On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:31:25AM -0400, Smitty wrote:
> You just framed the question! You originally stated that we had to be
> "perfect" and psychiatry has never, ever produced a "perfect" individual,
> unless you define perfect as being in a stupor, sedated, or dead. Now
> you add that it does not hurt to improve your body or mind through
> gentle, positive means, when that was not even a point of disagreement.
> There are many ways to do that: Study, clean living in a free and
> responsible community.
No . . . YOU said we were perfect when you claimed everyone does not
need treatments. *I* said it's nature to not be perfect. Reread the
thread.
> > Medical schools don't bother with it for two reasons, that I'm aware
> > of. First, there's no entity driving research with large amounts of money.
> > The second reason is a byproduct of the first, that being, there's no hard
> > research that says, "Homoeopathic treatment works this way because of
> > $foo."
>
> Actually in the last decade there has been a number of double blind
> studies done on homeopathic remedies that proved beyond a doubt there was
> no "placebo effect", which is in truth, a euphemism for a confidence
> trick employed by an unscrupulous doctor.
If you can cite them, I'll ask some contacts at various medical school
administrations why they were discounted. ;)
> If the field of psychiatry truly wanted to clean itself up, then why have they
> not used their lobbyists and pr people to push:
The field is not a single entity. That's like saying, "Why doesn't
Linux sue Microsoft?"
> 1. Outlawing electric shock treatment in all states and outlawing the
> manufacture, sale, and possession of devices made for that purpose?
Here here!
> 2. actively promoting and using environmental medicine, nutritional
> medicine, chronic disease screening, and homeopathy?
Since the patient's treatment is advised on behalf of the physician, I
think you would see significant upheaval about being FORCED to recommend a
treatment method.
> 3. Outlawing brain operations done for the sole purpose of "altering
> behavior"?
How do you think that will come into play with prisoners WANTING
chemical castration?
> 4. Repealing "civil commitment" laws as they are nothing but legalized
> police state seizure and incarceration?
Amen.
> I will give you my answer: It is because the vast majority really
> support such practices, even though they SAY they oppose them for public
> relations reasons. It is one thing to insipidly voice opposition, and
> entirely another thing to effectively DO something about a situation.
Right, so why're you still complaining? :) Go DO something about it.
> They have no excuse for not cleaning up their field.
> Smitty
>
--
- Isaiah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:36 EDT