BMJ  2003;327:1449-1451 (20 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1449

Ward round

The psychiatric protection order for the "battered mental patient"

¹ Department of Psychiatry, Upstate Medical University, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA

Psychiatric patients are routinely treated against their will. Legally enforceable psychiatric protection orders would protect patients from coercive psychiatric interventions

The avowed desires of patients and doctors conflict more often in psychiatry than in any other branch of medicine. People known as "mental patients" are routinely subjected to "diagnostic" and "therapeutic" interventions against their will. Many such people see being committed (sectioned) and treated against their will as a personal violation—a "psychiatric abuse"—and want to protect themselves from future involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation and treatment. At present former psychiatric patients, even when legally competent, have no means to defend themselves from such a contingency.

Mental health laws—reflecting the point of view of psychiatrists and society—protect (or are said to protect) mentally ill patients from the dangers they pose, because of their illness, to themselves and others. Many mental patients view—and have always viewed—psychiatrists as posing a danger to them. Respect for the self defined interests of such patients requires that the law protect them from further unwanted psychiatric interventions.

The psychiatric protection order

Courts recognise the validity of "psychiatric wills" (psychiatric advance directives) only when they prospectively authorise treatment; courts do not recognise them when the "psychiatric testator" rejects psychiatric "help."¹ To remedy this defect, especially when patients are released into the community after a period of involuntary treatment for mental illness, I propose a new legal safeguard: the psychiatric protection order. Such an order, similar to the protection order used in domestic conflicts, would make it a criminal offence to impose involuntary psychiatric interventions on people protected by the order.

In free societies only psychiatric patients are routinely treated against their will. (Public health laws explicitly serve the interests of the public, not the therapeutic needs of particular persons.) Competent patients with uraemia are not treated against their will and can use a "medical will" to protect themselves from undergoing dialysis. If psychiatry were like any other medical specialty competent patients with schizophrenia would not be treated against their will and could protect themselves with a psychiatric will from being treated.² But they cannot: neither psychiatrists nor the courts recognise the validity of the psychiatric will. Mental health laws trump psychiatric advance directives.

Not by coincidence the history of psychiatric interventions forcibly imposed on patients is long and depressing. In a letter he wrote to me in 1988 Karl Menninger summarised the history of psychiatry with these sad words: "Added to the beatings and chainings and baths and massages came treatments that were even more ferocious: gouging out parts of the brain, producing convulsions with electric shocks, starving, surgical removal of teeth, tonsils, uteri, etc."³ To this list Menninger might have added the use of straitjackets, tranquillising chairs, confining chairs, cold baths, emetics, purgatives, Metrazol shock, inhalations of carbon dioxide, and neuroleptic drugs.

Freedom from enforced psychiatry

From the beginnings of the specialty, psychiatric patients have had no opportunity to free themselves from their protective-oppressive relationship with psychiatrists. In this brief paper I focus on a single issue: the desire of some psychiatric patients to free themselves, once and for all, from what they regard as an abusive relationship with the psychiatric profession. The Anglo-American legal system has always denied this option to these patients. This denial resembles the denial of slaves' opportunity, in a slave society, to leave their master; of the wife's opportunity, in traditional marriage, to leave her husband; and of citizens' opportunity, in the modern totalitarian state, to leave their country and its rulers. These people may enjoy all manner of benefits and privileges, but they cannot, without the permission of the repressive authority, leave the system for good.

The English and American legal systems maintain the fiction that the relationship between a family member responsible for committing a "loved one" and the incarcerated individual—as well as that between psychiatrists and involuntarily detained patients—is always one of "care" and "treatment." It can be otherwise only in "unfree," "totalitarian" countries; such was the case in the Soviet Union and is now the case in China. That self serving rationalisation is at the core of the problem facing us.

Anglo-American law assumes, as a matter of fact, that the relationship between a person and a legal agent of the state is adversarial. Justice Potter Stewart of the US Supreme Court famously remarked: "To force a lawyer on a defendant can only lead him to believe that the law contrives against him."⁴ The law student is taught the duties and roles of both prosecuting attorney and defence attorney. Both jobs are legitimate and proper.

In contrast Anglo-American psychiatry assumes, as a matter of law and psychiatry, that the relationship between a person and a psychiatric agent of the state is therapeutic. Forcing psychiatrists on mental patients is routine practice, and the patient who protests is likely to be given a diagnosis of paranoia. The medical student is taught only the duties and roles of the psychiatrist making diagnoses and providing treatment. The psychiatrist has no other legitimate duties or roles; only the job of the coercive psychiatrist is legitimate and proper. The psychiatrist who tries to help the coerced "patient" to reject the patient role is ostracised, or worse.

