NEWS: Psychiatry magazine skews our psychiatric survivor movement history

[mindfreedom-news at intenex.net]

NEWS: Human Rights in Mental Health - 8 June 2006
http://www.MindFreedom.org - please forward

    Psychiatry magazine skews our rights movement history.

    Authors mention MindFreedom but get facts & perspective wrong.

    Analysis by David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International

An American Psychiatric Association official magazine, _Psychiatric 
Services_, has published an odd article (see below) in their June 2006 
issue attempting to analyze the origins and history of the movement to 
challenge psychiatric human rights violations, especially the part of 
that movement led by psychiatric survivors.

The authors mention MindFreedom International, and at least spell our 
group's name correctly.

The authors of the essay, entitled "Evolution of the Antipsychiatry 
Movement Into Mental Health Consumerism," fail in many strange and 
curious ways. Their perspective and facts just do not match reality.

BELOW is a list of some of the authors' most outrageous errors and bias.

AT BOTTOM is the text of this _Psychiatric Services_ article so you may 
read it yourself, followed by how you may submit letters to their 
editor.

~~~~~~~~~~

Top 15 Examples of Bizarre Bias in _Psychiatric Services_ Article About 
Us

1. LABELING: The authors repeatedly impose their own labels on many 
individuals and groups who work for human rights, such as the loaded 
and undefined term "antipsychiatry." Most of the individuals and groups 
involved do not apply that that term to themselves.

The authors continue a long-standing psychiatric tradition by refusing 
to ask us how we define ourselves, and make up their own labels 
instead. This is the same magazine that ran an angry essay by E. Fuller 
Torrey claiming we cannot call ourselves "psychiatric survivors."

2. ORIGINS: The authors try to place the origin of our social change 
movement solely in the books of a few campus intellectuals and 
theoreticians, while many of us actually credit the civil rights 
movement and other grassroots movements as inspiration for grassroots 
psychiatric survivor and mental health consumer organizing. Believe it 
or not, we can and do start our own organizations.

3. BIOPSYCHIATRY PROVEN? The authors claim that studies now prove that 
"schizophrenia [is] at least biologically based." That is 
editorializing. Of course the authors' footnotes omit any citation to 
sources or scientific studies on this point for a simple reason: There 
are none.

4. LESS NEUROLEPTICS? The authors outrageously claim that psychiatry 
has "defused grievances" such as, "psychiatrists markedly reduced 
dosages of neuroleptics prescribed." As just one example that refutes 
this from this week's headlines, 6/6/06, the _NY Times_ revealed that 
neuroleptic prescriptions have gone up more than five-fold on youth. 
That's not a "reduction" for those youth. More neuroleptics are being 
given to more people than ever, along with polypharmacy where five or 
even ten psychiatric drugs are prescribed at the same time.

5. SHOCK AND PSYCHOSURGERY INCREASING! The authors also claim 
psychiatry has "defused grievances" because "electroconvulsive therapy 
and psychosurgery became marginalized." Marginalized? He means "gone 
undergrouund," because shock and psychosurgery have both experienced a 
huge resurgence in popularity within the profession, without adequate 
media scrutiny.

6. COMMITMENT STANDARDS ARE LOOSENING! The authors claim "compulsory 
commitments came under close judicial scrutiny," whatever that means. 
The reality is that countless US states have loosened and expanded 
commitment to such an extent, that disagreeing with one's psychiatrist 
is practically grounds for commitment today (such as "likelihood to 
deteriorate in the future without treatment," i.e., drugging).

7. DON'T PIGEON-HOLE PSYCHIATRIC CRITICS. The authors try to equate 
psychiatric survivor human rights with the "radical left." Then how do 
the authors explain the historic role of conservatives and libertarians 
in fighting psychiatric abuse, psychosurgery, commitment and 
institutions?

For example, today conservatives and libertarians lead the way in 
fighting the rise of "mental health screening" in the schools. The fact 
is that psychiatric survivors and mental health consumers and others 
critical of psychiatry come from a wide variety of political 
perspectives. In fact, fighting psychiatric tyranny is one of the great 
red-blue unifiers between all political perspectives... and the general 
public is slowly catching on.

8. WHY LEAVE OUT TODAY'S ALLIES? The authors try to force a narrative 
in which academic and intellectual critics of the psychiatric 
profession started our movement and then disappeared. Actually, there 
