Jeffrey A. Lieberman
Auteur de Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry
A propos de l'auteur
Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, is the Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, psychiatrist in chief of the New York Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Medical Center, afficher plus and the former president of the American Psychiatric Association. In 2000 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. He lives with his wife and two sons in New York City. afficher moins
Œuvres de Jeffrey A. Lieberman
Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry [HARDCOVER] [2015] [By Jeffrey A. Lieberman] (2015) 2 exemplaires
Psiquiatras Uma História por Contar 1 exemplaire
Historia de la psiquiatría. De sus orígenes, sus fracasos y su resurgimiento. (Spanish Edition) (2016) 1 exemplaire
Étiqueté
Partage des connaissances
- Sexe
- male
Membres
Critiques
Listes
Books to Read (1)
Prix et récompenses
Vous aimerez peut-être aussi
Auteurs associés
Statistiques
- Œuvres
- 17
- Membres
- 219
- Popularité
- #102,099
- Évaluation
- 4.3
- Critiques
- 4
- ISBN
- 29
- Langues
- 4
Second, the author is a True Psychiatric Believer. Not that that's surprising, considering he was the president of the APA (that's the American Psychiatric Association, not the American Psychological Association - they are different!) from 2013-2014 - but it does mean that this book is for sure biased when it comes to talking about the efficacy and wonderfulness of psychiatric treatment and research. And in many ways, I agree with Lieberman - I'm not a fan of Freud or psychoanalysis, I like the idea of applying scientific research principles to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health, but he paints a crazy rosy picture of drug treatments for mental illness. While I'm sure that it was a revelation when drugs were discovered that could treat mental illnesses, they're not miracle cures. He tells many stories of people whose lives were immeasurably improved by some drug some therapy, and a lot of the stories he tells with poor outcomes are because the patient stopped taking their medicine or the family of the patient couldn't deal with the stigma; it's never because the therapy/medication itself was ineffective. Yes, there are lots of people who are effectively treated with anti-psychotics or anti-depressants or anxiolytics - there are also people who improve psychologically but suffer from other side effects, people who won't take meds because of the side effects, people who don't get side effects but don't do any better on meds, people for whom CBT doesn't help them improve, etc., not to mention the scads of people who can't afford either therapy or medication or both, or the people who get overworked psychiatrists with no time to spend learning about them or psychiatrists who only prescribe meds without therapy or vice versa and so on. It's not really fair to say that psychiatry is doing super duper amazingly as long as you ignore the people without insurance and the social/environmental/neurological/medical factors that might make a person not react to drugs or stop taking them and the psychiatric professionals who aren't as good at their jobs as they should be. I would rather read a book like this, written by the former president of the APA, can sing the praises of his profession while still acknowledging areas that need improvement. Instead, he listed off a bunch of terrible things that psychiatry used to do in the past "but we're so much better now! the end."
So what I'm saying is, read this book with a grain of salt. I'm sure that everything he's saying is true, but I'm also sure there's some stuff he leaves out.
ALSO - there's one paragraph in the middle of the book that I feel I need to address because it made me do a double-take - apparently when Lieberman was in med school his pharmacology prof had them do an assignment where they were all given a MYSTERY DRUG to INGEST INTO THEIR BODIES and then guess what drug it was based on the effects they noticed in themselves??!?!?!???!?! THIS WAS A REAL ASSIGNMENT?? And he doesn't even seem to think that it was a big deal because he just mentions it in the context of him having felt the effects of certain psych drugs!! What year was it when person said, hm, maybe this assignment is crazy unethical? I hope everyone at least got the option to opt out! If anybody knows any more about this, I am intensely curious. Was this a common assignment in med schools in the 70s? Or was it just this one particular professor? When did it stop? Did anyone suffer adverse consequences from this assignment? Is that why it stopped??… (plus d'informations)