The gatekeepers: the family

We are hypocrites if we ignore who the parties are that support the enactment of mental health laws and deny patients the option of rejecting psychiatric services. Everywhere the supporters of mental health laws are psychiatrists and the relatives of so called mental patients. In the United States the relatives are now also in control of a powerful lobby, the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, that legitimises the abuse of family members (mainly adult children) as the care of "loved ones." Organisations of former psychiatric patients—who call themselves "victims of psychiatric abuse"—are not among the parties clamouring for more psychiatric coercions or "services."

People subjected to involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation and treatment often feel victimised in much the same way as do wives (less often husbands) who are abused by their spouses. Until recent times women had no effective protection from their abusers, whom the law defined as their protectors. In many parts of the world women are still in that situation. Similarly, in the days of Dickens children were not protected from abuse by their parents.

We in the West now recognise that the family is not just the primary locus of affection, care, and security for its members: it is all too often also the source of the most insidious danger to their physical and spiritual wellbeing. We acknowledge this unhappy fact and accordingly speak of "battered" children, spouses, parents, and grandparents. In the conflicts that often arise between adults living together as married couples or lovers, legal separation, divorce, and the so called protection order exemplify the legal system's acknowledgment of the problem and the need for legally sanctioned and enforceable mechanisms to remedy it. A protection order mandates physical separation between the parties and makes it a criminal offence for the denominated threatener to impose their mere presence on the threatened person. I suggest that we similarly acknowledge the unhappy fact of "battered mental patients" and the need to protect them from their batterers. In the absence of a protection order the power relations between psychiatrist and involuntary patient will continue to generate "psychiatric abuse," rationalised as protection and treatment. Indeed, it is precisely because psychiatrists reject advance psychiatric directives authorising abstinence from further treatment (a request that non-psychiatric doctors accept) that makes a legal mechanism such as the psychiatric protection order necessary.

Legalise "divorce" between psychiatrists and patients

Psychiatrists object to efforts to treat patients as responsible moral agents and cite the prevention of harm as a basic social mandate of psychiatry. Typically, they argue that people who would have committed suicide but for their involuntary detention would thereby have been deprived of the option of changing their minds once they had recovered from depression. A similar argument could be made against last wills or, indeed, any decision that profoundly affects one's future, such as marriage or having children. The standard psychiatric justification for "therapeutic" coercion either ignores the familiar conflict between liberty and security or, more often, equates (involuntary) psychiatric treatment with ("true") freedom.⁵ Elsewhere I have examined and discussed this and related problems in great detail and proposed reconciling psychiatry with liberty.^{6 7}

Human memory is notoriously short and selective. We have forgotten that until recently—even in the United Kingdom and the United States—people could not divorce. In some countries women still cannot divorce their husbands. For a long time the law, supported by religion, ranked the sanctity of marriage more highly than the need to protect the wife from her abusive husband and so prohibited divorce. To make matters worse, the law deprived her of her voice.

The history of the "marriage" between mad people and their doctors shows a similar pattern. Since the beginning of mad doctoring in the 18th century, the law, supported by medicine (psychiatry), has ranked the "health" of mad people more highly than the need to protect them from the abusive psychiatrist and prohibited them from divorcing their psychiatrist. This is still the case. (The psychiatrist is free to leave the patient, typically by forcibly "marrying" the patient to another psychiatrist.) And again the law deprived, and still deprives, the victim of his or her voice. Only writers were, and are, willing to face the realities of psychiatry, illustrated for example by James Thurber's miniature masterpiece, The Unicorn in the Garden.⁸

Summary points Many psychiatric patients are denied the right to refuse treatment they don't want "Psychiatric wills" are recognised by courts only when patients use them to authorise treatment, not when they use them to reject the possibility of treatment Like protection orders that protect wives from abusive husbands, "psychiatric protection orders" would protect patients from coercive psychiatric interventions

Doctors, politicians, and journalists assert that mental illnesses are real diseases and that psychiatrists are regular doctors. If that were true there would be no need for psychiatric protective orders.