are more psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals 
criticizing their profession, writing books, starting alternatives and 
speaking out than ever before.

These critics work in cooperation with psychiatric survivors and mental 
health consumers, and don't dominate us. See the huge number of 
practical books criticizing the mainstream psychiatric profession and 
promoting alternatives. These books don't fit into the stereotype of 
being purely "theoretical." Attend a conference of the International 
Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), which 
continues to work closely with and support psychiatric surviviors.

And what about the countless family members, advocates and general 
public who are part of the movement to challenge psychiatric human 
rights violations? MindFreedom is majority psychiatric survivors, but 
open to all.

9. FACTUAL ERROR: LEONARD ROY FRANK. The authors imply that the amazing 
activist Leonard Roy Frank was the founder of Support Coalition 
International and then went on to became an electroshock critic. While 
Leonard has been a wonderful activist in our group, neither he nor the 
founders of the coalition consider him as "the founder." And of course 
Leonard has been a main critic of electroshock for decades before the 
founding of the coalition.

10. FACTUAL ERROR: CONFERENCE NAME. The authors give the wrong name of 
the conference that was actually called "International Conference on 
Human Rights and Against Psychiatric Oppression."

11. FACTUAL ERROR: MINDFREEDOM. Thanks for the double listing, but if 
the authors had talked with any of us they'd find out that Support 
Coalition International changed its name to MindFreedom International 
in 2005. Instead the authors list these as two separate groups.

12. MYTH OF "OUTSIDE AGITATORS": The authors try to portray a tiny 
group of antipsychiatrists as somehow subverting mental health 
consumers. It's the old divide-and-conquer trick of claiming there are 
"outside agitators." The reality is that the vast majority of the 
mental health systems' own clients, and all the organizations that 
truly represent them, speak out against human rights viololations on 
their own, and oppose practices like expanded outpatient commitment.

The authors claim that the National Council on Disability report 
somehow came out of the mouths of "antipsychiatrists," when actually 
dozens upon dozens of grassroots people who had experienced the mental 
health system testified to the NCD at a meeting of the National 
Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy. Note how the authors 
change "advocacy" to "antipsychiatry" as a way to marginalize us.

13. APA CLOSED TO DIALOGUE: The authors claim that the American 
Psychiatric Association has found it difficult to dialogue with 
psychiatric survivor and mental health consumer critics. The reality is 
that the APA and similar groups have refused countless efforts to 
dialogue. A number of us even did a several-week hunger strike mainly 
asking for real dialogue. It's not as if the American Psychiatric 
Association can't find our office phone numbers. Difficult to dialogue 
with us? How about being _closed_ to dialogue?

14. CLEAR BIAS: The authors brazenly give away their political bias 
with this sentence, "Psychiatry continues to fight antipsychiatry 
disinformation on the use of involuntary commitment, electroconvulsive 
therapy, stimulants and antidepressants among children, and 
neuroleptics among adults." Notice how our "human rights concerns" have 
now become "antipsychiatry disinformation." Why, one would almost think 
this magazine and its publishers were heavily funded by millions of 
dollars from the drug industry.

15. LET US TELL OUR OWN STORY: And finally, in the big pictture, the 
authors essentially try to impose a story, narrative, world view and 
paradigm upon us... without asking us what we think about our own 
lives. This explains the petty factual errors.

In the authors' view a few antipsychiatry intellectuals gave birth to 
antipsychiatry psychiatric survivor groups, and then faded away. Now 
these subversive antipsychiatry psychiatric survivors are supposedly 
manipulating mental health consumers to fight psychiatric power. It is 
almost as if the authors got their bizarre perspective on this point 
from extremist American Enterprise Institute psychiatrist Sally 
Satel... and there indeed Sally sits in the authors' footnotes.

Psychiatry falsely labeled many of us as clients... and now tries to 
falsely label us when we organize to speak out about inherent, rampant, 
severe and deadly human rights violations within their profession. How 
about honest dialogue, discussion, listening and communication... isn't 
that supposed to be mentally healthy, for everyone?

