Quote:
The biggest one for me is his opposition to psychiatric medicine while being a proponent of illegal drugs legalization. It's almost as if he wants to legalize heroin in favor of outlawing Prozac.


I can understand how it may come across that way. I can't speak for Szasz, of course, but I don't see this as a contradiction the way you do. In my mind, both Prozac and heroin should be readily available for those that want them, while forcing someone to take either against their will is obviously wrong. I don't think Szasz is trying to outlaw Prozac, he is trying to outlaw forcing others to take Prozac against their will.

Quote:
In almost every other case, the patients agree to the drugs they are taking, and can stop any time they wish.


Szasz is referring to involuntary "therapy". He states repeatedly in his work that he has no issue with people seeking the advice of experts and then voluntarily following their prescribed treatment. Szasz is talking about court-ordered "therapy", and court-ordered hospitalization of mental patients, where they are drugged or otherwise "treated" against their will.

Quote:
I've known a decent number of schizophrenics in my life, and, by and large, they are scared all of the time and desperately want to be helped. As such, the implication that psychiatrists are harming those patients I find patently absurd.


Of course I agree with this, but I think it is a misinterpretation of what he's saying. Nobody, including Szasz, would argue that it is wrong to help somone who wants help and voluntarily submits to something they believe will help them.

To understand what Szasz is talking about in these contexts, you need to think about "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest", not one's relationship with their voluntarily chosen therapist. Szasz is talking about how we treat people like those played by Jack Nicholson. It's hard to imagine how one could convince themselves that these people really want the "help" that is being "offered" them.

Quote:
Also, his implication that severely mentally ill people shouldn't be considered legally incompetent is complete nonsense to me.


Again, I don't think this is what he's saying. Szasz explicitly deals with the issue of legal incompetence in many of his books, and he clearly recognizes that some people are not capable of making choices for themselves. This is where his whole discussion of "unwilling vs. unable" fits; he definitely recognizes that some are unable.

Rather, I believe he is saying that our society labels irritating people as "mentally ill", then uses this stigma to persecute them. Again, "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" comes to mind. Szasz would argue (and has), that people depicted by the character Randle Patrick McMurphy are not "mentally ill", but deviant. To the extent they break the law, they should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. To the extent they are simply annoying, they should be left alone. Szasz argues that drugging these people stupid with thorazine or lobotomizing them is what our society does instead of burning people at the stake. Again, he is NOT talking about you and me, who go see a therapist for help with what he calls "problems with living." Szasz is talking about coerced "treatment", dealt out as punishment by the courts. Before you say this is a thing of the past, consider how many drug offenses are dealt with by the courts these days, where sentencing someone to treatment is very fasionable.

On the subject of voluntary relationship with one's therapist, Szasz often says only that this is what happens when people need to appeal to an authority to "get the drugs they want." In other words, most of the people on Prozac or Ritalin want to be, but they need to get a permission slip in order to do so. This also harms the medical doctor/patient relationship in cases where the patient must lie or overstate their symptoms to "get the drugs they want", if those drugs happen to be Vicodin.

Szasz argues that sentencing someone to "treatment" harms BOTH the legitimacy of the law (since we are not really enforcing the law in the criminal justice system and the offenders have broken the law) and a person's relationship with a therapist (because it is not voluntary). It hurts both; justice and therapy both lose. Either the law should be enforced or it shouldn't. We should be honest with ourselves and do what we say we're going to do. Either put drug offenders in prison (enforce the law), or legalize (admit it shouldn't be a criminal matter). That's what he's saying, IMHO.


Edited by TigerJimmy (14/10/2006 20:55)