Psychiatry in crisis - a battle over definitions

Abstract

Introduction: In January 2014, professor Peter Gøtzsche, head of the independent Cochrane Center, raised questions about the scientific quality of the medical understanding of mental illness. Since then, representatives of the psychiatric paradigm have answered to that critique. Method: An analysis of the phrasing of the debate responses showed that the leading voices represent two overlapping positions as to: What is mental illness and who may define it? Findings: A professional expert voice, where mental illness is seen as an objective dimension that fundamentally reflects the patient’s existence and ill core. A political voice, which is a new liberal variety of the first voice and which moderates the professional expert voice with a more sensible approach. Discussion: Societal studies show, in line with Gøtzsche’s work, that maintaining that psychiatric diagnoses are objective and independent parameters is misleading and has serious consequences. The above reveals a need for a new paradigm that includes social, cultural and economic angles in the understanding of mental illness.