Psychiatric PseudoMedicine

From: Ian Goddard (
Date: Mon May 22 2000 - 11:23:47 MDT

  The following comment on Sasha's shocking and tragic
  death evoked that which follows that quoted comment.
  I realize I'm assuming Sasha took his own life and I
  don't know that for a fact, but that seems to be the
  situation based on the many posts I just read in the
  extropian-list archive. I apologize to Sasha's family
  if in fact his death was not a suicide...

On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:20:15 -0400, you wrote:

>> Reading between the lines, I gather that Sasha took his own life.

> ...It helps to have strong transhumanist beliefs, though not
> always. In the end it's all about chemical (dis)balances, and
> mental illness can smash even the most rational belief system
> to bits.

   IAN: It's tragic for we the living that Sasha,
   such a bright, creative, and motivated person
   killed himself. It's bewildering and inexplicable.
   But just because we don't like it and it hurts us
   does not mean it was a symptom of a disease, and
   thus that brilliant Sasha had a diseased mind. It
   means that Sasha, for whatever reasons, valued
   nonexistence over existence. It was a subjective
   value judgement. To define subjective personal
   value judgements as a disease is to presume that
   there is some kind of objective value judgement,
   and thus all contrary judgments are diseased by
   definition and to be eradicated by corrective and
   often coercive "medical" intervention. I tend to
   side with Thomas Szasz, that psychiatry is social
   control masquerading as a branch of medicine.

   As convincing as biological theories of so-called
   "psychiatric illnesses" can be, I believe they may
   fail under critical analysis. Enjoyment of music can
   be linked to neurological conditions, but that does
   not mean enjoying music is a brain disease. Feeling
   good can be linked to neurological conditions, but
   that does not mean feeling good is a mental illness.
   So too, feeling bad can be linked to neurological
   conditions, but that does not mean it's a disease.

   It seems as if biological psychiatry assumes that
   all that's needed to be done is show that there are
   specific neurological conditions that can be linked
   to the mental states some have defined as "diseased."
   If serotonin can be shown to be lower in those with
   depression or who committed suicide, then it's been
   established that depression is a biological disease;
   but that does nothing of the sort. The "disease"
   label is still a subjective value judgement that
   the given behaviors or feelings are not appropriate
   and should be corrected. Even if the mental states are
   a result of specific attributes of serotonin metabolism
   that are genetic, this is no more evidence of a disease,
   or genetic disease, than claiming that ugly big noses
   are a disease because a big nose can be linked to
   inherited biological developmental "abnormalities."

   If people are unhappy with their biological state then
   they can try to modify it. But just because a person
   is unhappy with their nose does not mean their nose
   is a disease. Psychiatry should be viewed in terms of
   cosmetic, not medical, intervention. Is a big nose
   right or wrong? Is suicidal depression right or wrong?
   Those are value judgements that need to be left to
   the individual. Biological psychiatry is like cosmetic
   surgeons going around defining ugliness as a disease
   that must be treated with "medical" interventions.

   As much as we grieve over the loss of Sasha, and
   over realizing how much more he could have contributed
   had he chose life over death, we have to respect his
   choices, however much they hurt us. It is wrong for
   us to tell Sasha his value judgement was a disease;
   doing so is imposing our values on others in such a
   way that it inflicts injury on those with other values.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:30 MDT