Psychiatry - Edward Shorter in the news today

[Old Bones]

Here's a link to an article published today in several newspapers:

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/edmonton-journal/20170111/281818578519567

"New U of T (Toronto, Canada) grant backs studies in 'anti-psychiatry'
Field 'does not stand up to scrutiny' "

Professor Bonnie Burstow, considered to have radical ideas, has convinced the University of Toronto to back a scholarship for studies in "antipsychiatry". She states:

"Psychiatry's tenets and claims do not stand up to scrutiny. . . . I am saying these are not diseases . . . There is not a single proof of a single chemical imbalance of a single so-called mental illness."

Here's where Shorter comes in. He is reported as having said that such statements are simply "absurd", that thousands of scientific studies, now incorporating sophisticated imaging of the brain - bolster the idea that biology is behind many psychological conditions and that various treatments do, in fact, work.

"This is a case where academic freedom should be quashed."

Could this be interpreted to mean that Shorter is starting to change his views? I have to admit the article left me scratching my head regarding Shorter's position, in the context of what we've heard from him in the past.

 

[Esther12]

I wouldn't try to find any sort of logically consistent position from Shorter.

 

[Snow Leopard]

No.

 

[hixxy]

I wouldn't try to find any sort of logically consistent position from Shorter.

I think you'll find that for many psychiatrists this is a logically consistent position. They seem to think that faulty thought processes can actually lead to the mentioned biology rather than the biology leading to the faulty thought processes.

 

[alex3619]

Antipsychiatry or Scientific psychiatry? There is some science behind some disorders, and lots of non-scientific academic work behind most of the rest. I want to see all psychiatry have a scientific basis. Without that it belongs in alternative medicine at best, and not in medicine. Even drug based psychiatric therapies are frequently weakly supported. There is not much doubt that, for example in depression, a subset will do very well on some antidepressants. The evidence is much weaker for the rest.

I think the NIMH in the USA are working on alterative diagnostic criteria, based on science. I don't know how well they are doing, but somebody has to do it.