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Szasz T. Liberation by oppression: a comparative study of slavery and psychiatry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2002.
2. Szasz T. The psychiatric will: a new mechanism for protecting persons against "psychosis" and psychiatry. Amer Psychol 1982;37: 762-70.
3. Menninger, K. Reading notes. Bull Menninger Clin 1989;53: 350-1.
4. Stewart, P Faretta v California, 422 US 806 ( 1975), p 834.
5. Satel S. For addicts, force is the best medicine. Wall Street Journal, 1998 January 7: 6.
6. Szasz T. Insanity: the idea and its consequences. New York: Wiley, 1987.
7. Szasz T. Pharmacracy: medicine and politics in America. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood, 2001.
8. Thurber J. The unicorn in the garden [1940]. In: Fables for our time. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Kelly, B. D., Feeney, L. (2006). Psychiatry: no longer in dissent?. Psychiatr. Bull. 30: 344-345 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Jayne Sercombe
bmj.com, 19 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Tired Cliches

Dr Daniel M Beales
bmj.com, 20 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Where is the humanity?

David M Bowker
bmj.com, 21 Dec 2003 [Full text]

In the U.S., Psychiatrists Do Not "Commit" the Mentally Ill

Ronald Pies MD
bmj.com, 21 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Dr Thomas Szasz is a Member of the Church of Scientology

Dr P V F Cosgrove
bmj.com, 23 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Enough of anti-psychiatric rhetorics

Sudip Sikdar
bmj.com, 22 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Psychiatric Protection Orders Would Protect Human Rights

Darby J. Penney
bmj.com, 22 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Great article

LostBoyinNC (Eric Rucker)
bmj.com, 23 Dec 2003 [Full text]

A Mad World Doesn't Need Headshrinkers

Dr Lynne Wrennall
bmj.com, 22 Dec 2003 [Full text]

No competing interest?

Nestor J. Presas
bmj.com, 22 Dec 2003 [Full text]

There are no scientologists at the BMJ

Richard Smith
bmj.com, 23 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Should endocrinologists assume responsibility for psychotic patients?

Richard G Fiddian-Green
bmj.com, 24 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Rights imply responsibilities

Angela F Harte
bmj.com, 24 Dec 2003 [Full text]

psychiatry should be formally merged into Neurology

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 24 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Dr Szaz's BMJ article cannot have been peer reviewed

Dr P V F Cosgrove
bmj.com, 27 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: Dr Thomas Szasz is a Member of the Church of Scientology

Nelson Borelli, MD
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: Great article

Nelson Borelli, MD
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Dr. Szasz's Insightful Analysis of Freedom of Choice

Thomas K. Zander
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Szasz – the same old tune!

Richard L O'Reilly, et al.
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Your own worst enemy

Gurli Bagnall
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Protecting the Vulnerable from Zealots

Richard J Winkel
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

re: Enough of anti-psychiatric rhetorics

Annie E Scotney
bmj.com, 28 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: Dr Szaz's BMJ article cannot have been peer reviewed

Nicolas S. Martin
bmj.com, 29 Dec 2003 [Full text]

You need to compartmentalize your emotions on this one

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 29 Dec 2003 [Full text]

"Battered mental patients": Christmas article

M E Jan Wise
bmj.com, 29 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Civil rights and Mental Illness

Christopher J O'Loughlin
bmj.com, 29 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Will neuropsychiatric disorders become the exclusive domain of radiologists, physicists or even mathematicians?

Richard G Fiddian-Green
bmj.com, 30 Dec 2003 [Full text]

re: your own worst enemy

Angela Kennedy
bmj.com, 29 Dec 2003 [Full text]

(Non)coercive pscyhotherapy and "care"

Jacqueline R Roig
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Melanie Seaman
bmj.com, 30 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: Will neuropsychiatric disorders become the exclusive domain of radiologists, physicists or even mathematicians?

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 31 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: Will neuropsychiatric disorders become the exclusive domain of radiologists, physicists or even mathematicians?

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 31 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Your own worst enemy

E.Ann Robertson
bmj.com, 31 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: Your own worst enemy

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 1 Jan 2004 [Full text]

In reply to E. Ann Robertson.

Gurli Bagnall
bmj.com, 1 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Reform Psychiatry or Abolish Psychiatry!

Dr P V F Cosgrove
bmj.com, 2 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: In reply to E. Ann Robertson.

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 2 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Reform Psychiatry or Abolish Psychiatry!

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 3 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Crazy talk

John Hopkins
bmj.com, 3 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Crazy talk

Richard G Fiddian-Green
bmj.com, 3 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Crazy talk

Nelson Borelli, MD
bmj.com, 4 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Flat World, Round World

Dan Beales
bmj.com, 4 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Can I take this back a step?