~~~~~~~~~~

BELOW is the text of this essay. At BOTTOM is how to submit a letter to 
their editor.

~~~~~~~~~~

_Psychiatric Services_ 57:863-866, June 2006

published by American Psychiatric Association

Evolution of the Antipsychiatry Movement Into Mental Health Consumerism

by David J. Rissmiller, D.O. and Joshua H. Rissmiller

Abstract
 
This essay reviews the history and evolution of the antipsychiatry 
movement. Radical antipsychiatry over several decades has changed from 
an antiestablishment campus-based movement to a patient-based 
consumerist movement. The antecedents of the movement are traced to a 
crisis in self-conception between biological and psychoanalytic 
psychiatry occurring during a decade characterized by other radical 
movements. It was promoted through the efforts of its four seminal 
thinkers: Michel Foucault in France, R. D. Laing in Great Britain, 
Thomas Szasz in the United States, and Franco Basaglia in Italy. They 
championed the concept that personal reality and freedom were 
independent of any definition of normalcy that organized psychiatry 
tried to impose. The original antipsychiatry movement made major 
contributions but also had significant weaknesses that ultimately 
undermined it. Today, antipsychiatry adherents have a broader base and 
no longer focus on dismantling organized psychiatry but look to promote 
radical consumerist reform.

Radical antipsychiatry in the past four decades has changed from an 
influential international movement dominated by intellectual 
psychiatrists to an ex-patient consumerist coalition fighting against 
pharmacological treatment, coercive hospitalizations, and other 
authoritarian psychiatric practices. This Open Forum article explores 
the history of the antipsychiatry movement and attempts to define how 
the movement has evolved.

The antecedents of the antipsychiatry movement can be traced to the 
early 1950s, when deep divisions were developing between biological and 
psychoanalytic psychiatrists. Psychoanalytic psychiatry, which had 
exerted unchallenged control of the profession for decades, endorsed 
treatment that was subjective and dynamic and that involved protracted 
psychotherapy. It was being challenged by biological psychiatry, which 
claimed that psychoanalysis was unscientific, costly, and ineffective.

Conversely, an outcry was mounting against psychiatry's practice of 
compulsory admission of mental patients to state institutions, where 
they were coerced into taking high doses of neuroleptic drugs and 
undergoing convulsive and psychosurgical procedures. The antipsychiatry 
movement arose as a group of scholarly psychoanalysts and sociologists 
shaped an organized opposition to what were perceived as biological 
psychiatry's abuses in the name of science. This protest was joined by 
a 1960s worldwide counterculture that was already rebelling against all 
forms of political, sexual, and racial injustice.

The term "antipsychiatry" was first coined in 1967 by the South African 
psychoanalyst David Cooper (1) well after the movement was already 
under way. It was internationally promoted through the efforts of its 
four seminal thinkers, Michel Foucault in France, R. D. Laing in Great 
Britain, Thomas Szasz in the United States, and Franco Basaglia in 
Italy. All four championed the concept that personal reality was 
independent from any hegemonic definition of normalcy imposed by 
organized psychiatry.

In Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason 
(2), Foucault traced the social context of mental illness and noted 
that external economic and cultural interests have always defined it. 
During the Renaissance, madmen were characterized as fools who figured 
prominently in the writings of Shakespeare and Cervantes. Beginning in 
the 17th century, madmen were confined and locked away, justified by 
the state's "imperative of labor." The poor, criminals, and the insane 
were all isolated as a condemnation of anyone unwilling or unable to 
compete for gainful employment.

In the early 1800s madmen were separated from prisoners and beggars and 
forced into hospitals run by medical doctors. Madness was reinvented as 
a disease, and inhumane treatment was begun. It consisted of 
classification, custody, and coercion by a psychiatric authority, which 
operated as an arm of the state, ridding it of unwanted individuals. 
Psychiatry became "a jurisdiction without appeal ... between the police 
and the courts ... a third order of repression" (2).

While Foucault was writing in France in the early 1960s, R. D. Laing, 
in England, joined other authors of the period who were describing the 
social origins of behavior. Fanon (3) demonstrated how blacks often 
would fulfill racist stereotypes; Lessing (4), how women commonly 
conformed to society's expectation of passivity and femininity; and 
Goffman (5), how patients, stripped of normal social responsibilities, 
developed institutional behavior. Laing promoted the idea that severe 
mental illness, similarly, had a social causality.

In The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness (6), a 
best-seller in colleges across the United States and Great Britain, 
Laing noted that a patient with psychosis could be viewed in one of two 
ways: "One may see his behaviour as 'signs' of a 'disease' [or] one may 
see his behaviour as expressive of his existence." For Laing, paranoid 
delusions were not signs of an illness but an understandable reaction 
