Sunday, February 14, 2016

#Wikipedia - Peter Breggin, the power of an argument, a source

Mr Breggin is in / has been a rather controversial person in psychiatry. The point he makes is that the use of medicine is vastly overrated. He has been at pain to make this point, he has been court and brought to court over this opinion.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness took him to court because of a remark on Oprah:
"mental health clients should judge their clinicians in terms of their empathy and support; if they failed to show interest in them and tried to prescribe drugs during the first session, he advised such clients to seek assistance elsewhere."
This may be or may have been controversial, but it is certainly not controversial in the Netherlands. The notion that a psychiatrist should be empathic and supportive is essential for quality care that is to be given. The points Mr Breggin makes about psychiatric drugs are seen as mostly valid and, there is enough scientific evidence to support the notion that oversubscription is happening widely and, it has been sufficiently proven that NAMI was/is largely funded by pharmaceutical companies.

The point is that many sources exist that 'prove' a point. At what point can a point be accepted as valid or more precisely when is a point no longer acceptable in Wikipedia? We do agree that drapetomania has been a fabrication right?

No comments: