Congratulations to my GMU colleague and long-time friend Don Boudreaux, who has been named the winner of the 2009 Thomas Szasz Award for Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties. It well-merited and it is great to see Don’s tireless and advocacy for individual liberty recognized.
tamerlane says:
Is the Thomas Szasz whom this award honors the same nutcase as the Thomas Szasz who built his reputation and career denying the existence of mental illness? If so it’s kind of like having a David Irving award for historiography.
October 18, 2009, 2:40 pmA. Zarkov says:
Have you actually read Thomas Szasz? Point me to a section of his book, The Myth of Mental Illness, and tell me why it’s wrong. I don’t necessarily agree with Szasz, but these drive by attacks contribute little to the subject.
October 18, 2009, 4:33 pmChrisTS says:
I read Szasz long ago. I believe he was, indeed, presenting an existentialist argument that ‘mental illness’ is chosen – in the typicall extended existentialist sense of ‘choice.’
I appreciated his attacks on uncessary and abusive institutionaliztion. Still, I thought the arguments against mental illness were..um .. crazy.
October 18, 2009, 5:01 pm24AheadDotCom says:
Yes, here’s Donald Boudreaux on civil liberties. Oh, did I say “civil liberties”? I’m sorry, I meant: “giving China, India, and Mexico the ability to colonize parts of the U.S.” If anyone disagrees, tell me exactly how – if we followed his advice – we could prevent that from happening.
October 18, 2009, 5:21 pmmikeyes says:
Since 1960, when Myth of Mental Illness was published, there has been a lot scientific validation of the various mental illness including biochemical, MR studies, and genetic studies. His arguments against biological psychiatry have been thoroughly debunked.
Many of his ideas have value – abolition of the insanity defense for example – but his thoughts on allowing suicidal persons to complete the act even if they have a treatable depression and his attempts to stop treatment of any mental illness (in conjunction with the Church of Scientology by forming the Citizens Commission on Human Rights – he is not a Scientologist) have done more harm than good.
Much of what he discusses in relation to mental illness – the insanity defense, involuntary hospitalization, use of illegal drugs – are not medical in nature, rather they are either/or legal issues or public policy issues. His basic arguments about illness are unscientific but his thoughts on how mental illness should be viewed and dealt with when persons with mental illness have social and legal interactions with others have some value.
October 18, 2009, 6:15 pmMark N. says:
mikeyes: I read Szasz’s main complaints as not really implicating science one way or another. Of course many things classed as “mental illness” can be found to have neurobiological causes— because all brain states and characteristics are neurobiologically caused. Szasz, as I read him, mainly objects to singling out particular sets of these states as “illness”, as distinguished from others, which are “not illness”. That’s a non-scientific distinction, since there’s nothing in science that says that “liking chocolate” isn’t a mental illness, while “being extremely paranoid” is. It’s a subjective decision that the latter is an undesirable state, while the former is desirable or, at worst, neutral.
October 18, 2009, 6:27 pmChrisTS says:
Mark N.
I’m sorry, but if the good doctor was claiming that distinguishing between the desirability of ‘liking chocolate’ and ‘being paranoid’ is ‘subjective,’ then his arguments were worse than I remember.
I wish Dr. Szasz were here, today, to help us stem the tide of everything-is-pathological. Still, the fact is that being paranoid [really], being OC, and/or seeing pink elephants in the bedroom are not simply ‘subjectively’ undesirable.
October 18, 2009, 6:45 pmMark N. says:
ChrisTS: I don’t see how one could claim otherwise; “undesirability” is inherently a subjective property. There is certainly no objective, scientific test for a property’s undesirability. I would agree that certain things are so extreme that there is not likely to ever be a serious dispute as to their desirability, regardless of what era or society you find yourself in. Opinion on others changes over time, as with homosexuality (formerly considered a mental illness, now not). But that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t a scientific determination. Science only develops the cures once non-scientific judgment of society has determined that something is something bad that ought to be cured.
October 18, 2009, 6:53 pmChrisTS says:
Mike N:
I admit to being a naturalist of a sort, and not a thoroughgoing constructivist.
Anything that (a) prevents an individual from managing in the world [ dysfunctional] – note that I do not reference a particular culture – and/or (b) makes said person genuinely unhappy and/or (c) turns on that person’s seeing objects that are not present is undesirable in as ‘objective’ a sense as anyone ought to want.
Note that I think genuine dysfunctionality is necessary. As ‘happiness’ is in many respects a ‘subjective’ determination, I treat it as a supplementary criterion (I suppose we might argue as to whether or not drug addicts are ‘happy’). Many people who suffer from serious mental illness do not hallucinate or hear voices; thus, (c) is not a necessary condition.
P.S. I think (a) is necessary for the label of ‘undesirable’; I certainly do not think it is sufficient for a determination of mental illness.
October 18, 2009, 7:09 pmbyomtov says:
Mark N.,
Here’s a clue. If, like depression, a condition makes it more likely that someone would commit suicide, it’s fair to call that condition objectively undesirable. It can kill you, just like cancer.
Mental illness, not limited to depression, has genuine objectively negative effects on the lives of those who suffer from it. And, to anticipate, unlike homosexuality, those negative effects do not stem from the attitudes of others. They stem from one’s own difficulties.
Szasz may have done a lot for civil liberties, or not, but his scientific ideas have simply been shown to be wrong.
October 18, 2009, 9:50 pmDavid Nieporent says:
We get it. You don’t like dark skinned people. Can you please stop turning every topic into an excuse for you to reveal that fact to the one guy living in a shack in Montana who hasn’t figured that out about you yet?
October 19, 2009, 3:31 amChrisTS says:
David Nieporent:
:-)
October 19, 2009, 12:51 pm24AheadDotCom says:
It looks like I’ll have to remember the name David Nieporent. He shows he’s not capable of coming up with an argument (as I requested) but instead stoops to smears.
If any grown-ups would like to discuss this, let me repeat my request: if we did what Boudreaux proposes, how could we prevent stronger, more cohesive countries such as the ones listed above from sending us people in order to colonize parts of our country? Obviously, David Nieporent knew the answer to that, thus the smear.
October 19, 2009, 3:32 pmneurodoc says:
Yes, that’s the same person. I first heard him speak more than 40 years ago and was very impressed. At the time, I knew absolutely nothing about neurosciences. When I knew something of these matters, I was very impressed by him, but in a very different and negative way. Likening an award in his name for contributions to the cause of civil liberties to one in David Irving’s name for contributions to historiography is over the top, but not altogether inapt.
October 20, 2009, 2:35 am