Has Thomas Szasz positions on mental illness, particularly Schizophrenia lasted the test of time?

Question

I am fascinated by the work of Thomas Szasz, but as a staunch objectivist I can't believe in his opinions if current scientific evidence can't support it. I know that the origins of Schizophrenia are unknown at this point but has anyone read up on research that either supports Szasz or rejects Szasz? I ask this because at this point in my psychological career I've become sceptical of the biological origins of such disorders as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, from observation and study I have come to believe that these disorders are more psychologically based rather then biologically based. My opinion is unfounded scientifically but I hope someday to try to find evidence to support or refute my position and that of Szasz. And what better way to start my journey in finding the truth behind the most mysterious of mental illnesses then to ask people on yahoo answers lol.

The person who sites their sources and gives the best evidence based argument gets the best answer. Evidence can be for or against Szasz as long as it is credible. Thanks to all in advance :)

Bubbles,

I believe it's psychologically based because human beings are the only species I'm aware of that exibit naturally occuring psychosis. Sure we can make other animal species psychotic by altering their state of being but in nature psychosis never seems to happen outside of our species. This is why I believe that our complex cognitions and ways of reasoning can lead us to believe in things that are unreal and odd. Many individuals who have their first psychotic episode had recently had some big event occur in their lives(usually negative). I believe that schizophrenics, in a way of coping with the event adopt any belief system to thwart of negative states of mind, even if this means creating delusional fantasy worlds and believing they are the risen Jesus Christ. I believe that it is fundamentally an extremely morbid way of coping with life stressers that to the individual seem insurmountable.

Answer 1

Szasz's theories are useful in that thought patterns and attitude toward life influence people's lives, including those with neurologically based mental illnesses such as bipolar and schizophrenia.

Philosophy is interesting, but some more science based education and research on your part are in order if you intend to pursue a career in the psych field.

PubMed is the research repository of the National Institute of Health. You can search on other bipolar/schizo brain structural deficits there. One query:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15863740&ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
There also is something in there are on heritability. For example, nearly all bipolars have close family with depression, bipolar, and/or schizophrenia. The current thinking in the field is shifting towards 'spectrum theory' since these three illness share a lot in common. (Depression would be defined as major recurrent and/or refractory, not situational.)

As for texts, first get a good intro to Neurology text book such as:
"Neurosciences, Exploring the Brain" by Bear, Connors, and Paradiso.

Then read:
"Manic Depressive Illness" by Goodwin and Jamison

The science has surpassed Szasz. These illnesses are biologically based. Psychology may influence degree of manifestation, but that holds true for any other physical illness.

****
Hey, I like that DDD. That makes more sense than schizo. I'd like to see bipolar revert back to manic-depression. There are no two poles when both can and do occur at the same time!

~bipolar.
Only a naive theorist would believe anything w/o the right medication could make this illness go away.

Answer 2

Thomas Szas said a lot; too much to be covered here. I am a schizophrenia paranoia outpatient on medications. The only thing I want to address is Szas's statement that schizophrenia is not a disease. I want to address it from the standpoint that a disease is just that Dis-Ease, or extreme discomfort.

Schizophrenia Paranoia (there are a whole spectrum of disorders under the label schizophrenia) when it first strikes is incapacitating and extremely painful in the sense that the panic and depression brought about by the hallucinations make the patient non-functional and even suicidal. It is truly dis-ease.

The medications now given do seem to relieve (even stop) the hallucinations but I think the chief cure is the extra TLC given by the medical profession to hospitalized patients. It is much better now days in hospitals than as portrayed in the old movie "Snake-Pit" or even when I first was hospitalized as neuroleptic med's just came into wide use. The old VA hospitals and back wards of state hospitals were truly snake pits of writhing, suffering humanity. Diseased humanity.

Good luck in your hopefully unbiased research, good health, peace and love!

Answer 3

What kind of study have you done that has left you doubting the biological origin of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder? You can find plenty of evidence for this just in the wikipedia articles on those disorders. Both disorders have high concordance rates among identical twins, as well as other indicators of family transmission. Neither is 100%, meaning there is something environmental at fault as well as genes, but to say psychological processes alone can cause psychosis is to take a giant leap backwards into the dark days of psychoanalysis when psychosis was said to be regression. I've been manic. Regression is as ridiculous an explanation for racing thoughts, euphoria, hyperactivity and some sort of hyperintensified dream world as saying all that can be due to diet. Only people dedicated to oversimplification can believe such a thing.

There are many discussions of the biology of these disorders, such as this one:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/441626

There are frequent updates on the genetics of these disorders in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. In the last year there was a review of genes that increase the risk of schizophrenia. There are about 12 now. They still don't account for most of the heritability of the disorder. Maybe there are 100 genes that do that. Maybe there are just one or two major ones that aren't known yet. Either way, it won't be long until all 20,000 human genes are very well known along with the proteins those genes make and the functions of those proteins not just in the biology of illness, but in all aspects of development and in traits like personality. So much of what is mysterious now will not be so later this century.

Yet people feel compelled to proclaim some simple position now, that depression is all about positive thinking, whatever. It will all be wiped out when the true nature of our mind and its disturbances are understood as much as we can understand it just with our current technology. The genetics revolution alone will increase our understanding greatly even without new technology. Then people can work on what's still mysterious after we know all there is to know about all our genes and their consequences.

I can't imagine that Thomas Szasz will survive that revolution. The Myth of Mental Illness is almost 50 years old. As I recall that book he doesn't even consider the possibility of biological mental illness as it's now seen. To Szasz it was still about regression and other psychological processes that were all theoretical in adults anyway. Individuals can try to prop him up or any other eccentric belief. It will all get washed away in this century's flood of biological data. Even the mainstream that says depression is just about serotonin and schizophrenia is just about dopamine likely will be washed away by a better understanding of cellular and physiological processes that disturb our minds sometimes.

Anyone who wants to build his or her own house of cards now not understanding that such a flood is coming is free to do so. I think it's a waste. Thomas Szasz the man is still alive for a while, but his ideas are dead, just as all ideas about mental illness are dead pending a better understanding that is to come this century. They are all dead ideas no matter how many people believe them today. Some ideas have to wait for their supporters to die, but eventually that is certain to happen. They will be replaced by something much more objective. Reality must be more complicated than any of the oversimplifications people make about mental illness today. Think about that.

ADD - Oh, I forgot about your point about other animals not becoming psychotic. How do you know? Human beings have both the communication and the imagination which provides so much of what it means to be psychotic. Some of that might only be the result of the most recent round of evolution that took us to not only living by our groups and our tools, but by our cave paintings and symbolic objects. The genetics revolution will show which genes were involved with that and what they mean now to neuroscience, psychology, and mental illness. I suspect that will be more fruitful than any speculation about non-biological processes, if there are any.

Answer 4

Gee, aren't people cranky when they don't understand a question? (referring to the first answerer)
You used too many big words Jay. You'll be lucky if anyone on here understands the question let alone provides sources for you.

I don't know of Thomas Szasz (I doubt many people on here have) but can I just ask briefly why you think it is psychologically based?

PS- You might have more luck putting this in the psychology section or something like that. Mental Health is generally full of teenagers who don't know what they're talking about.

Answer 5

are you quite done trying to impress everyone with your academic jargon? This isnt a section for essays or debates....