Welcome back, Dr. Double
My Lancet | Logout

Search for in All Fields Article Title, Abstract, Keywords
Authors Article
Title Abstract

Advanced
Search

Home

|

Journals

The
Lancet

The Lancet
Infectious Diseases

The Lancet
Neurology

The Lancet
Oncology

|

Collections

|

Audio

|

Conferences

The Lancet
Conferences

Conference
Collaborations

Meet the
Editors at Conferences

|

Education

|

Resource Centres

The Lancet
Series

The Lancet
Student

H1N1
Influenza

|

For Authors

Writing for The
Lancet

Writing
for The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Writing for
The Lancet Neurology

Writing for
The Lancet Oncology

About
Protocol Reviews

Accepted Protocol
Summaries

|

About Us

About
The Lancet

About
The Lancet Infectious Diseases

About
The Lancet Neurology

About
The Lancet Oncology

Contact
Us

Press
Room

Free
Sample

For Advertisers

Work at The
Lancet

|

Subscribe

|

My Account

My
Alerts

My
Password

My
Profile

|

Careers

outline goes here

The Lancet, Volume
375, Issue 9722, Pages 1246 - 1247, 10 April 2010

<Previous
Article|Next
Article>

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60532-6Cite
or Link Using DOI

A psychiatric revolution

Original Text
Andrew
Scull a

As I reach nearer the end than the beginning of my
career, it still comes as something of a shock to realise that I have been at
work on the history of psychiatry for some four decades now. I never intended
that my early infatuation with disorders of the mind should turn into a
life-long obsession. I began my explorations at a time when the museums of
madness that were the Victorian age's response to Unreason still loomed large in
our collective conscience. The massive, ramshackle piles retained their hold,
not just on our imaginations, but upon thousands and thousands of people with
mental illness, still confined in what had once been proclaimed as a therapeutic
isolation. It is hard to forget the sense of constriction and confinement that
oppressed one's spirit on crossing the threshold of one of these establishments.
Above all, perhaps, I remember the smell, the fetid odour of decaying bodies and
minds, of wards impregnated with decades of stale urine and faecal matter, of
the slop served up for generations as food, the unsavoury mixture clinging like
some foul miasma to the physical fabric of the buildings.

My first encounter with the sights, the smells, the
sense of despair that enveloped these total institutions, ought perhaps to have
been enough to put me off any lingering attachment to research in such settings.
Yet I remain as fascinated as ever with trying to understand the elaborate
social institutions we have devised to grapple with, manage, and dispose of the
“mad”, and with the intellectual puzzle that mental illness itself represents.
To be sure, I have long since strayed outside the confines of the 19th century:
initially into the Georgian age where the madhouse first came to the fore and
mad-doctors began to develop their claims to expertise; then into the
therapeutic enthusiasms and uncontrolled experimentation on the bodies of
patients in the first half of the 20th century; and, most recently, into the
realm of hysteria from its origins in ancient Greece through the height of its
fame in Charcot's hysterical circus, its overt sexualisation by Sigmund Freud
and his followers, and its official demise at the hands of the
neo-Kraepelinians, who banned it from their Bible, the American Psychiatric
Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It
is a history that has its charms as well as its horrors.

Full-size image (147K) San Diego
Museum of Art, USA/The Bridgeman Art LibraryDownload
to PowerPoint

George Wesley Bellows, Dance in a Madhouse
(1917)

