Pills and Shock Treatment

I've watched with growing interest, the rhetoric flowing between the church of Scientology and the established psychiatric community. Scientology states that psychiatry is not a true science, citing the DSM-IV-TR's categories formed by clinically-informed consensus as proof. (I may be wrong, but is that not just a form of qualitative research?) The gentleman I heard on CNN tonight, claiming to protect citizens from the ills of psychiatry, stated emphatically that it is untenable to allow anyone to undergo shock treatment. He stated that any child knows not to put their hand on an electric shock-producing wire or outlet. Thus, it is unnatural and "barbaric" to allow shock treatments, even though it continues to have proven efficacy for some types of intractible depression. I remarked to my husband that it is also barbaric to cut into people's stomachs, remove their limbs, or break their bones, yet this is done daily in operating rooms (under anesthesia). It would be utter folly not to do so and millions of lives have been saved as a result. Yet the arguments wax hot from those individuals who feel they need to rid the world of psychiatry and psychology in any form--except their own.

As I listen, it is utterly mind-boggling to me how the most extreme case examples of misinformed psychiatry, adverse side effects, and market-driven choices of some have been used to negate the value of the entire psychotherapeutic community.

I am reminded of a student in one of my family therapy courses a couple years ago. He took issue with a theory I presented in class, stating that its application at the intervention level damaged people, ruined lives and fractured family relationships. I was astonished, as this therapeutic approach has been emprically proven to be effective with a number of populations for many presenting problems. As we tried to sort out my student's objections, he related his experience of once watching a therapist perform therapy using this approach. He described an unscrupulous and unethical individual who emotionally exploited his clients by general his lack of personal integrity, poor understanding of therapeutic engagement, and utter disregard for others. It was in fact, horrendous therapy, but it was not representative of the theory. It was his version of the theory that fouled it in my student's eyes, not the theory itself.

Over the ensuing months I've had cause to recall this classroom discussion about poor theory versus poor representation of theory. We do this all the time as individuals whose lives represent Christianity and Christ Himself. It is sad and startling what Christianity means according to those who have seen and heard unscrupulous representations. As I once said to a friend, "I'm don't always project what I want to represent." There is more truth in that than I can say. Perhaps something here that we would all benefit from contemplating.