Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: What's the problem? A response to "secular humanism and scientific psychiatry"

Back to article

  1. reply to Derek Bolton

    Ovidiu Stoica, none

    24 September 2006

    > What are the hard problems? First, much of >mental health services are provided to voluntary >consumers who walk through the clinic door asking >for treatment. What can the kind of position >adopted by Szasz say about this?

    Szasz has addressed often this issue in his books and interviews, for instance in "The Ethics of psychoanalysis".

    at :

    "Here my classical liberal convictions are crucial, in that I firmly believe that there should be no interference in voluntary relationships between psychiatrists and patients. If the patient wants a drug, fine. If the patient wants electric shock, fine. If the patient wants a lobotomy, fine. Now that doesn't mean that I like it, any more than I would if the patient wants to have an abortion just because it's inconvenient to have a baby. I don't think that's a good idea either. But I don't think the law should interfere with it."(T.S.)

    >In the coercive case, what should be done >instead? What should be done with a person – let >us say a mother of two young children and a new >baby to make the case a hard one – who has so->called 'post-natal depression' and in this so->called depressed state expresses clear intent to >kill herself, with attempts, and a clear choice >not to have treatment? What should be done? Leave >her to it?

    Absolutely.It is her life, she owns it.

    If she wants to try a treatment for her affective state she can shop around and try one of the many

    choices for dealing with the emotional problems;

    i.e., "natural therapies", biochemical psychiatry,

    psychotherapies, religious counselling, etc.

    However if she doesn't then it is her right to do with her life and body as she, not others, thinks that is proper.

    Competing interests