"British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly David Healy is so controversial amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s [APA] second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. ‘It’s a miracle that I was asked along to give a talk [here], and I’m extremely grateful,’ Healy said."
gad·fly [gdfl] –noun
Word Origin & History: 1620s, "fly which bites cattle," probably from gad "goad, metal rod" [early 13c.], here in the sense of "stinger," from O.N. gaddr "spike, nail," from P.Gmc. *gadaz "pointed stick;" but sense is entangled with gad [v.] and an early meaning of gadfly was also "someone who likes to go about, often stopping here and there." Sense of "one who irritates another" is from 1640s [equivalent of L.oestrus].
|
con·tro·ver·sy [kntr-vûrs] –noun
a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.
Origin of Controversy: Middle English controversie, from Anglo-French, from Latin controversia, from controversus disputable, literally, turned against, from contro- (akin to contra-) + versus, past participle of vertere to turn. First Known Use: 14th century.
|
I don’t think of Dr. Healy as a gadfly. As a matter of fact, as more time passes, I wonder what’s even controversial about what he’s been saying over the last decade and a half. I guess if I had to pick a word for him, it would be resilient, maybe patient. He made the observation early that some people on the SSRI antidepressants react by becoming hostile, aggressive, sometimes suicidal or homicidal. He noticed that people discontinuing these medications sometimes had withdrawal reactions requiring attention. As time passed, he realized some other things that most of the rest of us now know – that the pharmaceutical industry had gained control over much of the academic psychiatric research community, ghost-writing articles for the peer-reviewed literature that favored their drugs, hiring psychiatrist opinion leaders onto advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus, handing out unrestricted institutional grants, financing research, etc. In the meantime, the actual practice of psychiatry itself has become trivialized – down to medication management by brief, infrequent med checks on the way to turning that over to primary care physicians [that’s the "Professional Suicide" part he’s referring to]. What’s controversial about that? In the meantime, we’re increasingly aware that these medications aren’t so benign as we’ve been lead to believe.
British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly David Healy is so controversial amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. “It’s a miracle that I was asked along to give a talk [here], and I’m extremely grateful,” Healy said… Healy’s jeremiad was more severe and sharply worded, but it seemed to be well received by the psychiatrists assembled in the audience. Many even asked questions that suggested they too were troubled by the status quo…
But when a questioner, claiming himself “speechless” in the face of Healy’s arguments, asked whether he should just stop prescribing antidepressants, Healy said no. Healy prescribes them himself, but believes that the role of the doctor is to manage risks, not view drugs as harmless. “Medical treatment is poison, and the art of medicine is trying to find the right dose,” he said.
Healy noted further that when data surfaced showing a link between antidepressant use and risk of suicide in children, the APA issued a statement proclaiming that “we believe that antidepressants save lives.” “What I believe they should have said is that the APA believes that psychiatrists can save lives because it takes expertise to manage the risks of risky pills,” he said; if psychiatrists’ only role were to dole out drugs, then less trained physician’s assistants could easily replace them, he noted.
Great commentary!
With all due respect to those involved, I wonder why the word “believe” is even used in any of these situations. I tho’t “believe” was in the category of faith/religion/spirituality. How is it scientists, speaking about something scientific, use the word “believe”? Or am I being too picky? Perhaps. Bit I find using a word like “believe” when speaking about scientific “things” (and such important things that seriously affect people’s lives) an anomaly. MCS
Ms. Sheridan: I don’t think you’re splitting hairs, and that is why critics of psychiatry sometimes refer to it as a cult. The cult-like nature of “medical” psychiatry is explored in such books as “The Myth of the Chemical Cure” by Joanna Moncrieff MD.
There may be a reason why Dr Healy is a critic of drugs. He has been actively promoting the use of ECT for many years.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shock-and-panic
Psychiatric activist, therapist, and recovered mental patient Will Hall also spoke at the APA conference http://beyondmeds.com/2012/10/07/will-hall-speaks-to-apa/ (well worth listening to).
(At the very end, a psychiatrist in the audience suggests he’s been indoctrinated by Scientology!!! What is it about psychiatrists and reason?)
Carlat, Healy, Will Hall — is the APA reluctantly moving into the 21st century?
As for Healy and ECT, to suggest he’s discouraging antidepressants to push people into ECT is a rhetorical device of the highest exaggeration. He says ECT is safer than antidepressants, which given the drawbacks of antidepressants, might be true.
Whether Healy’s right or wrong on the merits of ECT (there are people who swear up and down it’s helped them), he’s in the camp of doctors who want to utilize invasive treatments of any sort as infrequently as possible. (He also prescribes antidepressants.)