By Leonard Roy Frank
Thank you, Ilana Mercer, for performing a valuable public service by publishing Thomas Szasz’s extraordinary essay, “Coercion as Cure“! For 50 years now Dr. Szasz has courageously challenged the ideology and practice of coercive psychiatry. In the revised edition (1974) of his landmark work “The Myth of Mental Illness” (1961), he stated some of the major principles underlying his critique. They are worth repeating here:
-“Disease or illness can affect only the body; hence, there can be no mental illness.
-‘Mental illness’ is a metaphor. Minds can be ‘ sick’ only in the sense that jokes are ‘sick’ or economics are ‘ sick.’
-Psychiatric diagnoses are stigmatizing labels, phrased to resemble medical diagnoses and applied to persons whose behavior annoys or offends others….
-If there is no mental illness there can be no hospitalization, treatment, or cure for it….
The introduction of psychiatric considerations into the administration of the criminal law — for example, the insanity plea and verdict, diagnoses of mental incompetence to stand trial, and so forth — corrupt the law and victimize the subject on whose behalf they are ostensibly employed….
There is no medical, moral, or legal justification for involuntary psychiatric interventions. They are crimes against humanity.”
That the psychiatric profession and society at large have mostly ignored Dr. Szasz’s critique helps explain the deplorable state of the current “mental health system.” More and more people are being labeled with psychiatric “diseases” as more and more diagnoses are being conjured up. Philippe Pinel (1745-1826), the “father of modern psychiatry,” had only four categories of what was then called “insanity,” but in 1952 the American Psychiatric Association described about 106 “mental illness” categories in its “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,” and its 4th edition published in 1994 had 374 such categories.
As was true on a smaller scale in Pinel’s time, psychiatric violence, coercion and deception are today standard operating procedures: e.g., “mental patients” who refuse psychiatry’s powerful drugs, called “medications,” are held down and forcibly injected. These drugs, especially in large doses, are frightening in their effect but the bottom line is that sooner or later they make the individual feel mentally, emotionally and physically wasted. Moreover, the longer the drugs are taken, the more likely they are to cause permanent brain damage and other, sometimes life-threatening and life-shortening, medical problems. And even when consented to, the consent is likely to be fraudulent because psychiatrists seldom supply accurate and full information about the risks involved in taking these drugs.
In addition to the many millions of adults being subjected to this kind of abuse, psychiatrists and other physicians, in a practice almost unheard of a generation ago, are “prescribing” a variety of psychiatric drugs to an estimated 5-10 million children and adolescents. The drugs will cause many of these youngsters to become habitual psychiatric- and street-drug users and eventually “chronic mental patients.”
There has also been a resurgence in the use of electroshock (electroconvulsive treatment, ECT). Since 1940 more than 6 million people in this country alone have undergone this brainwashing, brain-damaging, and memory-destroying procedure. Even today, more than 100,000 Americans are being electroshocked every year.
Coercive psychiatry may be defined as the use of psychiatric methods by means of outright force and intimidation or in the absence of genuine informed consent to “treat” non-existent “diseases,” diseases for which there are no proven physical markers.
There is no way to calculate the amount of suffering coercive psychiatry has caused and continues to cause those individuals directly affected. Nor is there any way to assess the degree to which coercive psychiatry has undermined and continues to undermine the values and moral standing of every society in which it operates.
In “The Second Sin” (1973), Dr. Szasz anticipated the coming of “the Therapeutic State” in which “the principal requirement for the position of Big Brother may be an M.D. degree.” In such a state, the prevailing creed of “therapeutism” will justify “proclaiming undying love for those we hate, and inflicting merciless punishment on them in the name of treating them for diseases whose principal symptoms are their refusal to submit to our domination.”
Two questions need to be asked: 1) How close are we to “the Therapeutic State” which would necessarily result in the loss of our freedom, and 2) What are we, the people, going to do to prevent its establishment?
—Leonard Roy Frank, Editor, The Random House Webster’s Quotationary
Terrific letter Mr. Frank, you spell out this medical tyranny quite clearly.
A hundred years ago, a little boy would work out his God-given energy and enthusiasm by chopping wood, working the farm, or walking to school. Now children are confined to their apartments because it is too dangerous to play outside, are told to sit all day in class and then go home to a t.v. set, and are strapped inside cars and buses. There is no freedom of movement, no open space, no safe neighborhoods.
That’s our fault, not theirs.
I don’t trust experts anymore, especially in the medical and psychiatric fields. Dr. Szasz however, is the exception.
Psychiatry is a “medicine” that is based on the “science” of psychology.
These essays and commentary raise important points.
Why so few investigations about the abuse that inevitably flows from secrecy? Do large news organizations feel threatened and agree to self-censorship? [After witnessing the presstitutes’ lack of critical reaction to the war, it has to be obvious that we simply live in the age of stupidity and statism–ILANA] Fear of loss of advertisers? Even so-called public media is heavily supported by drug companies–just give a listen to your PBS stations.
Why not have mental “treatment” facilities open to the public? Confidentiality blocks accountability and can often shield criminal action and/or failure to disclose. Why do drug companies and others demand sealed settlements?
Related to this topic: California attorneys are required to take continuing legal education courses on Substance Abuse. Yesterday I attended a seminar that touted the State-Bar funded legal Assistance Program that provides free treatment or loans in all 58 counties for attorneys who volunteer to follow a treatment program for substance abuse or mental health problems. Statistics cited the huge number of impaired attorneys. The final statement of the presenter was “We know coerced treatment works.”
Even some patient/survivor groups that formerly opposed or at least questioned the value of psychiatric labels are acceding. It appears that influence or even the hope of influence is a powerful motivator for rationalization.