‘The Illusions of Psychiatry’: An Exchange

pills galore by Boots McKenzie

First, the NYT Review of Books published a review of three books that cast doubt upon our faith in psychotropics.

Then, the Times published a defense of antidepressants.

Now, the contentious dialog continues with three letters to the editor from very esteemed psychiatrists and then a response from the writer of the original review. (A former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.)

Check it out. Who do you think is more persuasive?

2 thoughts on “‘The Illusions of Psychiatry’: An Exchange

  1. No Question, Angell has it down. She is reasoned, thorough and grounded. The other writers sound mostly upset, and inflammatory. But then again, I’m VERY biased towards Angell. To me, most of her writings simply make sense – and she tends to be well disciplined in including good quality references for her POV. In my view, she is one of too few MD’s with integrity.

    1. Thanks for commenting.

      I’m with you. The other writers argue that America is undertreated with medication for mental illness, “only 36 percent of those who suffer from mental illnesses actually seek and receive treatment”. In 2005, 10% of all Americans were on an antidepressant. (I’d imagine this number has climbed significantly in the last 6 years, but this is the most recent report I could find.) This is a single class of drugs. Do they believe 30% of Americans should be on antidepressants?

      I agree that the letters seem to overstate their case and use straw men to discredit Angell.

Comments are closed.