Biological psychiatry: A practice in search of a science

The rise of the biological causation model in the past thirty years is traced to psychiatry’s efforts to regain lost status and to protect itself from intrusions by non-medical practitioners, as well as to the pharmaceutical industry’s drive for profits. Evidence in support of the model, including studies of identical twins and of brain structure and function, are less revealing than was earlier thought, due to problems in methodology and interpretation. Organized psychiatry, when challenged in 2003, was unable to provide compelling evidence for biological causation of most mental and behavioral disorders. A paradigm shift away from biological causation and toward environmental causation is called for

Six-to-one gets the job done: Comments on the reviews

We are pleased to note that six of the seven responses to our article were marked by approval, and/or thoughtful contemplation, regarding our central theses—that the research said to support biological causation of mental disorders is relatively weak, and that the claims of drug effectiveness are often overstated

Ethical issues in the provision of online mental health services

A number of ethical and legal implications of on-line therapy [e-Therapy] are examined. e-Therapy is defined and its strengths and weaknesses listed. Specific ethical issues addressed include boundaries of competence, basis in science, avoidance of harm, confidentiality, avoidance of false or deceptive statements, media presentations, testimonials, solicitation of clients, fees and informed consent. Legal issues are discussed including the issue of interstate eTherapy. As a necessary measure to protect the public, the profession and the practitioner, it is recommended that federal legislation be enacted, informed by the American Psychological Association based upon APA\u27s review of other disciplines’ (e.g., medicine) e-Practice standards

Psychiatry’s thirty-five-year, non-empirical reach for biological explanations

This is our third article in a series that began with a special issue of Behavior and Social Issues in 2006. Here we briefly review our central points from the first two articles. First is that over the past thirty-five years, claims of biological causation of mental and behavioral disorders have gone well beyond the research data, for reasons that are largely related to psychiatry’s lost esteem and protection of its “turf,” as well as to the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Our second position is that claims of psychotropic drugs’ effectiveness have been overstated. We respond, as well, to the protestations of Professor Jerome C. Wakefield who defends biological psychiatry. We also provide an update on relevant events within the drug industry since our last article in this series