Sacred radical of psychiatry.
At least a dozen articles in this journal have referred directly to the psychiatry of Thomas Szasz, even favourably on occasions. Szasz makes no distinction between the occupational statuses of mental health workers and so his work is relevant to nurses. Szasz's central claims take on renewed vitality given recent developments in forensic care, especially in Britain. In this article, I criticize Szasz's rationale of what constitutes illness as opposed to disease. In addition, I question - in a nuanced way - his views on custodial psychiatry and his use of history to bolster his clams. I also comment on recent developments in biological research and their implications for diagnosing schizophrenia: further, I link the question of such diagnoses to Szasz's assertion that private contracts are the definitive test of what counts as mental illness. Lastly, I ask if improvements in mental health care contradict Szaszian criticisms and/or his seeming inability/unwillingness to acknowledge such changes.
Clarke
L
L
Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Society Science, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, UK. w.f.clarke@bton.ac.uk
D001294:Attitude to Health; D001689:Biological Psychiatry / Q000266:history*; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000266:history; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000266:history; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000266:history*; D010686:Philosophy, Medical / Q000266:history*; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000266:history; D011287:Prejudice; D011570:Psychiatry / Q000266:history*; D012559:Schizophrenia / Q000266:history*; D012660:Semantics; D013561:Symbolism; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States