The Field of Psychiatry and the Mental State of Individuals - Essay Example

Thomas Szasz’s arguments against psychiatry Thomas Szasz was one of the most influential psychiatrists in thetwentieth and twenty first centuries and this was mainly as a result of his stance against the modern practice of psychiatry which he believed was not based on reality. The arguments that Szasz made against psychiatry are quite significant because they led to a questioning of the manner through which this field had come to use medical terms in order to legitimise itself in society. The arguments that Szasz made were as follows: that psychiatrists are heirs to the old theocratic order; that psychiatry is against autonomy and individual choice; psychiatry is based on false assumptions which cannot be proven; and finally, that psychiatry should be a means through which there is an attempt to help individuals understand themselves and others in society. One of the most significant arguments made by Szasz against psychiatry is that psychiatrists are successors to priests and other religious figures. This succession came about through getting directly involved in the attempt to solve the various problems that seem to be plaguing individuals, especially in the case where it was believed that these individuals needed spiritual intervention (Szasz 1974, p.181). He argues that this is exactly the case with modern psychiatry where practitioners seek to classify the various problems of living that some individuals in society might have as mental illnesses. The argument of classification is strength because it creates a situation where the psychiatrist comes to have incredible control over the lives of his patients and this in such a manner that he is able to determine what he would like to do with them. That psychiatrists have a level of power over their patients comes about through their being able to recommend that they be confined in mental institutions for a certain period as a means of treating their mental illnesses. It creates a situation where it is extremely difficult for individuals in society to escape the clutches of control because psychiatrists, using medical terms, act as priests did using religious terms, can still impose control over those who have put their faith in them. A weakness of this argument is that it does not attempt to show the origins of the behaviours which can be considered as not being normal within human society. Such behaviours include the mentality of murderers who do not feel remorse for their actions despite the latter being horrific. However, one would agree with Szasz’z argument because it is a means of showing the manner through which all human beings are unique because despite all social norms and expectations, all individuals tend to behave and react differently to them. Some individuals choose to conform while others rebel and this is the basis upon which autonomy in the natural sense is developed. Another argument that Szasz makes is that psychiatry is a field which is against individual autonomy and choice and that it is based on absolute control (Szasz 1974, p.149). He argues that it is as a result of the development of psychiatry that a significant number of individuals, who have been classified as mentally ill, have been incarcerated. This has been mainly as a result of the society’s acceptance of the legitimacy of this field which has ensured that the belief in mental illness is a basic part of life. A strength of this argument is that it allows for the development of a better understanding of the manner through which some individuals in society, it not all, have come to be classified as being mentally ill or not. This creates a situation where it is difficult for those who are believed to be mentally ill to be understood because psychiatrists concentrate only in trying to treat them rather than understanding them and therefore coming up with proper ways of helping them other than trying to enforce societal norms. However, this argument can also be countered by stating that it does not provide alternatives to helping individuals who are suffering from life’s problems because no one can truly understand how these individuals think and the best way through which they can be helped to solve their problems in life. Therefore, it can be argued that psychiatry is still the best way through which such individuals can be helped until better solutions are developed. Without the use of psychiatric methods, it would be extremely difficult to have order in the modern world and it is a weakness for Szasz’s argument that psychiatry is against individual autonomy because it does not provide any viable alternatives. However, despite psychiatric methods being useful for the moment, it is essential to note that there tends to be no research going beyond the traditional practices in ensuring that there is a better understanding of patients and their motivations. Instead, there have continued to be an increase in labelling in such a manner that more behaviour are being termed as mental illnesses without proper understanding of them being achieved. Szasz argues that the field of psychiatry is not based on scientific fact and is instead based on assumptions concerning the mental state of individuals. This argument stands against all that psychiatry is all about because it brings about a circumstance where its entire practice becomes questionable. Szasz argues that psychiatry is a means through which doctors have come to have a semblance of control over the population because most of the mental illnesses that are mentioned tend to be based, in one way or the other, on control. From Szasz’s work, one would argue that mental illnesses were invented as a means of ensuring that the status quo was retained so that individuals in society, for example women, did not act in a manner that went against the patriarchal system that has essentially remained dominant to this day. Szasz gives the example of Charcot’s research on hysteria which he believes to be a mental illness that was developed as a means of bringing under control those women who seemed to want to act independently of the men in their lives (Szasz 1974, p.17). This is a very strong argument against the assumption that mental illnesses exist because it ensures that there is a questioning of the manner through which these diseases were developed by psychiatrists as well as the uncertainty of their origins. For Szasz, mental illnesses are based on faith, so that it is only through society believing that they exist that they come to be recognised as diseases; meaning that they are diseases based on faith rather than reality. Psychiatry should be a means through which psychiatrists are able to help individuals in society understand themselves and others in order to get over their problems of living. This is an essential argument made by Szasz to justify his stance against mental illness and its deep involvement in psychiatric practice. Psychiatrists have essentially become wardens over their patients because the latter, through their blind faith in them, have come to believe that they are mentally ill when the former should be helping them to understand themselves. It is through the invention of mental illnesses, diseases which cannot be proven to exist, that there developed a justification for the field of psychiatry. Without such illnesses, as well as the use of scientific terms to describe them, psychiatry would not be as prominent a field as it is today and it would have lost credibility. It should be noted that psychiatrists in the modern world, for the most part only diagnose their patients’ illnesses yet do not take active steps to understand them and through this understanding, help them to live their lives as autonomously as possible. Instead, those who are believed to be severely ill tend to be incarcerated in mental institutions where they no longer have free will and have to submit to the whims of the psychiatrists overseeing their case. The severity of mental illnesses tend to be based on assumptions rather than an understanding of the individuals involved and this creates a situation where there is a possibility that most behaviours that go against social expectations will come to be defined as mental illnesses that need treatment. One would therefore agree with Szasz that the field of psychiatry is based on a lie and that has to be reviewed in a bid to make it more scientific rather than sound scientific. In conclusion, the discussion above has attempted to show some of strengths and weaknesses of the arguments made by Szasz against the modern psychiatric practice. It has been observed that among the arguments is that psychiatrists are successors to priests and other religious figures who seek to have absolute control over their patients. Furthermore, the discussion has shown that psychiatry is a field which is against individual autonomy and choice and that it is based on absolute control. Moreover, this is a field that is not based on scientific fact and is instead based on assumptions concerning the mental state of individuals. Finally, Szasz argues that psychiatry should be a means through which psychiatrists are able to help individuals understand themselves and others in order to get over their problems of living. Reference Szasz, T., 1961. The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of the Theory of Personal Conduct. New York, Harper and Row Publishers. Read More