Psychiatrists for Medical Marijuana
Jacob Sullum | November 9, 2007, 11:07am
The Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association, a legislative body composed of representatives from APA districts throughout the country, has unanimously approved an action paper that urges the federal government to stop interfering with the medical use of marijuana in states where it's legal. The paper, which won't be official until it receives approval from the APA's Board of Trustees in December, notes that 12 states allow patients to use marijuana for symptom relief with a doctor's recommendation, but there's a catch:
The threat of arrest by federal agents, however, still exists. Seriously ill patients living in these states with medical marijuana recommendations from their doctors should not be subjected to the treat of punitive federal prosecution for merely attempting to alleviate the chronic pain, side effects, or symptoms associated with their conditions or resulting from their overall treatment regimens...[We] support protection for patients and physicians participating in state approved medical marijuana programs.
Abraham L. Halpern, professor emeritus of psychiatry at New York Medical College and past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, called the vote "a landmark," adding, "As physicians, we cannot abide our patients being subject to arrest and jail for using a physician-recommended treatment that clearly relieves suffering for many who are not helped by conventional treatments." Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, says the action paper's unanimous approval "shows the growing acceptance of medical marijuana by organized medicine."
Other medical organizations that support the therapeutic use of marijuana include the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Preventive Medical Association, and various state medical societies. (Medical marijuana also has been endorsed by groups such as the American Public Health Association, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Lymphoma Foundation of America.) The American Medical Association, like the APA in earlier votes, has called for more research on the medical utility of cannabis and has said that doctors and patients should be free to discuss all "treatment alternatives" without fear of "criminal sanctions." But it has not gone as far as the new APA action paper.
If you haven't yet, check out Drew Carey's medical marijuana video at reason.tv.
james | November 9, 2007, 2:34pm | #
"Physicians, criminologists, politicians, and the public use advances in medicine and neuroscience to convince themselves that such interventions are "scientific" and do not violate the moral and legal foundations of English and American law. This is a serious error. Many years ago I suggested that "formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic."
In 1960, when I first publicly asserted that mental illness is a myth, I meant to remind people that, according to scientific-medical definition, disease is a predicate of bodies. If we accept that definition, we need not examine any particular person to know that he does not have a mental illness. Separating literal from metaphorical diseases is a variation on Kant's theme of separating "analytic truths" from "synthetic truths."
We know that bachelors are unmarried without investigating their marital status. The truth of an analytic proposition is contained in the meaning of the words involved. Analytic truths are "truths of reason," based on logic and the precise use of language. Conversely, we know that lead is heavier than water by reference to appropriate observations or reliable records. The truth of a synthetic proposition is contingent on what we call and accept as "facts." Physicians discover diseases, such as malaria. Psychiatrists construct and deconstruct diseases, such as homosexuality.
We need linguistic methods to verify or falsify analytic statements, empirical methods, to verify or falsify synthetic statements. Diseases have causes, such as infectious agents or nutritional deficiencies, and often can be prevented or cured by dealing with these causes. Persons have reasons for their actions, regardless of whether they are said to have or not have mental diseases. It is as foolish to look for the causes or cures of the behaviors we call "mental illnesses" as it would be to look for the causes and cures of the behaviors we call "religions." Action, behavior, conduct, call it what you will, is goal-directed and meaningful. Unless it's "senseless mental illness."
Thomas Szasz
The Wine Commonsewer | November 9, 2007, 6:06pm | #
Ryan, lunch was quite good thanks.
It seems like bait and switch because my earlier comments were quite flippant and I'm now trying to clarify it. Sometimes it is very difficult to make nuanced observations in this kind of medium. After all, you can't see the expression on my face.
At the risk of sounding like the guy who says
I am not racist, some of my best friends are black, I can say I have a little experience dealing with mental illness. IOW, I know a little about crazy people. :-) More than I would like to actually.
You were arguing that psychiatry was perhaps not real medicine
I was actually arguing against Warren's proposition that psychologists were one step above fortune tellers and that psychiatrists were medical doctors. Which they are, on paper. In reality, they are not practicing medicine in the sense that heart doctors, pediatricians, GP's, or internists do. sole exception would be psychiatrists engaged in research in a true biological sense.
My second unclear point was that until recently there was little practical difference between going to see a psychologist and going to see a psychiatrist except that the latter will give you drugs (think of Tony Soprano and his shrink).
Today, it seems that for the most part psychiatry has dispensed with the "couch" and sub'd in the drugs. The psychologist has capitulated as well, dispensing with the need to explore every facet of early childhood and decided that we just need a few quick wham, bam, thank you ma'aam sessions, and you're cured. Both of these scenarios (in my cynical little addled brain) seem to directly correlate to something other than medical break through. IE, that fact that insurance companies are loath to pay for shrink visits. No more of those once a week sessions like the 1970's, it's five per year.
I am not unsympathetic to genuinely debilitating mental health problems, whether brought on by circumstance or genetics or something we don't know about.
Psychologists are NOT one step up from fortune tellers (see, Warren's comment).
There is good work being done on behalf of the mentally ill and the debilitated in both disciplines.
There are some people who need drugs. Some who need counseling. Some both.
Many shrinks are dedicated caring professionals, way too many others are not. Might be accidental complacence, might be arrogance, might be something else, but for every Alex Delaware, there are dozens of guys who aren't.
And why are looney bins painted bile green? Oops, there I go getting flippant again, sorry.