to an inescapable and persecutory social order. If Laing was correct, 
and schizophrenia were not a disease but rather an existential fight 
for personal freedom, then logic allows that it could be cured through 
social remediation. Laing, through the Philadelphia Association founded 
with Cooper in 1965, set up over 20 therapeutic communities throughout 
England where staff and patients assumed equal status and any 
medication used was voluntary. A recounting of a seven-week stay in one 
of these communities was chronicled in the 1972 film Asylum (7).

Other psychoanalysts were also exploring the social context surrounding 
mental illness. Thomas Szasz, having recently been appointed to the 
faculty of the State University of New York, in 1957 wrote his most 
influential paper, "The Myth of Mental Illness." Over the next three 
years, it was rejected by at least six psychiatric journals, including 
the American Journal of Psychiatry, until it was finally accepted for 
publication in the American Psychologist (8) in 1960. As the 
antipsychiatry movement gained momentum, this article became the core 
of his best-selling book (9) by the same name and the slogan around 
which many in the movement rallied.

Because schizophrenia demonstrated no discernible brain lesion, Szasz 
believed its classification as a disease was a fiction perpetrated by 
organized psychiatry to gain power. The state, searching for a way to 
exclude nonconformists and dissidents, legitimized psychiatry's 
coercive practices. Equating the resulting psychiatry-government 
collusion with the Spanish Inquisition, Szasz (10) called it "the 
single most destructive force that has affected American society within 
the last 50 years." Such a conspiratorial link between the government 
and psychiatry was an appealing concept to such counterculture icons as 
Timothy Leary (11), who, preceding his termination from Harvard, wrote 
to Szasz in 1961 that "the Myth of Mental Illness is the most important 
book in the history of psychiatry ... perhaps ... the most important 
book published in the twentieth century."

Citing the principle of "separation of church and state," Szasz argued 
for a similarly clear division between "psychiatry and state." 
Otherwise, the state would ultimately corrupt psychiatry for its own 
purposes, as occurred in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. As a 
preventive measure, Szasz helped launch the Libertarian Party in 1971, 
and its platform called for a halt to government-psychiatry mind 
control operations.

Others involved in the antipsychiatry movement were even more 
condemning. In 1969, Scientology's charismatic founder, L. Ron Hubbard 
(12), wrote, "There is not one institutional psychiatrist alive who ... 
could not be arraigned and convicted of extortion, mayhem and murder." 
Hubbard and Szasz cofounded the still powerful Citizens Commission on 
Human Rights, which encouraged the arrest and incarceration of 
psychiatrists for their crimes against humanity.

Alliances were formed with other contemporary activist groups. In May 
1970, hundreds in the antipsychiatry movement joined gay activists in 
forming a human chain barring psychiatrists from entering the American 
Psychiatric Association's 124th annual meeting. During a similar 
disruption the following year, gay activist Frank Kameny grabbed the 
podium and declared war on psychiatry for its DSM classification of 
homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Wanting the protests to stop, 
the American Psychiatric Association formed a task force, which, by a 
vote of 58 percent, officially deleted homosexuality as a mental 
illness in 1973.

Psychiatry's purported abuse of patients was popularized in Kesey's 
1962 novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (13), which contributed to 
reforms in mental health public policy. David Bazelon, a jurist of the 
powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 
deplored authoritarian psychiatric practices. In 1966, he established 
in Lake v. Cameron that all psychiatric treatment must be carried out 
in the least restrictive setting possible. In the early 1970s the 
antipsychiatry attorney Bruce Ennis created the "Mental Health Bar." 
Its goal was to completely abolish involuntary commitments or prevent 
them by making them too arduous to secure. These and other initiatives 
heralded the release of hundreds of thousands of patients from state 
hospitals.

Deinstitutionalization in Europe occurred over a decade later. The 
Italian psychiatrist Franco Basaglia, its leading proponent, while 
working at the asylum in Trieste, came to believe that mental illness 
was not a disease but rather an expression of human needs. Over the 
next decade he personally mobilized an antipsychiatry movement in Italy 
that culminated in the 1978 Italian National Reform Bill that banned 
all asylums and compulsory admissions and established community 
hospital psychiatric units, which were restricted to 15 beds. This 
reorganization of mental health services in Italy resulted in the 
"democratic psychiatry movement," wherein hundreds of psychiatric 
institutions were closed throughout Europe, New Zealand, and Australia, 
including many in Ireland and Finland, where the highest number of 
asylum beds were located.

Despite such notable successes and after nearly two decades of 
prominence, the international antipsychiatry movement began to 
dramatically diminish in the early 1980s, both in visibility and 
