Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 107,000 search results
  1. Current Opinion is a series of medical journals published by Wolters Kluwer imprint Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Wolters Kluwer acquired the journals from the Thomson Organisation in 1997. [1] [2] Each of these journals publishes editorials and reviews within one of a number of medical disciplines.

  2. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › PsychiatryPsychiatry - Wikipedia

    Clinical Psychology. Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders. These include various maladaptations related to mood, behaviour, cognition, and perceptions. See glossary of psychiatry . Initial psychiatric assessment of a person typically begins with a case history and mental ...

  3. People also ask

    Who are some of the discredited psychiatrists in psychiatry?

    Is the medical field of Psychiatry the same as psychology?

    What does the World Psychiatric Association code cover?

  4. Current Opinion in Psychiatry (skrót: Curr Opin Psychiatry) – amerykańskie czasopismo naukowe specjalizujące się w publikowaniu artykułów przeglądowych z psychiatrii; wydawane od 1988 roku. Dwumiesięcznik [1] [2] .

    • dwumiesięcznik
    • Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins (Wolters Kluwer Health)
  5. The Critical Psychiatry Network (CPN) is a psychiatric organization based in the United Kingdom.It was created by a group of British psychiatrists who met in Bradford, England in January 1999 in response to proposals by the British government to amend the 1983 Mental Health Act (MHA).

  6. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 383-389. 1997. Schwartz, MA, Wiggins OP: Psychosomatic medicine and the philosophy of life. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010 5: (January 21, 2010). Schwartz MA, Moskalewicz M, Wiggins OP: Karl Jaspers: The Icon of Modern Psychiatry. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 54(2), 4-9, 2017.

    • Cornell University Medical College
    • American
    • M.D.
    • The Corruptions, Conspiracies, and Collapse of Psychiatry and Psychology
    • Deprogramming
    • External Links Modified
    • Sources
    • Whitaker
    • Suicide
    • Fork Article
    • Bans on Conversion Therapy
    • Libertarianism
    • Comment

    Has anyone read The Corruptions, Conspiracies And Collapse Of Psychiatry And Psychology (2013)? It is available free of charge from www.freewiser.com. It might be worth including a section on it here. 1. Hi. I haven't read it but it looks to be self-published and therefore not, in Wikipedian terms, a reliable source. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Hi Fiachra, you have a point, the guidelines are there to prevent unscrupulous sources from being included hence the focus on 'reliable' sources published by reputable publishers. However being self published does not necessarily mean a source is without foundation or of low quality and so I noted that there are exceptions to the rule. The work does include a lot of high level references and extensively focuses on A.P.A. and W.H.O. publications (i.e. the highest quality national and international publications available) meaning that it does seem to be of a high quality. The difficulty in this case is that critical nature...

    Any thoughts about adding a short section/paragraph on deprogramming in this article? Zambelo; talk23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: 1. Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706115955/http://www.rossinst.com/trauma.htm to http://www.rossinst.com/trauma.htm When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueto let others know. N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true 1. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. 2. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online02:28, 28 August...

    The first 2 sources I checked had nothing to do with anti-psychiatry. I deleted those and I'll be working on checking the rest as well. Based on a quick skim, I'm worried this article might need some heavy editing. Let me know if anyone wants to share the load. I'll post a notice on WP:PSYCHOLOGY too. Also, if anyone knows of any RS on this topic that isn't already cited, please do share a link or the citation. I have access to the full text of most journals through work. Permstrump (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC) 1. The lack of cohesiveness makes this article really difficult to follow. I didn't know much of anything about antipsychiatry yesterday when I first read the lede, but the blatant character attacks and POV pushing from different perspectives were red huge flags. That's what prompted me to start checking the sources and so far, the first 6 I've checked didn't mention antipsychiatry or support the statements attributed to them. 1. Below are the lists I started to keep...

    I mean Robert Whitaker. It’s a long time since I edited this article last time. In YouTube I've just watched “Myths and Facts About Antidepressants / Robert Whitaker and Stefan Molyneux”. Perhaps it merits a place in the External Links section, say, instead of the article in Spanish that belongs to the Spanish wiki. But why is Wikipedia's software blocking the above YouTube interview of Whitaker? —Cesar Tort23:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

    Suicide is only mentioned once in the article. If antipsychiatrist activists are against coercive psychiatry, then aren't they for suicide being respected as a civil and human right? Should this be mentioned more in the article? Michael Ten (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    This article and Controversy surrounding psychiatryhave a lot in common. I don't propose merging them but rather separating what is strictly "anti-psychiatry" (a term of the 1960s and early 70s) and the broader criticism of psychiatry. Otherwise the information is duplicated. I just left an identical message in the talk page of "Controversy surrounding psychiatry". --Cesar Tort17:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 1. There are many reliable sources which describe "anti-psychiatry" as an "umbrella term", covering many sub-topics. Some sources also discuss the origins of anti-psychiatry from the 1940s, even though the term itself was not coined until the 1960s. User:FiachraByrne is one WP editor who has contributed much on this historical background, and it would be good to get her input here. Johnfos (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 1. 1.1. It's still a fork. There ought not to be two distinct articles describing the same topic. 1. 1.1. --Cesar Tort22:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC) There have been five par...

    Can we try to clear this up? Editor Joe1whas tried to add the following sentence to the lead. I don't see the referenced page of the book making any such statement. While anti-psychiatry writers like Szasz (who is quoted indirectly and not necessarily on this specific issue) may have made early criticisms of coercive aspects of the practice, nothing much came of it. It took the gradual shift in the attitudes of the broader society and a matching shift within the mainstream of the profession to bring about anything like a ban. To call that ban an erosion of the legal foundations of psychiatryseems to be an unwarranted conclusion or synthesis. Not to mention that this was added to the lead without there being any mention in the body of the article. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs)06:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 1. The reference from the page in the book starts with Dr. Thomas Szasz's assertion that the LGB is deemed mentally ill for not playing the game to fit societal norms and goes on to talk a...

    Libertarianism, which has historical precedent in the Stoics and in Schopenhauer, is strongly associated with the ‘anti-psychiatry’ movement of the last half century. According to that movement, attempts by the state or by the medical profession to interfere with suicidal behavior are essentially coercive attempts to pathologize morally permissible exercises of individual freedom (Szasz 2002). Benjamin (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) 1. You're presenting a polemical statement here rather than any sort of actionable suggestion on how to improve the article. Szasz's views are covered reasonably well in this article. While there is some overlap, such as coverage of Szasz in libertarian periodicals like Reason (magazine), I'm not sure you can get very far with asserting "strongly associated". Produce some suitable references and state what you'd like to change in the article please. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC) 1.1. Szasz, T., 2002, Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Poli...

    This is a decidedly one-sided representation of the field. It ignores an entire body of literature on the successful treatment of mental illnesses as well as the fact that many of the people cited as critics had absolutely nothing to offer people with severe mental illnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:4000:57EB:CC01:E579:CF39:AF05 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC) From the perspective of psychiatry, perhaps, not from the perspective of anti-psychiatry. From the perspective of anti-psychiatry, psychiatry's representation of the field is "decidedly one-sided". There is much literature about cynicism in, and the failure of, psychiatry, and psychiatry has had its "incurables" going way back. To say that many of "the people cited as critics had absolutely nothing to offer people with severe mental illnesses" is to stretch the truth past breaking. Actually, most of the people cited as critics worked with people described as, or labeled, "mentally ill" for a living.Anti...

  1. People also search for