THE MORAL DILEMMA OF PSYCHIATRY: AUTONOMY OR HETERONOMY?
Abstract
As science, psychiatry is the study of communicative behavior, and, as therapy, the practice of dialectic and rhetoric (and of social control). The principal roles of the contemporary psychiatrist are: moralist, rhetorician, and scientist (and agent of social control); and rarely, physician.
The basic moral dilemma of psychiatry is generated by the conflict between the self and the other. This conflict can never be "settled." Instead, if man is to survive, the contenders must achieve a decent mutual accommodation, a creative compromise. Why?
Because victory of the self—meaning unrestrained freedom—would, given the types of weapons available today, lead to the certain destruction of man as biological organism. Similarly, victory of the other—meaning unrestrained oppression—would, given the means of coercion available today, lead to the certain destruction of man as moral agent or person.
The risks are clear. Should we push too hard, this way or that, in our headlong pursuit of "mental health," we shall do so to our own detriment. "The cure may be worse than the disease" is an adage that acquires special force when the disease is metaphorical, and the cure social.
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.- Personal login
- Institutional Login
- Sign in via OpenAthens
- Register for access
-
Please login/register if you wish to pair your device and check access availability.
Not a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).