impact. Organized psychiatry, by addressing some of the movement's key 
grievances, was able to defuse it to some degree. The adoption of the 
biopsychosocial model narrowed the gap between analytic and biological 
practitioners. Neurotransmitter discoveries and schizophrenia twin 
registries offered support that schizophrenia was at least partially 
biologically based. As comparison studies failed to support efficacy 
and as tardive dyskinesia became more apparent, psychiatrists markedly 
reduced dosages of neuroleptics prescribed. Electroconvulsive therapy 
and psychosurgery became marginalized as treatments and compulsory 
commitments came under close judicial scrutiny.

But by far the most important determinant of the movement's demise was 
its loss of broad-based support. To a great extent, the antipsychiatry 
movement was derived from its close relationship to other progressive 
leftist coalitions that, by association and overlapping membership, 
supported the movement. With the decline of other student, feminist, 
gay, and black coalitions, the antipsychiatry movement could no longer 
rely on counterculture support. The radical left, with its utopian 
vision, was being replaced, worldwide, by an emerging conservative 
political landscape. Since the antipsychiatry movement's raison d'être 
was inherently antiestablishment, it, like the other militant movements 
of the day, was at risk of becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The mental health consumerist movement offered a struggling 
antipsychiatry coalition the mainstream collaborator it needed for 
rejuvenation. Since its inception in the early 1900s by former patient 
Clifford Beers and through organizations such as the Anti-Insane Asylum 
Society and the National Committee on Mental Hygiene, the consumerist 
movement had achieved significant international mental health reforms. 
Its tactics of forming political alliances and lobbying instead of 
confrontation appealed to conservative politicians who were weary of 
civil disobedience. The movement's vision of patients helping one 
another addressed a growing concern over the cost of mental health 
treatment.

But consumerists considered the antipsychiatry movement as "largely an 
intellectual exercise of academics" (14). Consumerists wanted to keep 
their movement in the hands of prior patients. They had no interest in 
being led by psychiatrist intellectuals who had done little during the 
antipsychiatry movement to "reach out to struggling ex-patients" (14). 
As a result, as the antipsychiatry movement evolved from being campus 
based to being patient based, its founders were marginalized as 
bystanders to a movement they had begun. Appelbaum (15) in 1994 
observed, "Now, more than three decades later, ... Szasz, Laing, and 
their colleagues are no longer fixtures ... and ... most college and 
graduate students have never heard of them or their argument that 
mental illness is a socially derived myth."

With over a half million deinstitutionalized patients to draw from, 
there was a potential for the new antipsychiatry consumerist coalition 
to be extensive. Many former patients, angry about the coercive 
treatment they had received and looking for support and identity, would 
be ideal carriers of the antipsychiatry message. They joined local 
consumerist radical groups, and new ex-patient leaders arose. Leonard 
Frank, founder of Support Coalition International, after undergoing 
over 80 insulin comas and electroshock treatments, became electroshock 
therapy's new outspoken critic. Ex-patient Judi Chamberlin, cofounder 
of the Mental Patients Liberation Front, mobilized the movement with On 
Our Own: Patient-Controlled Alternatives to the Mental Health System 
(16).

The formative years of this movement in the United States saw 
"survivors" promoting their antipsychiatry, self-determination message 
through small, disconnected groups, including the Insane Liberation 
Front, the Mental Patients' Liberation project, the Mental Patient's 
Liberation Front, and the Network Against Psychiatric Assault. The 
fragmented networks communicated through their annual Conference on 
Human Rights and Psychiatric Oppression (held from 1973 to 1985), 
through the ex-patient-run Madness Network News (from 1972 to 1986), 
and through the annual "Alternatives" conference funded by the National 
Institute of Mental Health for mental health consumers (from 1985 to 
the present). Similar groups arose throughout Canada and, later, 
Europe, where the name "survivor" brought more public criticism because 
of its association with the holocaust. The movement searched for a 
unifying medium through which to integrate.

The growing Internet "global community" offered just such a medium. 
Numerous radical antipsychiatry Web sites, such as Support Coalition 
International, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, the Antipsychiatry 
Coalition, and MindFreedom International, linked antipsychiatry 
movements in over 30 countries. Their capacity to instantaneously reach 
millions meant that "despite its modest head count, the 
consumer/survivor movement ... exerted a significant sociopolitical 
influence on the mental health care system" (17). By avoiding the 
antipsychiatry movement flaw of being radicalized without being 
politicized, radical consumerists continued to maintain informal ties 
with more conservative consumerist organizations such as the National 
