Over on his blog 'A Canadian Lefty in Occupied Land,' Scott Neigh
reviews two of Szasz's recent books:

The Medicalization of Everyday Life
http://scottneigh.blogspot.com/2008/11/review-medicalization-of-everyday-life.ht\
ml

Coercion as Cure
http://scottneigh.blogspot.com/2008/11/review-coercion-as-cure.html


Despite some areas of agreement with Szasz - e.g. "it is valuable to
deconstruct the medical pretext for current coercive interventions
that are not really about health at all but about control and
exertions of power of one sort or another" - I had trouble quickly
determining whether or not Neigh is against psychiatric coercion. In
my experience, this ambiguous scenario tends to suggest that the
author does not in fact oppose psychiatric coercion.

It might be worth noting that Neigh points to "a more sophisticated
and less binary understanding of how coercion happens." But I'm not
sure what this has to do with supporting or opposing psychiatric
violence. Couldn't Neigh simply agree with Szasz that all psychiatric
coercion is wrong? Or is it the case that Neigh's understanding of
coercion would legitimise (some) existing psychiatric coercion?
If so, it appears to render statements about needing to view
psychiatry as a dangerous power misleading.

steven.