I’m putting this in GD because, even though the OP is based on a book, it’s a non-fiction book and the topic seems very “GD’ish”…
I just finished reading “Mad In America,” a scathing look at the history of mental health care in America. The first three quarters were simply nasueating (e.g., psychiatrists describing lobotomy patients as “house pets” as if that were a desireable thing), but what I found the most disturbing was the author’s description of more recent trends.
His central thesis seems to be: Antipsychotic medications, both the old (e.g., thorazine) and the newer so-called “atypicals” (e.g., risperidone), have, overall, a strongly negative impact on those forced to take them, and are less effective then treatment that doesn’t involve psychotropic drugs. The reason drugs are the preferred therapy is because psychiatrists (and now drug companies) have a long history of latching on to financially promising new therapies, and then concocting studies to prove how succesful they are, often using sureal definitions of “success” and other bogus methodologies. Sometimes they get arround to policing themselves, but the perceptions of the public are already set.
The book is chock full of cites–too many to wade through. I do get the impression that he’s skimpy on some details (possibly because the intended audience may include people who don’t have the background for or interest in them): for example, he tells of a study of a drug-free residential program with groundbreaking results that the NIMH short-funded because of methodolgy errors, but then gives very little information on what the specific charges were.
So, to those who have read this book or are familiar with the topic: Rebut (or support) his thesis. I really want to believe that we aren’t grossly exploiting a vulnerable segment of the population in order to make money for pharmaceutical companies and psych docs, but after reading this book that’s exactly what I think is happening…