One wonders why Poland expends to so much effort in reading the book,
detailing the arguments set forth in most of the chapters, to then
finish with line after line of error/nonsense.

For example, "Szasz relies upon a 19th century conception of disease
that has been variously criticized as being unclear." If the
alternative to this 'outmoded' conception is to expand it many times
over in various directions, how can the former conception be
criticized for being "unclear"? If Poland has trouble with the
definition of a lesion of the body, one can only hope that he soon
reveals his precise knowledge of what constitutes a lesion of the mind.

Another: "Similar flaws undercut arguments for other claims made in
the book (e.g., arguments about the right to suicide entailing an
unrestricted right to drugs)." Unless I am mistaken, where does Szasz
suggest that the right to suicide *entails* a right to drugs? It would
seem to me that Szasz says that our right to suicide/drugs/etc is
founded in a prior right to property/liberty.

"[Szasz's] case would be strengthened by explaining in technical
detail why contemporary genetic and neuroscience research programs are
not producing findings that support a disease model of "depression",
"schizophrenia", and other psychiatric categories."
If there's one criticism that really hits the target, this is surely
not it. Short of refuting each and every single new claim made by
psychiatry, what more can be expected?!

General criticisms of Szasz's philosophy of mind etc are not put in
any detail, rendering them pointless (in this review). This is not to
deny an important discussion on the matter exists.

"Szasz does not adequately emphasize and explain why contemporary
"anti-stigma" programs, currently pursued by defenders of psychiatric
practice, are so wrong-headed."
It does not follow from this issue not being discussed in ..Everyday
Life (if true) that Szasz has not written about it. I would have
thought that anyone understanding the words of the book in question
would be able to guess what position Szasz might take on the matter,
or at least leave open the possibility that it had been dealt with
elsewhere (perhaps attempting to find out?).

"Szasz's constructive proposals for change are limited ... negative,
far too abstract to be of much use, and not terribly responsive to the
demands of the context in which change might be pursued."
After praising Szasz for his being "quite readable," Poland chooses to
forget that Szasz is arguing for the abolition of coercive psychiatry.

Great to see the excellent book reviewed on a relatively popular
forum, and good to see Poland giving generally fair descriptions of
Szasz's arguments in the various chapters. But the criticisms are very
poor indeed.

The author ends with: "In a culture of rampant medicalization with
many apparent crises brewing ... most of us are quite ill-equipped for
recognizing and resisting the powerful social and linguistic
influences that promote such practices and breed such crises."
Most of us, indeed.

Ted