Thomas S. Szasz Classic Publication

Thomas S. Szasz Classic Publication

The author clearly is taking the concept of mental illness to task in the opening section, mentioning that in the past societies believed that witches, deities and other unknowns were to be blamed for bizarre behaviors, and even in the present day the facts of mental illness are in doubt.

Mental illness likely results from problems with the brain of a human, not necessarily of the mind of a human; moreover the common conjecture with reference to mental illness tends to be that some slight neurological problem has occurred and in due time that malfunction will be located and understood.

The viewpoint that mental illness can be thought of as a flaw in the brain in the same context as other diseases of the body present bodily flaws is an erroneous position to take. Indeed, how can a competent, educated, alert person equate a flaw in the brain with a broken bone, for example? The problem isn't a matter of ignorance but rather a question of mislabeling the knowledge that currently exists in the medical field; that is, to equate mental and physical symptoms and from that create kind of dualism is an improper approach to understanding these complicated issues.

Problems that humans encounter in the process of their daily lives -- living experiences that otherwise are expected to be harmonious -- can be and often are construed to point to the possibility of mental illness, which is flawed reasoning. It is false to assume that a person capable of homicide absolutely must have mental illness issues; it is also absurd to assert that a person that is chronically hostile or a person asking for a divorce has mental illness symptoms. Another pertinent issue to confront is this: who is qualified to determine whether a person is mentally unstable? Is the person who believes he has mental problems competent to make that judgment? In most cases that would not be true. There are serious questions to be raised vis-a-vis the role of any psychiatrist; if he is an agent of the court, or paid as an expert witness in a trial, can his views be accepted as objective? Ethics and medicine go hand-in-hand, and indeed those in the medical field must be trusted to objectively, competently serve patients regardless of political or religious beliefs. However can patients truly trust that a physician or psychiatrist eschews his ethical considerations and moral beliefs when working with any particular patient -- and also, would it be practical for a psychiatrist who is Roman Catholic work only with other Catholics, and a Baptist psychiatrist work only with Baptist patients?

While physical illness references public issues (that people can see and understand, like sniffling from a bad cold or a black eye) mental illness is far more private; this puts psychotherapy in something of a mysterious genre, adding to the already puzzling world of mental illness. One of the more puzzling paradoxes in the field of psychotherapy is the following: when a psychotherapist attempts to restore a person's mental capacities that certainly relates to that patient's social relationships (bizarre behavior in public creates a horrendous image); but when a person has problems dealing with his or her values, that is not part of the psychotherapy though it should be. Is mental illness actually a disguise for other social problems, and in fact is what many people allude to as mental illness actually just the result of the strain of living through difficult human interactions?