Anybody recall what it was about? I remembered the Black Death, Joan of Arc, the introduction of the longbow in the Battle of Agincourt. As for what it was about? England v France, Kings and things – that’s about all I could remember. One thing I never knew, the distinct cultural identities of France and England, including languages, were formed and consolidated during that conflict. Apparently a good war is a powerful organizer of national unity and cultural identity. 
One of my memories from early childhood was of standing in our front yard when everyone had gone crazy. People were beating on pans and shooting guns, laughing and hugging each other – my parents included. My mother noticed I was frightened, crying I think. She said something like, "Don’t worry. We’re happy. The War is over! [WWII]. But that made things worse, because I didn’t know that "War" was something that was ever "over". Where would it go? I thought war was just a part of life [actually, I think I might have been right about that at age 4]. Oh, by the way, the War of Roses started a few years after the end of the Hundred Years War.
The thing that got me on this topic [conflicts that don’t seem to end] was thinking about all the discord lately around the questions of using maintenance antipsychotic medication in Schizophrenia and the long term use of psychiatric medications in general. I remembered similar debates from forty years ago. And I thought about how much professional identity had [and has] to do with where people stand on this issue. all of which relates to the recent Maudsley Debate… «Does long term use of psychiatric drugs cause more harm than good?» [speaking of British Wars].
The Maudsley Debate didn’t do a much for me. The Yes camp had Sami Timimi, a British child psychiatrist with the Critical Psychiatric Network and Peter Gøtzsche of the Nordic Cochrane Group and author of Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare. On the No side, we had Allan Young, Mood Disorders researcher at Kings College, London with heavy industry ties and John Crace, who writes for The Guardian and spoke as a patient. The audience was on the Yes side both before, [during,] and after the debate. The moderator did her best trying to hold the speakers and questioners to the topic [but her best wasn’t enough with such a polarized issue].
I knew what each of them was going to say [as will you]. And I didn’t like the question. My mind kept saying things like "For whom?" "Which Patient?" "Which drug? in Which Patient? For What?" I expect that in a world of indiscriminate or rampant overprescribing, I might go for a Yes. But I don’t do indiscriminate or rampant overprescribing, so I’d be a No. But the audience at this debate might think otherwise and lump me in one or the other bad guy camp. etc. etc. I don’t like the question. But I think I might spend some time thinking about why, and blogging about that [at a later time] rather than responding to the question on the table [at a later time].
Did not listen to the debate largely for the reasons you cite. It is a senseless question. I would take it a step farther and suggest that psychiatric departments actively detract from what most psychiatrists do by putting on a debate like this just for the sake of debating and publicity. If they really think that long term treatment with medications causes more harm than good they should do us all a favor and get out of the business of training residents in psychopharmacology.
I hope that a patient who needs the long term care of a psychiatrist would not be put off by this – but of course they will.
I had a similar yawn reaction to the debate, especially when the debaters sank to low levels of debating decorum. The food fight at the end, with people throwing paper around the stage, was appalling. And yes, it was a stupid question, unworthy of the Maudsley/Institute of Psychiatry.
While I think the question is an important one – or at least the topic of weighing the long term benefits vs risks of these (and other drugs) – the design of the debate did not allow for careful consideration. I would not consider this a definitive way to address this important question. My experience is that many people who are prescribed these drugs are able to engage in a thoughtful discussion and shared decision making. Some choose to try and taper, others not. I have been tracking my practice now for 4 years. Those who stop abruptly are most often people who have done this for many years. I look forward to reading more from you. It seems that when we have treatment recommendations based on six week trials and 1-2 year relapse studies that are then used to guide treatment for decades, these questions are of utmost importance to clinicians and the people who are taking these drugs.
Nice early childhood memory Dr. Micky! A bit off topic (actually way off topic and some might find the rest of this comment inappropriate) but I find it interesting that you have spent your life treating “crazy” people at “war” with themselves, in a psychodynamic sense. And I am sure they are all better off for your life’s professional dedication and expertise! As we all benefit by your dedication to this blog and your efforts to enlighten us.
Sadly one must always remember that there is profit in war. Position papers, marketing, speeches, these become the munitions of this war, and the list goes on and on.
What is really needed is for everyone to step back, take a breath, and realize who benefits from the war and how this impacts, in this case, the patient.
Steve Lucas