Alliance for the Mentally Ill in the United States and the Mental 
Health Foundation in England. Mainstream consumerist groups benefited 
from such unofficial relationships through increased impact in 
grassroots lobbying and legislative advocacy efforts.

Such joint efforts exerted a palpable effect. In 1986 the 
survivor-antipsychiatry-consumerist triumvirate succeeded in getting 
Congress to mandate independent protection and advocacy programs for 
people with mental illness in all 50 states. The mission to investigate 
allegations of patient abuse came with a mandate that at least 60 
percent of the membership of the governing advocacy councils be 
ex-psychiatric patients or their families.

In 2000 the National Council on Disability, an independent federal 
agency charged with making recommendations to the President and 
Congress, heard strong antipsychiatry testimony from survivors 
"describing how people with psychiatric disabilities have been beaten, 
shocked, isolated, incarcerated, restricted, raped, deprived of food 
and bathroom privileges, and physically and psychologically abused in 
institutions." The council concluded that "People with psychiatric 
disabilities are routinely deprived of their rights in a way no other 
disability group has been [and] ... the manner in which American 
society treats people with psychiatric disabilities constitutes a 
national emergency and a national disgrace" (18).

Radical consumerists were instrumental in getting the United Nations 
General Assembly to adopt its 1991 Principles for the Protection of 
Persons With Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. 
In 2002 the Scientology-funded Commission on Human Rights successfully 
petitioned the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report 
annually to the General Assembly on the progress of human rights, 
including as it relates to persons with mental illness.

Organized psychiatry has found it difficult to have a constructive 
dialogue with the evolving radical consumerist movement. Consumerist 
groups are viewed as extremist, having little scientific foundation and 
no defined leadership. The profession sees them as continually trying 
to restrict "the work of psychiatrists and care for the seriously 
mentally ill" (17). Psychiatry continues to fight antipsychiatry 
disinformation on the use of involuntary commitment, electroconvulsive 
therapy, stimulants and antidepressants among children, and 
neuroleptics among adults.

Conversely, radical consumerists remain disinclined to soften their 
antipsychiatry stance toward a territorial and biologically oriented 
profession that, in their view, has profited from patients it neglected 
and abused. Seeing themselves as "the last minority" (17), unfairly 
stigmatized by psudoscientific classification, and denied 
self-determination, they will undoubtedly continue to play an assertive 
role in the delivery of mental health services worldwide.


Footnotes
 
Dr. Rissmiller is affiliated with the Department of Psychiatry, School 
of Osteopathic Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New 
Jersey, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 (e-mail, rissmidj at umdnj.edu ). 
Mr. Rissmiller is attending Harvard College in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts.

References

References
 

1 Cooper D: Psychiatry and Anti-Psychiatry. London, Tavistock 
Publications, 1967

2 Foucault M: Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the 
Age of Reason. New York, Random House, 1965

3 Fanon F: The Wretched of the Earth. New York, Grove Press, 1963

4 Lessing DM: The Golden Notebook. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1962

5 Goffman E: Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients 
and Other Inmates. New York, Anchor Books, 1961

6 Laing RD: The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and 
Madness. Harmondsworth, England, Penguin, 1960

7 Robinson P (director): Asylum. Kino Video, 1972

8 Szasz TS: The myth of mental illness. American Psychologist 
15:113–118,1960

9 Szasz TS: The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of 
Personal Conduct. New York, Hoeber-Harper, 1961

10 Szasz TS: The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the 
Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement. New York, Harper and Row, 
1970

11 Leary T: A letter from Timothy Leary, Ph.D., July 17, 1961. 
Available at www.szasz.com/leary.html

12 Hubbard LR: Crime and psychiatry, June 23, 1969. Available at 
http://freedom. lronhubbard.org/page080.htm

13 Kesey K: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. New York, Viking Press, 
1962

14 Chamberlin J: The ex-patients' movement: where we've been and where 
we're going. Journal of Mind and Behavior 11:323–336,1990

15 Appelbaum PS: Almost a Revolution: Mental Health Law and the Limits 
of Change. New York, Oxford University Press, 1994

16 Chamberlin J: On Our Own: Patient-Controlled Alternatives to the 
Mental Health System. New York, Hawthorne, 1978

17 Satel SL, Redding RE: Sociopolitical trends in mental health care: 
the consumer/survivor movement and multiculturalism, in Kaplan and 
Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 8th ed. Edited by Sadock 
BJ, Sadock VA. Philadelphia, Pa, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005

18 Bristo M: From Privileges to Rights: People Labeled With Psychiatric 
Disabilities Speak for Themselves. Washington, DC, National Council on 
Disability, Jan 20, 2000

- end -

