The "Major Thesis" is a term I coined, to recognize a 2003 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Starson v. Swayze. Justice John Major, writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled the defendant, Scott Starson, had the right to refuse anti-psychotic medication, which a psychiatrist wanted him to take.
The case centred on an Ontario Appeals Court ruling that Mr. Starson's "capacity" was not judged under legal values but under medical values.
The decision emphasized the right of citizens to self determination, but in his ruling Justice Major wrote that "Psychiatry is not an exact science", and that "capable but dissident interpretations of information are to be expected".
Wikipedia paraphrased this by writing: "The majority also noted that psychiatrists do not always agree on diagnoses (as if to devalue the importance that the court should place on their opinions)".
One could have a field day describing the major split between the corporate-driven medical model (DSM) diagnoses, and those of independent psychiatrists- the "dissident but capable" group, those many professionals in the medical community who question the use of mind altering medications in psychiatry, and warn about the negative consequences they often cause.
In recognition of this brave ruling of the majority on the Supreme Court of Canada, I take it upon myself to point out some of the main "dissident but capable" psychiatrists and authors: Peter Breggin, Joseph Glenmullen, and David Healy.
Each of them has a book with the name Prozac in the title, including Breggin's 'Talking Back to Prozac', Glenmullen's 'Prozac Backlash', and Healy's 'Let Them Eat Prozac', in which one can learn an immense amount of knowledge about psychiatric medications.
Perhaps I'll leave it to my readers to seek out these books if they're interested, for I'll need a very long rest before I venture out on this particular field day.
I may just prefer to take in a little "field work" in the Baseball playoffs instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment