue categorizing PEOPLE by their disease, who are high in certain traits, or lacking other traits. In that same vane, though, without a thorough catalog illnesses, it is difficult to help the people who are suffering with them.
Dr Mosher is correct: drugs play a role (any psychology student could tell you that) but the therapeutic alliance and talk therapy are equally important. You can prescibe all the drugs you want, but many people with disorders are still going to not want to always take their meds.
Great letter. I'm not anti-psychiatry at all but it seems there is often far too much emphasis on drugs and money making. Less so here in the UK but it seems to be a bit like that in the US.
A very powerful and insightful piece from someone (formerly) on the "inside". Of course, the use of psychotropic drugs CAN, and DO help SOME patients who otherwise would not be able to live full, healthy, independent lives. But, we are a "quick-fix" society, and we love the prestidigitation of "wonder drugs" and "wonder cures". The "Wow!" factor is like a drug in itself. The days of doctors and patients, jointly, exploring, recanting, reflecting, the myriad of factors (externally) that might be both cause and reason for "dis-ease" seem to be a thing of the past. Patients can now seek help, and, more times that not, I'm sure, even reference a "television commercial" that described (featured) their "dis-ease".
America is a land of the New Junkie! How many hustle-bustle, on-the-go individuals located in "Anycity, USA" during lunch hour, in their respective downtown, or corporate park, have popped an "anti-anxiety-prescription" - "Momma's Little Helper" that morning, or afternoon? And, WHY? are many (and,certainly not all!) taking these "Meds"? - (1) Stress from boy-friend/girl-friend break-up (2) The Demands from work, are a few that I've "personally" had people tell ME!
SUCK IT UP BITCHES!! IT'S CALLED LIFE, AND MANY TIMES IT'S HARD AS HELL/NO FUN!
They're hooked like a friggin' fish, and can't make it through the day without their DRUGS, and scarier still, can't easily quit if they wanted too, due to the countless number of people who try to, and end up experiencing such acute psychological trauma & delirium that many kill themselves, or harm themselves in some other needless manner. No different from the "Junkie-Junkie" who gets his or her DRUGS from "That Guy". It's the "That Guy" vs. "Dr. Feel Good" that drives me insane.
I'm not condoning the use of "recreational drugs" (and, nor am I going to curse it), but if "That Guy" is a Pusher of Shit, then so are the Pharmaceutical Companies. Only, their "Shit" usually costs a hell of a lot more, and it ain't always "that good".
Drug companies have "Customers/Clients For Life" and psychiatrists provide many of the members.
I admire this man for his words and his deed. KUDOS!!!
I very much appreciate his analysis and input. I've seen the amount of time psychiatrists dealing with average to low income patients in rural Arizona spend with patients decrease from little to almost none, and most of that time is spent in dealing with prescriptions. From personal observation, unless the patient has an advocate (if not a counselor)who is knowledgeable about them and their illness, the doctor rarely gets a full picture of the patients problems and the effects medications are having on them. I don't think the APA is entirely at fault, though I agree their united support for change would help matters a lot. The drug and insurance industries seem to be dictating or influencing a lot more policies in both physical and mental health than they're remotely qualified to, to the eventual detriment of those who are ill. It seems like DSM diagnoses would be more helpful if they were guidelines for helping to diagnose rather than a rigid classification system that dictates a specific medication regimin without closely observing the patient or that a patient has to fit into in order to receive insurance benefits. Thank you, Dr. Mosher!
Absolutely stunning! I wish I had stumbled upon this material ten years ago. Dr. Mosher is a true asset to his profession and to those who follow him--both patients and professionals.
In my unfortunately long experience with psychiatrists, I have seen (circa 1970's) those who knew little but cared alot (and acted like communication between patient and doctor meant something) to 10 minute sessions with people who mainly write prescriptions for a living, and cannot remember anything that has happened in their interactions with you due to their incredible caseload (of 10 minute patients). A bizarre, disturbing, and sometimes terrorizing experience. I now see a family physician for my psychiatric drug needs. The stresses, costs, etc. are miles apart. My family physician actually recognizes me, although I see him little more than I saw my last psychiatrist.
OK, I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing. From what I did read, it kind of seemed like scientologist propaganda.
Yup, meds can be a two edged sword.
A comprehensive explanation of what psychiatry has become nowadays.
From the page: "Biologically based brain diseases are convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against personal responsibility. We are just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent example). So, to be consistent with this "brain disease" view all the major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them
I believe they would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals. However, consistency would demand our giving over "biologic brain diseases" to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership."
An extremely eloquent brave stance. It can only better organisations, and lead to a greater understanding by the public if insiders dissent.