Kim Gregory
bmj.com, 5 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"Global Emergency"

David W. Oaks
bmj.com, 6 Jan 2004 [Full text]

psychology is a pseudoscience

Ted Huntington
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

The "value neutral science"

William K Smith
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Survivor of Post Partum Psychosis

Jenny Hatch
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Labeling Dissidents

David W. Oaks
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Voluntarily Coercion? Coerced "Choice"? A Contradiction? NO! Not Now!

Roger D. Carlson, Ph.D., et al.
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Family of Lobotomy Victims Speak

Christine L. Johnson
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Mad? Or afraid?

Patricia Robinett
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Involuntary treatment gives profession a bad reputation

Ron J Unger
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"No" is absolutely essential to ethical relationship

John C. Napier
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Compelling Emotions But Not Practical

Edward D. Campbell
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Stop coerced psychiatry

Fred A. Tenzer
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Response to Dr.Szasz's Ideas on "Psychiatric Wills"

John C. Hammell
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Anti-abuse not Anti-psychiatry

David N. Gonzalez
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Bothersome issues

Kim C. Maynard
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Flat World, Round World

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

recognize the future

Gregory D. Bowyer
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Alternatives to hospitalization

Jay Fickling
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Dr Szasz Is Right on Target

Harold Mandel
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Psychiatric wards misdiagnose epilepsy and force treatment on psychiatric ward while withholding appropriate epilepsy treatment

Vonne N. Worth
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Crazy talk: Advocating coercion?

Jacqueline R Roig, PsyD
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

protection orders are not enough

Nathaniel .S. Lehrman
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Don't forget the learning disabled

Alan Challoner
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Worldwide need for this open discussion

Mary S. Pearce
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

advanced psychiatry

joerg b. dao
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Family of Lobotomy Victims Speak

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Enough is enough

Joni M Gallo
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

WHEN DO WE DRAFT THE DOCUMENT?

Carol Hebald
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Well Done Tom

John Malone
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"Forced" psychiatric treatment

Irene Mazis
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2004 [Full text]

The need to bypass the chain of command

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Congratulations to the BMJ Chief Editor

Volker Kubillus
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Family of Lobotomy Victims Speak

Christine L. Johnson
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Coercion

Roderick J Harvey
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Well Done BMJ Editors

Joseph .C. Obi
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Psychiatry is always dodging the issues.

Cal Grandy
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

good article!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Gratitude for Szazs's Article

John O. E. Laue
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: In the U.S., Psychiatrists Do Not "Commit" the Mentally Ill

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Stunning correspondance and the medicalization of childhood

Sami Timimi
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: "Forced" psychiatric treatment

David Gonzalez
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: "Forced" psychiatric treatment

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Family of Lobotomy Victims Speak

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 10 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Addressing various comments

Kim Gregory
bmj.com, 10 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Prophilaxis for psych drug harm

Daniel Q Burdick
bmj.com, 10 Jan 2004 [Full text]

First improve the mental health system

Phil Thompson
bmj.com, 10 Jan 2004 [Full text]

People who want change must deal directly with the high command

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 10 Jan 2004 [Full text]

We need to understand evolution of the mind and "normal" human irrationality

Mario Heilmann
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Tired Cliches

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Enough of anti-psychiatric rhetorics

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Where is the humanity?

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

,It will be more interesting to know the opinon of Prof.Szasz on other issues,Insane people can be executed&lethal injection of prisoners in US.

AK Al-Sheikhli
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Psychopharmacology versus actual biochemical medicine.

Daniel Q Burdick
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: psychiatry should be formally merged into Neurology

Roelof A Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Rights imply responsibilities

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Civil rights and Mental Illness

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Szasz – the same old tune!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: "Forced" psychiatric treatment

Irene Mazis
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Best practice from various perspectives

Mary S. Pearce
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Thomas Szasz, the Critical Psychiatry Network and the psychiatric protection order

D B Double
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Who then would treat patients as responsible moral agents??

Thomas M. Fraser
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: "Forced" psychiatric treatment

David Gonzalez
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Can I take this back a step?

Glynis Meloy
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Strong Support for Patients' Rights

Ann Fonfa
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Thomas M Fraser
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Psychopharmacology versus actual biochemical medicine.

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 14 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

David Gonzalez
bmj.com, 14 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 14 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Are psychiatrists suffering from NERDS?

Sami Timimi
bmj.com, 14 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Time to abolish forceful restraint and detention?

Richard G Fiddian-Green
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Tired Cliches

David Gonzalez
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Thomas M. Fraser
bmj.com, 16 Jan 2004 [Full text]

The bottom line is...

