"What church does your psychiatrist attend?
There’s an overwhelming potential for abuse in psychiatry, especially in psychiatric hospitals, and state institutions and entities, where it is almost guaranteed. One can see this from the second hour’s topic on the Diane Rhem show this morning, introducing the author of “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone---Especially Ourselves”, Dan Ariely.
In psychiatric hospitals, institutions, courts and agencies, those with power legitimize each other, and thus feel entitled to it. There is a vast separation between them and their patients, or “consumers” as the Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health would have it, which makes it psychologically easier to be dishonest with them. If you have ever been in one of those places, you will hear at least some of the “care providers” talk about how great the job would be if they just didn’t have to deal with patients. A wall of secrecy surrounds all of their dealings, which keeps the outside world from ever checking on their methods. Further, there is a tacit mutual agreement that their patients are inferior and “need” their help, so that whatever they do is “for the good of the patient”. So if one of them cuts ethical corners, the rest find it easy both to accept and to duplicate. The monitoring cameras in Oklahoma state institutions can only see actual physical or sexual abuses, not psychological, medical, legal and civil rights abuses.
Then there is the question of whether or not what is being done in those places has any medical or scientific validity. Science will not generally accept any result or claim until a number of others can do the same experiment and repeat the reported results. Compared to psychiatry, most other medical care is conducted much more openly, with records that can be obtained to validate standards of care, with open access to the patients by relatives and legal advisors, and with patients allowed to seek other opinions, and even to refuse care. The medical tests used there have physical meaning that can be validated. A patient either has a fever or doesn’t, either has a suspicious mass on an x-ray or doesn’t, either has an infection that can be cultured or doesn’t, either has blood pressure over a certain value or doesn’t.
Religion on the other hand, is “the evidence of things not seen”. A bunch of people get together and agree to believe the same things about what is true or not, about what is right and wrong. And a cult is where they do it all in secret and don’t let people leave. Much like psychiatric practice and institutions.
Most if not all of the “medical tests” in psychiatry involve asking the patients questions and then deciding from a philosophical standpoint what the psychiatrist or counselor believes about the answers and the patient. The “standard of care” consists entirely of what a group of people in that profession agree with each other to say it is.
It is almost entirely subjective, in the eyes of the beholder.
Psychiatrists don’t have any physical voltmeters or thermometers, and very few chemical or genetic tests, to say “this one is bipolar” and “that one is schizophrenic”. What few brain scans could be used are so expensive that they are rarely used. So shading the truth in order to force someone into their “care”, “for their own good” of course, not to mention the income of the psychiatrist or institution, becomes very, very easy. Especially to deal with a socially unwelcome and disliked minority in secret.
If you think that is paranoid, it may well depend upon your “religion”. I know of a certain Federal Judge who belongs to that church. "