"Letter to the editor": Comment.

Abstract

I would like to respond to the letter by Chamberlin and Zinman that appeared in your last issue. I am disturbed by both the content and the tone of that letter. This Journal is broadly based and provides a forum for the entire field. It shouldn't be construed as the agent of Chamberlin and Zinman, although it should provide an opportunity for their opinions, as it does. (That is why they are on the Editorial Board.)Frankly, their arguments by themselves sound increasingly oldfashioned, and it is clear that they are out of touch with the recent developments in the illness they purport to represent. Thomas Szasz' "myth of mental illness" is a dead idea. Mental illness is just that -an illness, not a myth or a plot by professionals. The history of the illness dates back thousands of years, the AMA did not invent it.Medication accounts for the most profound revolution in the history of mankind's treatment of the mentally ill. Psychotropic medication is efficacious, and there are enough reliable and accurate scientific studies to satisfy virtually everyone that this medication, appropriately administered, reduces symptoms for most people. There is also plenty of satisfactory evidence, both scientific and observational, that a primary antecendent to rehospitalization is medication non-compliance. I believe that the most progressive thing Chamberlin and Zinman could do would be to use their energies crusading with NAMI and others for more medical research and more dollars for effective programs in the community.

Client involvement: Practical advice for professionals.

“…Their letter to the editor provoked the following reactions from professionals who are considered to be empathetic with the consumers. In the April 1984 issue, Dincin and Selleck state: Members of self-help groups like Chamberlin and Zinman have knowledge to share, and they can certainly sensitize us through their experience. However, a select few ex-patients, who presume to speak for the entire group, have been treated as if they had come down with the Word (p. 2). In the same issue, Nash corroborates Dincin and Selleck, and states further: I regret the manner in which Chamberlin and Zinman make their protest against articles in the journal, for I think it harms their cause.…”