This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Australian Government doesn’t recognize that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs is anything to worry about for the overwhelming majority of patients, so doctors here know only what the pharmaceutical companies and the expert advisory bodies influenced by those companies want them to know, which is effectively nothing useful to the patient.
This connection between mental health and the use of battlefield and warfare metaphors has meaningful implications for how people perceive and cope with mental health conditions, influencing how care goals are set and treatment plans are designed. In this ‘garden’ model, mental health is seen as a collective, dynamic cultivation process.
Clearly, this influences whether they are regarded as ‘ill’ or as distressed, whether they might be considered dangerous, incapable, threatening and so on. There are many voices articulating the need for politicians and others with influence to act against growing levels of material inequality, but these tend to fall on deaf ears.
Our hormones, our gut health, micronutrient deficiencies, the degree to which we have inflammatory molecules coursing through our bloodstream—there’s an enormous influence from food. But society then became fully entrenched in the idea that mental health is a genetic or a chemical imbalance, which worked too well for pharmaceutical marketing.
This implies that the construct of ‘schizophrenia’ is, contrary to decades of critique and the admissions of DSM committee members themselves, a reliable and valid way of categorising a certain group of people. Rather like its perspective on diagnosis, the neurodiversity perspective on disability is confused and confusing.
Either you must admit that you’re on honest person, weather pending, or you have to be flexible with social constructs like “sick” or “honest.” But we have two clues that influence such a choice: 1) What problem are they trying to solve and 2) How much control do they have over the situation? I’ll mention two. billion worldwide.
This person inspires us, influences us, informs us, guides us. They are both influenced by John C. Bill’s weekly show features the biggest influencers, innovators and success stories in America. Veronica Figueroa is an award-winning real estate influencer and keynote speaker. Wouldn’t it be nice to know more of them?
and of course a host of pharmaceutical drugs. But these patternsseen as symptomsare shaped by systems and constructs psychiatry rarely questions. This expectation is not rooted in nature but in societal constructs that prioritize conformity and productivity over individuality and healing.
The mechanization of production enabled unprecedented accumulation of wealth, which, in turn, translated into political influence. Economic systems are portrayed as immutable laws of nature, obscuring the fact that they are human constructs. This trend continues today.
H ow can psychiatry maintain its authority and influence despite its repeated scientific failures and lack of progress—now even acknowledged by key members of the psychiatric establishment and the mainstream media? How can psychiatry retain its authority and influence despite its scientific failures? Evolutionary geneticist R.C.
97 Allen Frances, 683 and other prominent figures in the field, including Insel 684 and his predecessor Steven Hyman, 685 acknowledge that the disorders in the DSM manual have never been validated as discrete illnesses, and that the diagnostic categories are constructs. 689 His paper is a classic example of how one should not do a review.
That had a profound influence on me. My father was also a major influence. We studied Freud, Jung, and even some existentialist thinkers, and suddenly, all those early influences from my parents clicked into place. She was deeply involved in critical psychiatry and critiques of the pharmaceutical industry.
Another key influence on my thinking was Jack Martin. And could you say a bit about which authors or theorists have influenced your thinking on this topic? They are not fixed, universal truths; they are constructed within particular historical and social moments. Reading it was a profoundly humbling and eye-opening experience.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content