Szasz Under Fire: The Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics

by Jeffrey A. Schaler (Editor)

Since he published The Myth of Mental Illness in 1961, professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz has been the scourge of the psychiatric establishment. In dozens of books and articles, he has argued passionately and knowledgeably against compulsory commitment of the mentally ill, against the war on drugs, against the insanity defense in criminal trials, against the "diseasing" of voluntary humanpractices such as addiction and homosexual behavior, against the drugging of schoolchildren with Ritalin, and for the right to suicide. Most controversial of all has been his denial that "mental illness" is a literal disease, treatable by medical practitioners.
In Szasz Under Fire, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other leading experts who disagree with Szasz on specific issues explain the reasons, with no holds barred, and Szasz replies cogently and pungently to each of them. Topics debated include the nature of mental illness, the right to suicide, the insanity defense, the use and abuse of drugs, and the responsibilities of psychiatrists and therapists. These exchanges are preceded by Szasz's autobiography and followed by a bibliography of his works.

Genres: Psychology

352 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2003

Reviews

[Owlseyes]

These are some sparse notes I took from a video; Jeffrey is addressing an audience; his way of thinking is very close to doctor Thomas Szazs.
1-Psychiatrists invented their book of diseases (the DSM* manual: a great work of fiction).
2-A [physical] disease is discovered and included in the Pathology manual; a patient “has” something (cancer for example); it takes ONE person for diagnosis. Instead (in the case of mental disease): the DSM was invented,,…the “patient” “does” something ….it takes TWO people for diagnosis.
3-Diagnosis is a weapon; something used when dealing with a power conflict. Treatment of mental diseases is punishment.
4-“what psychiatrists would do if Jesus or Gautama were alive”;….
5-Jeffrey appealed to the “resistance to the Psychiatric Gestapo”….the “great Inquisitors”.


---
*The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

SZASZ FACES HIS CHALLENGERS

Psychologist and editor Jeffrey Schaler wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, "'Szasz Under Fire' is the first in a series of ... books which will confront controversial writers with their intellectual critics. Szasz is particularly suited to this project because of his unusually polarizing influence. Szasz's writings have provoked both extraordinary praise and extraordinary denunciation. Critics have been invited both on their knowledgeability and their strong disagreement with Szasz." (Pg. xxii)

Schaler further notes, "Though Szasz has been called an 'anti-psychiatrist,' he rejects the label... Szasz is against coercion, not 'psychiatry between consenting adults.' ... The state has no business inside a person's head, according to Szasz... Szasz has also been a practicing psychotherapist. When practicing psychotherapy, Szasz claims that he is not doing what 'mental health professionals' usually claim to be doing. As Szasz prefers to describe it, he is having conversations with people about their problems." (Pg. xiv)

One commentator admits, "Dr. Szasz is perfectly justified ... in drawing attention to the fact that psychiatry does differ from all other branches of medicine... in the sense that most of the disorders it recognizes are still defined by their syndromes; and that at a time when psychiatrists are claiming to recognize an ever widening range of mental disorders, this leaves them vulnerable to accusations of unjustified medicalization of deviant behavior and the vicissitudes of everyday life.'" (Pg. 33)

Szasz replies to one critic, "My motives for engaging in a systematic criticism of psychiatry were primarily moral and political, and secondarily epistemological and medical. I wanted to show that psychiatry's two paradigmatic procedures---conventionally called 'mental hospitalization' and the 'insanity defense'---are moral wrongs as well as violations of the political principles of the free society based on the rule of law." (Pg. 159) To another critic, he says, "The Therapeutic State is not ruled by psychiatrists. It is ruled by politicians imbued with the faith of medicine (therapy), much as the Theological State, exemplified by Saudi Arabia, is ruled by politicians imbued with the faith of religion (Islam). In the United States, the Therapeutic State is ruled by a coalition composed of politicians... and their wives... the American Medical Association, the state medical associations, and the various health lobbies; the public health establishment... and the mental health lobby." (Pg. 173-174)

He responds to Stanton Peele [author of books such as 'The Diseasing of America: How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control,' etc.], "Peele sees the addict as a helpless victim. I see him as a capable moral agent, sometimes doing and enjoying what he wants to do and annoying others in the process; sometimes victimizing himself or others by his behavior... I ask, if people SUFFER from addiction and mental illness, why don't they seek treatment for these drug alleged diseases? Addicts spend money, sometimes a lot of money, on drugs. Why don't they spend the money on drug addiction treatment?" (Pg. 196-197)

[Neal Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

The premise is appealing: a kind of written debate in which Szasz responds to a series of critiques of his psychiatric tenets. The fundamental one is that "mental illness" is a misnomer for suffering caused by problems in living. In other words, what we call mental illness should not be part of medicine's remit. This logic implies that, for example, coercive psychiatric treatments are at best abuses and at worst torture; that mental incompetence is not a valid criminal defence; and that anyone has the right to end their own life.

Mixed results are to be expected in an edited book, but here the chapters don't always meet basic academic standards. In particular, the supercilious contribution from Rita Simon is barely two pages long, and needn't have been dignified by Szasz' detailed response.

Some of the contributing authors are sympathetic – one even identifies as a Szaszian – others less so. The format gives Szasz the last word against each, and, in my opinion, his acerbic and erudite style makes rhetorical mincemeat of most of them.

Finally, the cover design is objectionable, with a photo of Szasz in the middle of cross hairs, as if targeted by a rifle.