Other psychiatrists, however, believe that some good can come out of the CCHR’s work.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=20085
Associate Professor Jon Jureidini, head of psychological medicine at the University of Adelaide, stresses he is no Scientologist, but as an outspoken member of Healthy Skepticism he has often been critical of mainstream psychiatry – particularly around areas of overdiagnosis, excessive prescribing and questionable interpretation of the Mental Health Act.
As a result, CCHR sometimes sends him information, much of it obtained under FOI from the TGA and the Health Department. While some of it contains mistakes and misinterpretations, and he does not enter into correspondence, Professor Jureidini welcomes any moves to bring information into the open.
“There are reasonable grounds to be concerned about things that psychiatry does, and having strong critics, even if they are over the top, should be good for the profession, not bad for it,” he says.
“Some of it’s so ridiculous that you would be making a mistake to dignify it by getting angry about it, but other stuff they say has got some validity. So I think we need to refute the stuff that’s wrong, respond to the stuff that’s true in a constructive way, and ignore the stuff that’s silly.”
Darwin psychiatrist Dr Jock McLaren also appears highly regarded by CCHR, who quote him extensively on their Australian website.
He says his critique of mainstream psychiatry, and its lack of a clear scientific model, is “music to the ears” of CCHR, and since it is in the public domain, he does not mind them using it.26
Dr McLaren has also visited the exhibition at CCHR’s Los Angeles office and found the material to be largely factually accurate.
“There are different ways you can come at the question of what psychiatry does, and there are plenty of reasons for disagreeing with it. My disagreement is a matter of logic and rationality, not a question of aesthetics or human rights,” he says.
“The Church of Scientology’s argument against orthodox psychiatry probably is not what I would call a rational, scientific argument. But I don’t care – that’s their point of view.”
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=20085
Associate Professor Jon Jureidini, head of psychological medicine at the University of Adelaide, stresses he is no Scientologist, but as an outspoken member of Healthy Skepticism he has often been critical of mainstream psychiatry – particularly around areas of overdiagnosis, excessive prescribing and questionable interpretation of the Mental Health Act.
As a result, CCHR sometimes sends him information, much of it obtained under FOI from the TGA and the Health Department. While some of it contains mistakes and misinterpretations, and he does not enter into correspondence, Professor Jureidini welcomes any moves to bring information into the open.
“There are reasonable grounds to be concerned about things that psychiatry does, and having strong critics, even if they are over the top, should be good for the profession, not bad for it,” he says.
“Some of it’s so ridiculous that you would be making a mistake to dignify it by getting angry about it, but other stuff they say has got some validity. So I think we need to refute the stuff that’s wrong, respond to the stuff that’s true in a constructive way, and ignore the stuff that’s silly.”
Darwin psychiatrist Dr Jock McLaren also appears highly regarded by CCHR, who quote him extensively on their Australian website.
He says his critique of mainstream psychiatry, and its lack of a clear scientific model, is “music to the ears” of CCHR, and since it is in the public domain, he does not mind them using it.26
Dr McLaren has also visited the exhibition at CCHR’s Los Angeles office and found the material to be largely factually accurate.
“There are different ways you can come at the question of what psychiatry does, and there are plenty of reasons for disagreeing with it. My disagreement is a matter of logic and rationality, not a question of aesthetics or human rights,” he says.
“The Church of Scientology’s argument against orthodox psychiatry probably is not what I would call a rational, scientific argument. But I don’t care – that’s their point of view.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.