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 16 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"Battered patient Syndrome"

Harold A. Maio
bmj.com, 16 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: "Battered patient Syndrome"

Thomas M Fraser
bmj.com, 16 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial of the hard cold truth condemns millions to a lifetime of misery

Richard J Winkel
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: "Battered patient Syndrome"

David Gonzalez
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

An interesting discussion.

Lloyd W Achtymichuk
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: "Battered patient Syndrome"

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"Battered mental patient as institutional problem

József Gerevich
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: "Battered patient Syndrome"

Thomas M. Fraser
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: "Battered mental patient as institutional problem

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Battered patient Syndrome"

David Gonzalez
bmj.com, 20 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Psychiatry is a pseudoscience and an Inquisition

César Tort
bmj.com, 20 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Battered patient Syndrome"

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 20 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Psychiatry is a pseudoscience and an Inquisition

Eric Rucker
bmj.com, 21 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Psychiatry is a pseudoscience and an Inquisition

Cesar Tort
bmj.com, 21 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Thomas M. Fraser
bmj.com, 22 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 23 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 24 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"In Strong Society"

Roelof A Bijkerk
bmj.com, 24 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Context is important

Martin Briscoe
bmj.com, 24 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Context is important

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 25 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Doesn't the depth of needed improvement demand our minds be open?

james m nordlund, et al.
bmj.com, 25 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Long Overdue Idea

Thomas J. Scheff, et al.
bmj.com, 27 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Doesn't the depth of needed improvement demand our minds be open?

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 28 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Long Overdue Idea

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 28 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Long Overdue Idea

Thomas M. Fraser
bmj.com, 30 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Psychiatry is a pseudoscience and an Inquisition

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 30 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Mental Health or Is It Mental Death !

Dennis F. Nester
bmj.com, 1 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Mental Health or Is It Mental Death !

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 5 Feb 2004 [Full text]

If it's any different is it worse here or there?

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 5 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Psychiatry is a Criminal Fraud

George Wynns
bmj.com, 6 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Doesn't the depth of needed improvement demand our minds be open?

james m nordlund
bmj.com, 9 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Psychiatry is a Criminal Fraud

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 8 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Psychiatry is a Criminal Fraud

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 9 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Doesn't the depth of needed improvement demand our minds be open?

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 10 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Psychiatry is a Criminal Fraud

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 10 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Psychiatry is a Criminal Fraud

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 11 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Abuse in Therapy

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 11 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 11 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Retraumatizing the Victim

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 12 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 13 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 15 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Psychiatry is a Criminal Fraud

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 15 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Battered Mental Paitient"- a different perspective

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 16 Feb 2004 [Full text]

suicide is not always preventable!

Stephen F Hayes
bmj.com, 16 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 17 Feb 2004 [Full text]

one step further

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 17 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Abuse in Therapy

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 18 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Creating Health vs Destroying Disease

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 19 Feb 2004 [Full text]

"Mercy Killing of the Psyche" (Freeman)

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 20 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Stephen F Hayes
bmj.com, 20 Feb 2004 [Full text]

RE: The Tools Have Changed But The Weaponry Remains The Same

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 22 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 22 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 22 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 23 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: "Forced" psychiatric treatment

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 23 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Psychiatry: regression to pharmaceutical catastrophe since 1927?

Richard G Fiddian-Green
bmj.com, 23 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Psychiatry: regression to pharmaceutical catastrophe since 1927?

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 24 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 24 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Stephen F Hayes
bmj.com, 24 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Stephen F Hayes
bmj.com, 24 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Psychiatry: regression to pharmaceutical catastrophe since 1927?

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 25 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suicide is not always preventable!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 25 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Reform Psychiatry or Abolish Psychiatry!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 25 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Reform Psychiatry or Abolish Psychiatry!

Roelof A. Bijkerk
bmj.com, 26 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Reform Psychiatry or Abolish Psychiatry!

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 28 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reform Psychiatry or Abolish Psychiatry!

Roelof A Bijkerk
bmj.com, 29 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Ecological vs Corporatist Cultural Logic

Kathleen (Katie) M. Hill
bmj.com, 6 Mar 2004 [Full text]

Bleed and Purge all Kensington!

Peter Morrell
bmj.com, 3 Apr 2004 [Full text]

Re: "Battered mental patient as institutional problem

Harold A Maio
bmj.com, 20 Oct 2004 [Full text]

The Pros and Cons of Psychiatric Living Wills (From Someone Who's Been Through It All)

Lori E. Wiest
bmj.com, 7 Nov 2004 [Full text]