But while I was busy in the archives, the contemporary
psychiatric enterprise was undergoing a transformation as dramatic and
fundamental as can readily be imagined. When I began to explore its past,
psychiatry, at least in its American guise, was dominated by psychoanalysis. The
Freudian movement had first risen to prominence during World War II, in the
treatment of “war neurosis”. Through the 1960s, its hold over the profession and
the public imagination steadily grew. With scarcely an exception, the
departments of psychiatry at the major medical schools were headed by
psychoanalysts or psychoanalytic fellow-travellers. The “refrigerator mother”
was blamed for the seeming epidemic of schizophrenia. Although Freud himself had
questioned the relevance of psychoanalysis in the treatment of psychosis, his
more optimistic American epigones were undeterred. If they reluctantly began to
use the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, they saw them merely as useful
therapeutic adjuncts to calm down florid symptomatology so that the “real” work
of psychotherapy could proceed. Hollywood dramatised the miracles of the talk
cure in movies like Suddenly Last Summer and I Never Promised You a
Rose Garden. Anxious American parents turned to Dr Benjamin Spock for
enlightenment, and were rewarded with a bowdlerised version of Freud's theory of
child development. Best-seller lists saw the appearance of pot-boilers such as
Robert Lindner's The Fifty Minute Hour, titillating the masses with tales
of the secrets of the couch. Psychoanalysis ruled the roost.

And then it didn't. More swiftly and silently than the
Cheshire cat, psychoanalytic hegemony vanished, leaving behind not a smile, but
a fractious group of Freudians and neo-Freudians who squabbled among themselves.
Professors of literature and anthropology tried feverishly to fend off the
notion that Freud had turned into an intellectual corpse, but cruel realities
suggested otherwise. Psychoanalysts were rapidly defenestrated, chucked out of
their hold over academic departments of psychiatry and replaced by
laboratory-based neuroscientists and psychopharmacologists. Psychoanalytic
institutes found themselves bereft of recruits and forced to abandon their
policy of admitting only the medically qualified. The very term “neurosis” was
expunged from the official nomenclature of mental disorder, along with the
hypothetical Freudian aetiologies for various mental disorders. The “surface”
manifestations of mental diseases that the psychoanalysts had long dismissed as
merely the symptoms of the underlying psychodynamic disorders of the personality
became instead scientific markers, the very elements that defined different
forms of mental disorder. And the control of such symptoms, preferably by
chemical means, became the new Holy Grail of the profession.

It was a counter-revolution launched, not from the
hallowed and ivied halls of the Harvards and Yales of this world, but of all
things from St Louis, from renegades at the oh-so-provincial Washington
University Medical School, and from a renegade Columbia psychiatrist, Robert
Spitzer. And its primary weapon was a book, or rather an anti-intellectual
system published in book form: a check-list approach to psychiatric diagnosis
and treatment that sought maximum inter-rater reliability among psychiatrists
confronted by a given patient, with scant regard for whether the new labels that
proliferated in its pages cut nature at the joints. Agreement among
professionals was enough, particularly on those occasions on which a given
diagnosis could be linked to treatment with a particular class of drugs. Indeed,
soon enough the polarity would be reversed, and the creation of a new class of
drugs would lead to the creation of a new psychiatric “disease” to match, just
one of the factors that prompted successive editions of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to proliferate pages and disorders,
like the Yellow Pages on steroids.

Drugs, of course, were the centrepiece of the new era.
For some, they were the technological first cause of its most notable
accomplishment, the emptying out of the old state hospitals and county asylums.
Chlorpromazine and its derivatives gave psychiatry for the first time a
therapeutic modality that was easy to dispense and closely resembled the magic
potions that increasingly underpinned the cultural authority of medicine at
large. Too bad that the phenothiazines were no psychiatric penicillin, and that
they would be responsible for a long-ignored epidemic of iatrogenic illness.
They reduced florid symptomatology, and for some patients, at least, provided a
measure of relief. After centuries of therapeutic impotence, it was perhaps
understandable that psychiatrists were so grateful for their arrival and so
eager to hype the value of the new pills.

In truth, antipsychotics played at best a secondary role
in the demise of the asylum. Deinstitutionalisation was driven far more by
fiscal concerns, and by conscious shifts in state policy. But for Big Pharma,
psychiatric drugs were a bonanza, a major source of profits that ran into many
billions of dollars. Almost instantly alive to the profit potential of the
phenothiazines, the multinationals were slow to realise the even larger rewards
that could flow from exploiting compounds that changed people's moods, but the
belated success of Prozac changed all that. And changed as well the professional
and public's understanding of mental disorder.

