Psychiatry-->Dehumanization

Bombadillo · 06-09-2004, 01:31 PM

Well this surfaced a tiny bit in the philosophy and ADD threads, and it's been bothering me a lot. I've been considering a career as a psychiatrist (even learned to spell it

), or at least somewhere in psychiatry if other jobs exist. But I've been doubting now whether or not this is really fullfilling.

One point of view seems to be that psychiatrist must essentially read into a person, and relate everything they do to the disease that they have (to some degree). In other words, they credit everything the person does to their disease, as if they were totally out of control. And then the treatment is based on the possibly too deep and advanced studies of pathological disorders, so it's very by the book.

Unfortunately, although I'm very interested and think I'm pretty skilled in psychiatry, this seems mostly true. Now I think that the "science" of psychiatry is just giving names to additudes or mindsets that are really common, and the by-the-book treatments seems unnecassary to me if I know how to talk to someone who is depressed, angry, or whatever. Whether they feel that way temporarily because of one specific incident, or if they have been that way since childhood because of a variety of factors (maybe one major one... whatever...) I don't expect it should matter.

In short, I think that there are so much better things that I could be doing instead of 'traeting' people in such a questionable way; and if i wanted really to help them, not be bound by any rules from journals or laws.

I don't mean to argue anything here, and I hope you'll contribute for me. What's your stance on this topic?

06-09-2004, 01:31 PM	#1
Bombadillo "The Bomb" Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: all over the place Posts: 1,601	Psychiatry-->Dehumanization Well this surfaced a tiny bit in the philosophy and ADD threads, and it's been bothering me a lot. I've been considering a career as a psychiatrist (even learned to spell it ), or at least somewhere in psychiatry if other jobs exist. But I've been doubting now whether or not this is really fullfilling. One point of view seems to be that psychiatrist must essentially read into a person, and relate everything they do to the disease that they have (to some degree). In other words, they credit everything the person does to their disease, as if they were totally out of control. And then the treatment is based on the possibly too deep and advanced studies of pathological disorders, so it's very by the book. Unfortunately, although I'm very interested and think I'm pretty skilled in psychiatry, this seems mostly true. Now I think that the "science" of psychiatry is just giving names to additudes or mindsets that are really common, and the by-the-book treatments seems unnecassary to me if I know how to talk to someone who is depressed, angry, or whatever. Whether they feel that way temporarily because of one specific incident, or if they have been that way since childhood because of a variety of factors (maybe one major one... whatever...) I don't expect it should matter. In short, I think that there are so much better things that I could be doing instead of 'traeting' people in such a questionable way; and if i wanted really to help them, not be bound by any rules from journals or laws. I don't mean to argue anything here, and I hope you'll contribute for me. What's your stance on this topic? __________________ Could it be that one path to enlightenment leads through insanity?