It seems like there might be some confusion as to the message of my original post. It's late but I'm passionate and will try to clarify.

Notice that I did not, in fact, say anything in regards to curing a problem, as you state in your discussion of pharmaceutical companies. However, you quoted me correctly as saying that a problem "could easily be helped..." and also accurately state the point that there are no drugs being developed to cure mental illness as they do not exist. Psychotropic medications are for symptoms not problems.

I also agree with your point that psychology is a young, developing science that is "firming up." Psychology began as the study of the mind and emotion, a very nebulous and volatile conceptualization of the topic, and only since the '60s has come to be known as the study of observable behavior and the supposition of its causes.

As I am a therapist, I have a better than average understanding of the limitations of psychiatric treatment for mental illness with psychotic features. I pick up where those limitations leave off with my evidence based and empirical data-driven treatment on a day-to-day-basis. Actually, a great thing about psychiatry nowadays is that the field (or at least the MDs I work with each week) recognizes its limitations as described by the body of research and so chooses to use medication as a means to an end much as a knee brace acutely helps physical therapy be more effective in the long-term.



Clear as mud? That was all sort of a digression, anyways. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

The intent of my original post was to say that it would be a shame if this man or someone like him were to be put down without the opportunity to be "confined and treated."