~~~~~~~~~~

ACTIONS:

* E-mail a civil letter to the editor of _Psychiatric Services_ at 
psjournal at psych.org.

 From their guidelines: "Letters should not exceed 500 words with a 
maximum of three authors and five references. Letters related to 
material published in _Psychiatric Services_ should be sent directly to 
the editor at psjournal at psych.org ; or mailed: American Psychiatric 
Association; Suite 1825, MS#4; 1000 Wilson Boulevard; Arlington, VA 
22209; or faxed: 703-907-1095. They must be received within three 
months of publication of the article to which they refer."

* Forward this to others and help debunk American Psychiatric 
Association DISINFORMATION.

~~~~~~~~~~

For other recent -- and more fair -- mentions of MindFreedom in the 
media see:

http://www.intenex.net/pipermail/mindfreedom-news/2006-May/000034.html

~~~~~~~~~~

    Join MindFreedom International or renew your membership today!

Do you want to...

* Win human rights campaigns in mental health?

* End abuse by the psychiatric drug industry?

* Support the self-determination of psychiatric survivors?

* Promote safe, humane and effective options in mental health?

You are not alone! MindFreedom is a nonprofit human rights group that 
unites 100 sponsor and affiliate groups with individual members, and is 
accredited by the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization 
(NGO) with Consultative Roster Status.

MindFreedom is one of the very few totally independent groups in the 
mental health field with no funding from governments, drug companies, 
religions, corporations, or the mental health system. While most of 
MindFreedom's members are psychiatric survivors, *all* who support 
human rights are invited to join and become active leaders.

JOIN, RENEW, DONATE, or give GIFT MEMBERSHIPS to MindFreedom 
International today:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/join.shtml

For a MAD MARKET of books and other products to support human rights 
campaigns in mental health: http://www.madmarket.org

MindFreedom International office: 454 Willamette, Suite 216 - POB 
11284; Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA

web site: http://www.mindfreedom.org
e-mail: office at mindfreedom.org
office phone: (541) 345-9106
toll free: 1-877-MAD-PRIDE or 1-877-623-7743
fax: (541) 345-3737

Please forward.