User login
In reference to the “antipsychiatry” editorial by Dr. Henry A. Nasrallah (“The antipsychiatry movement: Who and why,” From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, December 2011, p. 4-6, 53): many years ago, when I was working at Chestnut Lodge, the family of a hospitalized patient asked Dr. Thomas Szasz to evaluate—as a consultant and “antipsychiatrist”—what should be done for this patient. Contrary to the family’s expectations, Dr. Szasz’s opinion was that the patient needed psychiatric treatment and hospitalization.
As a resident at Yale University, I knew Dr. Theodore Lidz very well. It is true that at a time of limited biological knowledge, he emphasized family dynamics as contributing to severe psychopathology, but he did not—to my knowledge—object to electroconvulsive therapy for a particular catatonic patient. His being demonized as an “antipsychiatrist” offends me because it misrepresents him.
John S. Kafka, MD
Private Practice
Washington, DC
In reference to the “antipsychiatry” editorial by Dr. Henry A. Nasrallah (“The antipsychiatry movement: Who and why,” From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, December 2011, p. 4-6, 53): many years ago, when I was working at Chestnut Lodge, the family of a hospitalized patient asked Dr. Thomas Szasz to evaluate—as a consultant and “antipsychiatrist”—what should be done for this patient. Contrary to the family’s expectations, Dr. Szasz’s opinion was that the patient needed psychiatric treatment and hospitalization.
As a resident at Yale University, I knew Dr. Theodore Lidz very well. It is true that at a time of limited biological knowledge, he emphasized family dynamics as contributing to severe psychopathology, but he did not—to my knowledge—object to electroconvulsive therapy for a particular catatonic patient. His being demonized as an “antipsychiatrist” offends me because it misrepresents him.
John S. Kafka, MD
Private Practice
Washington, DC
In reference to the “antipsychiatry” editorial by Dr. Henry A. Nasrallah (“The antipsychiatry movement: Who and why,” From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, December 2011, p. 4-6, 53): many years ago, when I was working at Chestnut Lodge, the family of a hospitalized patient asked Dr. Thomas Szasz to evaluate—as a consultant and “antipsychiatrist”—what should be done for this patient. Contrary to the family’s expectations, Dr. Szasz’s opinion was that the patient needed psychiatric treatment and hospitalization.
As a resident at Yale University, I knew Dr. Theodore Lidz very well. It is true that at a time of limited biological knowledge, he emphasized family dynamics as contributing to severe psychopathology, but he did not—to my knowledge—object to electroconvulsive therapy for a particular catatonic patient. His being demonized as an “antipsychiatrist” offends me because it misrepresents him.
John S. Kafka, MD
Private Practice
Washington, DC