Rosenhan Experiment

I think this is very interesting. I feel that it is hard to label people in general for physical problems; psychological problems pose an even greater challenge (to diagnose). This study proves that doctors should take caution when applying labels to people who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The psychiatric industry functions on treating people who are different (mentally) than the rest of society. It thrives when they have more patients to treat and 'fix'. I believe this problem has developed into professional enablers cloaked with degrees, suits, and ties, leading people into a life of expensive drugs, therapy, and coaching on how to 'deal' with this 'sickness' that has largely been created by the key people who will profit from these newfound problems in patients.

---

below quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
---

The Rosenhan experiment was a famous experiment into the validity of psychiatric diagnosis conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan in 1973. It was published in the journal Science under the title "On being sane in insane places."[1] The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis.[2]

Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" (three women and five men) who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. Hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, and instead believed that all of the pseudopatients exhibited symptoms of ongoing mental illness. Several were confined for months. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release.

The second part involved asking staff at a psychiatric hospital to detect non-existent "fake" patients. No real patients were sent, yet the ward patients already present falsely identified large numbers of ordinary patients as impostors, often times as journalists and/or reporters.

The study concluded, "It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labeling in psychiatric institutions. It suggested that the use of community mental health facilities which concentrated on specific problems and behaviors rather than psychiatric labels might be a solution and recommended education to make psychiatric workers more aware of the social psychology of their facilities.

---

extended information on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

façade wrote:I think this is very interesting. I feel that it is hard to label people in general for physical problems; psychological problems pose an even greater challenge (to diagnose). This study proves that doctors should take caution when applying labels to people who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The psychiatric industry functions on treating people who are different (mentally) than the rest of society. It thrives when they have more patients to treat and 'fix'. I believe this problem has developed into professional enablers cloaked with degrees, suits, and ties, leading people into a life of expensive drugs, therapy, and coaching on how to 'deal' with this 'sickness' that has largely been created by the key people who will profit from these newfound problems in patients.

I think the worst part of the scam is prescribing of drugs known produce withdrawal reactions that look /feel just like the symptoms they claim to treat and then claiming these withdrawal reactions are not withdrawal reactions at all but instead symptoms of so called disorder itself. Or a new one.

At the time long term inpatient was all the rage. The longer and the more patients stayed/came in the more funding the hospitals received. Back then, and even today in some areas one simply being refered to one with-out evidence is enough for staff to consider a person mentally unstable and needing a stay.