The US National Institute of Mental Health proclaimed
the 1990s “the decade of the brain”. A simplistic biological reductionism
increasingly ruled the psychiatric roost. Patients and their families learned to
attribute mental illness to faulty brain biochemistry, defects of dopamine, or a
shortage of seratonin. It was biobabble as deeply misleading and unscientific as
the psychobabble it replaced, but as marketing copy it was priceless. Meantime,
the psychiatric profession was seduced and bought off with boatloads of research
funding. Where once shrinks had been the most marginal of medical men, existing
in a twilight zone on the margins of professional respectability, now they were
the darlings of medical school deans, the millions upon millions of their grants
and indirect cost recoveries helping to finance the expansion of the
medical-industrial complex.

And so to scandal. He who pays the piper calls the tune,
and to a quite extraordinary extent, drug money has come to dominate psychiatry.
It underwrites psychiatric journals and psychiatric conferences (where the
omnipresence of pharmaceutical loot startles the naive outsider). It makes
psychiatric careers, and many of those whose careers it fosters become shills
for their paymasters, zealously promoting lucrative off-label uses for drugs
whose initial approval for prescription was awarded on quite other grounds. It
ensures that when scandals surface universities will mainly turn a blind eye to
the transgressions of those members of their staff who engage in these unethical
practices. And it controls psychiatric knowledge in multiple ways. Its
ghostwriters produce peer-reviewed “science” that surfaces in even the most
prestigious journals, with the most eminent names in the field collaborating in
the deception. Researchers sign confidentiality agreements, and inconvenient
data never see the light of day. The very categories within which we think about
cognitive and emotional troubles are manipulated and transformed to match the
requirements of the psychiatric marketplace. Side-effects, even profound,
permanent, perhaps fatal side-effects, are ignored or minimised. Fines may be
levied when somnolent regulators are finally prompted into action, or damages
paid where aggressive class action lawyers force hitherto suppressed findings
into the public arena, but the profits already booked far exceed these costs of
doing business. For a historian of psychiatry to live through such revolutionary
times is remarkable indeed.

Further reading

Andrews and
Scull, 2001 Andrews J,
Scull A. Undertaker of the mind: John Monro and mad-doctoring in
eighteenth century England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

Healy,
1997 Healy D. The
anti-depressant era. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1997.

Scull,
1979 Scull A. Museums of madness: the social organization of insanity
in nineteenth century England. London: Allen Lane, 1979.

Scull,
2005 Scull A. Madhouse: a tragic tale of megalomania and modern
medicine. London: Yale University
Press, 2005.

Scull,
2009 Scull A. Hysteria: the biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

a Department of
Sociology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0533,
USA

Article Options

Full Text

PDF (1,616 KB)

Printer Friendly Version

Download
images

Request permission

Other Articles of Interest

News Sigmund
Freud's clinic reopens in Vienna Nigel Glass. The
Lancet 23 October 1999; Volume 354, Issue 9188: Page 1455

Perspectives Freud
and the making of psychoanalysis Sander L Gilman.
The Lancet 22 November 2008; Volume 372, Issue 9652: Page
1799

Correspondence Moving
tales from the couch and the clinic Nigel Glass. The
Lancet 18 December 1999; Volume 354, Issue 9196: Page 2178

Dissecting Room The
stuff of dreams Fred Bendheim. The
Lancet 8 January 2000; Volume 355, Issue 9198: Page 151

Burying
Freud R.C. Tallis. The
Lancet 9 March 1996; Volume 347, Issue 9002: Page 669

Bookmark

Add to 2Collab

Delicious

Digg

reddit

Facebook

StumbleUpon

Privacy Policy | Terms
& Conditions | Contact Us

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Limited. All rights
reserved. The Lancet ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier Properties S.A.
used under licence.
The content on this site is intended for health
professionals.