Why do you think that psychiatry believes in the chemical construction of the mind?

Can you cite some prominent psychiatrists, or perhaps a dogmatic statement from the APA or the RCPsych?

Stereotyping of psychiatry is common, but since this is ResearchGate rather than OpinionGate, perhaps you should offer us some data on which to start the discussion.

This would be useful, before we all start to debate what may be a non-problem.

An interesting response. Every client I have ever had has informed me that upon attending one or other of the psychiatric services they are immediately given drugs. Often cohesion (I'm sure you'll deny this) is employed. They are invariably told their condition is the result of chemical imbalance often before full acquaintance with a client. A non-problem? Ah, if only! I am used to two wholly different perspectives though, that of physician/that of client.

Yes it’s a problem alright. Patients tell me that too.

Maybe since we got MAOI and CPZ? —if they help then they must surely be treating the cause?

I'm not sure Stuart. In all honesty I think there is an immense separation of reality in mental health-psychiatrists tend to believe what they do works, but without any clear back-up evidence. Their claim to be extraordinarily acute observers-in that if they do ask the patient they tend not to value the response. Reality lies with the physician, not the patient. If the physician decides a certain method works, then hey ho-it works-no matter what the client says.

Physicians have theories, rarely, it seems to me either scientifically tested or justified. I looked at the question serotonin here, with backup research, and could find little genuine evidence for the efficacy of treatments beyond physician's claims. There are papers on RG, independently researched, that were sent to me that insist that there is no evidence.

No-one doubts that chemicals affect the mind, no more than they doubt that chemicals affect the metabolism. Since chemicals are simply atoms and molecules, at one level the question is trivial.

But I assume that you mean a sort of 'nothing-but' construction – that the mind is nothing other than cascades of neurotransmitters. And that your evidence for this is that psychiatric patients are typically prescribed something.

I think that this misrepresents the role of medication. A person with type I diabetes will be prescribed insulin, but their physician will of course have to take into account that the illness is a disorder of insulin production that is taking place in a specific individual. The management of diabetes, or of any disorder, is a collaboration between physician and patient that must take into account the meaning of the disorder within the context of the patient's life.

That's not to say that there aren't burned out physicians who keep patients at a distance using the prescription pad. But you are in danger of inferring the philosophy of psychiatry from the prescribing habits observed in a selective bunch of clients.

I suggest that you investigate the Royal College of Psychiatrists website, their documents describing how services should operate, the doings of the various interest groups (check out the cultural psychiatry group, for example) to see that psychiatry is much more complex, alive and thoughtful than you see to think.

Instead of stereotyping at a distance, I suggest you engage. You will find the same idealism, professionalism, weariness, insight, arrogance and elitism in probably the same proportions as you will among your own colleagues.

Ronan,

I have not obtained such views from a selective bunch of clients, nor the colleague who has had the same experiences. I cannot really see what your example (insulin) apparently says about your view, as such physical problems cannot possibly throw adequate light on mental health problems, which are more complex. Haven't you here conflated one type of illness with another? Please, also refrain from telling me what I do and what I should do and pay more clear attention to your own limitations not the ones you imagine I possess.

If you want truly to engage with alternative views and consider your own position at greater depth then I am more than happy to oblige. Is your mind I wonder open enough?

Oops I was actually being sarcastic. That may not have been apparent In the way I phrased it. What I’m saying is psychs can be seduced by the (partial) success these drugs have into thinking the drug action leverages the original problem.

Hi Stanley, I feel that Psychiatry does have a prevalence to look at chemical constructions etc. You use the term psychiatry in your questions but in one of your responses refer to mental health and the two are not always the same. When I began my nurse training in 1983 it was called 'psychiatry' but we have evolved to understand more about the mind, the social impact and level of functioning for individuals and appreciate a more psychological and holistic perspective. There will always be lots written about the chemical constructions and published research that is biologically determined but, interetingly there is a great swell of interest in the recent work by the British Psychological Society and their work around the 'Power Threat Meaning Framework' ( https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/introducing-power-threat-meaning-framework ). This may be an alternative view that gives you faith that not all is dominated by one outlook. I am aware I have not answered the 'why' in your question but hope you find this link useful.

In humans the mind can influence the chemicals! Chemical theories are interesting and somtimes helpful but it influences the whole brain. Psychological (mind) constructions can also be influcend by psychotherapy. To deconstruct humans only to chemicals is dehumanising mankind.

Jan, I agree. This kind of reductionism is harmful and come from the same cultural Victorian and Edwardian tropes as racism and colonialism. It gives psychiatrists unusual power, and always has done.

Keith, stay tuned because it would be interesting to discuss matters further.

Stuart, I agree with you if you are saying the drugs actually don't work, but psychiatrist's have developed an anecdotal/evidence based relationship to treatments. Thankfully, independent researchers are coming up with other conclusions.

I believe it is because most in the field are materialists- forget Freud, I'm team Yung- as I see it the mind is to consciousness- as the hand is to the brain. If its working well we're able to project and interact in this dimension, if there's dysfunction it's distorted.We are greater than the sum of our parts.

Also (see above) the medical profession's belief that so-called mental illnesses can be dealt with in the same way as physical ones-i.e with drugs or invasive treatments of one kind or another. Psychiatrists gain evidence through observation, omitting any concern over likely contamination over preconception, culture, class, ideology and ego. Psychiatry tends (others may determine these are generalised observations-but so be it)to assume that any patient (I term them clients) with an appointment (often from GPs who question little of what they are taught and exhibit little insight, but unreflective class and professional loyalty) must be mentally ill and tend to simply search for the apparently correct size shoe to fit. Such is public trust and belief, that little genuine investigation into psychiatric mores and ideas takes place.