--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Patforpres@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:03:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> etaonsh@y... writes:
> It isn't, but the situation of psychiatry is somewhat different
from
> that.
> Psychiatry claims to be a science, therefore unbending in its
verdicts,
> in theory, by the passage of silver between hands. Any detraction
from
> that begs many questions.
> Whether or science or not

I'm afraid that's not good enough, meat. Psychiatry clearly claims to
be a science, and therefore the influence of money on diagnoses is
quite irregular and undermining of this claim - perhaps the 'Achilles
heel' Robert and others have been looking for?

> it is a service.

We don't all see it like that - a service for the mega-rich for
controlling society, perhaps.

If I see a psychiatrist, he
> might recommend

Or *push*, frankly

some medications (which I should not need a prescription for

?

> I
> see no reason he shouldn't expect payment for his services.

That isn't at issue. S/he gets paid, one way or another - more,
presumably, in the private sector(?).

> Also, many state/public patients (may) feel entitled to say that
they
> have *already* paid for treatment thru taxes, not only for
> them/ourselves, but for those who have not yet had the opportunity
to
> pay such in taxes.
> Yes, but that's because it's an absurd system. If "their" taxes
pay for the
> service, why isn't it rationed out by amount paid?

I see your point, to which the answer is that newborns, among others,
would not be entitled to anything, never having worked. More to the
point, perhaps, is, why are we forced to pay taxes towards our own
possible future stigmatisation/social exclusion by a system
of 'medicine' we, and many others, may have no personal belief in?

Richard