Is investment in Big Pharma a mental illness?

I get the idea that while there's been all sorts of criticisms aimed at the authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for suggesting that temper tantrums or binge eating may be included as a mental disorder, or that eccentricity might result in you lying down on the shrink couch, there are those among us who'd like to see the new book put into practice, if only for the utterly ridiculous factor.

Reading the stories, it got me thinking. It's so ridiculous, I wanted to see how far it could go. I started making a list of things that I didn't like about other people's behaviour, things I objected to, and so on. I basically settled on one thing and it's the reason for this blog. It's the person who asserts something is so with no shed of evidence to back it up. Weapons of mass destruction is an example. So it's not just psychiatrists who blast out hot air.

Shrink says temper tantrums are a mental illness or disorder or whatever. "How d'you know that then?" Are temper tantrums actually a mental illness, or are they so disliked by many, that psychiatrists are about to give parents the day off with a drug nanny?

As for eccentricity, I think my name could be in the hat. My words here could be psychiatrically reinterpreted as being that of a slightly unhinged individual who has a particular eccentricity about psychiatry, where his or her idiosyncracies could impact upon their well being taking over their life, leading to mental this and that. But that would only be because a shrink said so. If he or she were asked, "how d'you know that then?", there'd be even more hot air.

If it weren't for the complete nuttiness of this whole thing, I don't think the DSM would see the light of day. The fact it's so stupid, seems to blind people to the point they think there might be something in it.

But there is something in it: money. If you're a shareholder in Big Pharma, then it's not so ridiculous, stupid, or nutty.

Perhaps there should be a tag for those who invest in Big Pharma.

Definitely not a shrinking violet

Since when has a psychiatrist been in the position to decide whether another psychiatrist was sexually harassing a junior doctor or not?

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Stephen McMillan Arnott, described as an expert witness in the Derby Telegraph, was giving evidence at a hearing into Dr Andrew Clayton's conduct. It is alleged Dr Clayton behaved in a sexually motivated way towards two female patients and two trainee members of staff. He allegedly "fondled patient's breasts and tapped bottom."

I'd live to know what makes Dr Arnott an expert witness on the subject. I expect he did what anyone else would have done; ask the person bringing the allegations what happened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or for that matter a psychiatrist, to ask those kinds of questions.

After all's been said and done, I reckon the shrink did it, and I've never met him. In May 2009, he was found guilty of possessing child pornography, while in 1990 and 1998, he had faced allegations of "inappropriate sexual behaviour towards patients."

Could have saved a shedload of money instead of paying a shrink.