Thinking outside the box

I'm more than willing to be corrected on this, but why do shrinks have anything to do with brains? As far as I know, the cerebrum is the central point for the nervous system. And as far as I know, neurologists practice neurology and are experts in things to do with neurons and the nervous system, which would probably mean they're experts in things like brains.

That means psychiatrists must be real experts in things to do with psyches. According to current definitions... oh, there isn't a current definition for psyches. There are verbs for psyche but there's only one noun listed in the online dictionary for psyche and that refers to psychology. You can probably see where I'm going with this. It begs the question: what are psychiatrists doing playing around with brains? Does this mean psychiatrists are now neurologists?

This line of questioning started when I read the story in a London paper called the Ealing Gazette about a psychiatrist Dr Michael Maier who has a collection of 6,000 brains coming at him. The collection was started 50 years ago to try and unlock the causes of mental illess.

Fifty years later, I guess psychiatrists are still trying to find the answers. The report says the collection is still being used worldwide to try and combat current illness so that means they haven't worked it out yet. I don't have a degree in the bleeding obvious, but could it have something to do with the fact mental illness doesn't have anything to do with brains? Again, I'm not an expert and I repeat, I'm willing to be corrected on this.

I know it's asking alot, but it might be worth it if psychiatrists started thinking outside the usual parameters. They might realise they're talking aload of boxes.

The wrong 'pillar of strength'

Why do these gentleman of the psychiatric persuasion think it's acceptable to, put rather bluntly, have sex with their patients?

I've witnessed the problems that go hand-in-hand for a friend who experienced and continues to experience mental illness. I've seen that person cling on to the tiniest possible scrap of hope, I've seen the desperation, I've seen the hopelessness, and I've felt the inadequacy of not being a pillar of strength at a time when I needed to be. That's me.

But what about a psychiatrist? Before I knew any better, I had them tagged as intelligent and caring individuals, who had the patience of Job and who had the answers for people going round the bend.

I was wrong. It's a crude euphemism, but the 'pillar of strength' that this psychiatrist was thinking of was the wrong kind. Thedore Soutzos who worked in Harley Street, London, had sex with three of his patients. He wasn't content with one. He had three. I keep having to remind myself of what this psychiatrist's position entails, what he's supposed to do according to his job description. Sex with patients aint part of it.

Bearing in mind the fragility of those who go to see a psychiatrist, and my friend is a good example, I was floored by the report in the Daily Mail. Following shenanigans with one of the ladies, Doc Soutzos was asked if he and the lady were in a relationship. Doc Soutzos was reported as having replied, "How can we be? I am a doctor and you are my patient."

What did Doc Soutzos think his words would do to his patient? I would put it to the doc that he knew very well what his words would do to his patient. If he's someone who's looking after the mental condition of people, having sex with them and then telling them there's no relationship is an open invitation to experience the consequences of a woman scorned.

I guess the doc wasn't thinking. No, I'll correct myself. He was thinking, but he was thinking with his 'pillar of strength' and we've all read where that leads in the tawdry headlines of the red tops.

For anyone reading this who needs a helping hand, go see your mates or your girlfriends, talk to them or go down the pub with them for a beer or go somewhere different for a change. Do something with someone you trust rather than with a shrink you don't know from Adam.

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.

Brilliant name for a shrink...

Professor David Nutt is listed with the General Medical Council as a specialist in General Psychiatry. I must admit I had to check the story first. I thought it might be one of those spoof sites to begin with. A psychiatrist called Professor Nutt? Surely not. Actually, yes, it's legit. Brilliant name for a shrink!

After searching back a little way, Professor Nutt has been in the news on a number of occasions, for playing down the use of illegal street drugs. On the BBC News web site, it was reported that "Prof Nutt says cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine..." This is the same Prof who, in February this year, said taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than 'riding a horse.'

Problem is his statements are more likely to be those of someone who consumes illegal drugs, not someone who's attempting to halt the problem. Why employ an expensive Prof to advise on this sort of thing when it would've been cheaper to get the same advice from someone happily consuming the drugs? If the problem is as big as the Government says it is, then there's plenty of fokes out there who would've given the same advice for considerably less than Prof Nutt.

The story hasn't finished either. According to the Telegraph, other members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs are planning to resign. Don't know about you, but that hints at the idea they approve of his statements, that they downplay the dangers of illegal drugs. Wonder what sort of parties the advisers go to at the weekend? The Telegraph headline says "Drug policy in chaos after adviser is sacked." Errr, don't think so. I think drug policy was in chaos a long time before now. How else would there be such a problem with illegal drugs?

It takes two to tango

A psychiatrist who was secretly having an affair with a female doctor, got his comeuppance when the lady doctor called time on him when she found out the shrink's wife was pregnant.

The Daily Record reported on the psychiatrist Dr Jonathan Steele who sent text messages to the lady doctor after she dumped him. The lady doctor then reported the shrink when the messages got out of hand.

That's when Dr Steele had to come clean and tell his wife what he'd been up to. Now he's out of work. Would the lady doctor have dumped him if his wife had not fallen pregnant? Was the lady doctor on a guilt trip, or did she think her bit on the side had too much baggage?

After all the publicity on Dr Steele, I'm interested to know what happened to the lady doctor. Promiscuous and an adulteress. Not really the sort of clean-living, honest, trustworthy type suitable for filling the role of a doctor. What do you think?