I’ve just read some of his manifesto, and it is enough.
Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word “disease” denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term “mental illness” refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish.
He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.
The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.
Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness? If so that really say everything you need to know about him.
If we recognize that “mental illness” is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior
I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours. Is this how you would describe catatonia?
Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a “wall.” At the same time, the State ought not to interfere with mental health practices between consenting adults. The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.
Does this not describe the current situation.
Because being accused of mental illness is similar to being accused of crime, we ought to presume that psychiatric “defendants” are mentally competent, just as we presume that criminal defendants are legally innocent. Individuals charged with criminal, civil, or interpersonal offenses ought never to be treated as incompetent solely on the basis of the opinion of mental health experts. Incompetence ought to be a judicial determination and the “accused” ought to have access to legal representation and a right to trial by jury.
I agree with him somewhat here, in that psychiatrist may be able to abuse their powers. But it is not as simple as described. Firs of all, doctors are told everything in complete confidentiality, and are only allowed to break that confidentiality if a court orders them to, or the person is thought to be an imminant danger to either themselves or others. Even then, for the persons to be committed they have to be asessed by other psychhiatrists.
Involuntary mental hospitalization is imprisonment under the guise of treatment; it is a covert form of social control that subverts the rule of law. No one ought to be deprived of liberty except for a criminal offense, after a trial by jury guided by legal rules of evidence. No one ought to be detained against his will in a building called “hospital,” or in any other medical institution, or on the basis of expert opinion. Medicine ought to be clearly distinguished and separated from penology, treatment from punishment, the hospital from the prison. No person ought to be detained involuntarily for a purpose other than punishment or in an institution other than one formally defined as a part of the state’s criminal justice system.
Again, therre is a need for some balance. If someone claims to be feeling homicidal, should they just be left to wonder the street with these feelings.
Insanity is a legal concept involving the courtroom determination that a person is not capable of forming conscious intent and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for an otherwise criminal act. The opinions of experts about the “mental state” of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court, exactly as the opinions of experts about the “religious state” of defendants are inadmissible. No one ought to be excused of lawbreaking or any other offense on the basis of so-called expert opinion rendered by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a person of responsibility for an otherwise criminal act on the basis of inability to form conscious intent is an act of legal mercy masquerading as an act of medical science. Being merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a moral and legal matter, unrelated to the actual or alleged expertise of medical and mental health professionals.
I agree. The jury should be let decide once they hear some mental professionals give their diagnoses.