Talk:Scientology and psychiatry

Propose split of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry

Copied from Talk:L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry

Biographical material about a 20th century person is sufficiently different in content from the material about the 21st century movement and its policies (e.g. Tom Cruise on Matt Lauer; etc) . Additionally, a split for the biographical material allows easier inclusion in the Hubbard biographical article series. Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it should all remain together. Why sunder the discussion of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology? That makes absolutely zero sense. If you wish to link this information on the bio page, simply link it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The level of detail in the biographical material being added seemed to be undue weight in comparison to minimal detail about the organization and it its ongoing policies. Seemed like a perfect case for a summary style subarticle where excess detail is summarized and then a subarticle for readers who want the the extended quotes and extensive biographical details.

In any case, extra eyes always appreciated, if you feel strongly that one article is better than an article and a subarticle, that's cool :) Feoffer (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps also worth pointing out that when the expanded material is reincorporated into one article, article size is >60k, which WP:SPLIT defines as "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". But if you still fill 1 article is best, that's cool. :) Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure where you're getting your data from, but the article as it exists currently, is "Prose size (text only): 31 kB (4927 words) "readable prose size"", which is the parameter split talks about. And that's after I reversed your split, and then you added quite a bit, which I think includes virtually every new piece in the split article. Since the total bits were 36,927 bits (split article) vs. 41,303 bytes of new material to this article. But one of the primary considerations should be what makes it easier for the reader. In my opinion, keeping these two closely related topics together makes it easier for readers to understand the issue. Regardless, take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson Inclusion is Slightly Misleading

The death of Lisa McPherson is included as an example of Scientology's opposition to psychiatry. While she did apparently have mental issues, her death was caused by neglect (in the most positive interpretation towards the Church of Scientology), rather than a direct result of her mental health as her inclusion implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSory (talk • contribs) 08:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Not 'neglect'; torture. McPherson died because of Scientology's method of handling psychotic breaks -- forced isolation and confinement, and zero verbal communication with the patient -- which is brutal on the patient and 'administered' by un-trained personnel. Their choice to go get her out of the hospital to avoid psychiatric treatment and their misguided alternative mental 'treatment' warrants its inclusion in this article. Their "Legal waivers" (included in this article) are a direct result of Scientology's attempt to reduce their liability for 'mental cases' and the inclusion of these clauses in their contracts is a direct result of the criminal and civil cases that were brought against them because of the death of Lisa McPherson. Grorp (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source for "Scientology's method of handling psychotic breaks -- forced isolation and confinement and zero verbal communication"? I'm mostly concerned because I think there is a credible position to view this is more the effect of neglect or possibly premeditated action rather than the specific result of Scientology's procedure for handling mental illness. In more clear words, do we actually have evidence (supported by WP:RS) that "their misguided alternative mental treatment" was the actual cause of death, and not incompetence or malice? JSory (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are many sources. I don't have time to find a bunch of them, but there's an entire chapter about the Lisa McPherson case in Mike Rinder's book as well as the McPherson case being discussed in multiple Wikipedia articles (where there are many citations). Start with Introspection Rundown, Death of Lisa McPherson, Lisa McPherson Trust, Bob Minton. There's also a significant amount of content in the book Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion. The McPherson case was one of the highest profile cases Scientology fought to "go away". If you want to dispute the inclusion of McPherson in this article, you're going to have to read a lot more about the case.

But I suppose if you want to narrow it down, look into anything related to "Introspection Rundown". There's much written about how it was created, why, with whom, etc. The short story is this: one person on the Apollo ship had a psychotic break, Hubbard confined him, he went stark raving violent mad, finally calmed down, Hubbard wrote up his "Introspection Rundown" based on [allegedly] lots of research, and anyone thereafter who shows symptoms of a psychotic break is confined and no one is allowed to talk to them. The Introspection Rundown is Scientology's treatment for psychotic breaks. Look it up. Grorp (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Reference section needs a good cleanup

The citations need a thorough going-through to update for proper URL placement, are URLs dead (get an archive version), website, date, etc. So much to clean up. I got up to cite 15 out of 139. Grorp (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Quotes to verify

From very untrustworthy sites, but useful if true: "So my only quarrel with psychiatry is their ethics are out. Frieda Fromm-Reichmann wrote a book… in which she begged throughout the book for the psychiatrist and his profession to get in his own ethics on his own practitioners.: Suppressives and GAEs, an LRH lecture 2 August 1966

"A person who is insane is in pretty agonizing shape to begin with. To then hurt him or her brutally, use the patient as a sexual toy as Frieda Fromm-Reichmann attests in her book of warnings to psychiatrists, to use a healing technology for extortion are all crimes." Pain-Drug-Hypnosis  ? Feoffer (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Note for future reference: Hubbard on wartime psych eval in lectureFeoffer (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

First quote is extracted from here, on pdf-page 243 (or search document for word "quarrel"). The lecture is titled "Suppressives and GAEs". The tape lecture 'code' is 6608C02 (sometimes written as 660802) representing a lecture given on August 2, 1966. I cannot find anything about the second quote, but it doesn't actually sound like Hubbard (because the speaker/writer is implying psychiatry is a healing technology). Do you have any link to it so I can examine the stuff surrounding this text? Grorp (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow! thanks for the quick reply on the first one! The second quote is listed here, any idea if it's legit?

In general, please be on the look out for Hubbard making specific mention of named mental health providers or facilities from earlier in life. Hubbard's work is so extensive and the autobiographical statements appear to be mixed in ad hoc, making them needles in a giant haystack. I just encountered a youtube clip of a 1950s lecture where Hubbard mentions an unnamed officer who's forced by the crew to sleep in the chain locker aboard the YP-422 -- where have we heard that punishment before? Feoffer (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I just came back from a few rabbit hole dives. The table of contents for that link is here. Reading forward, it describes these as essays intended for a book that was never published. The date of Pain-drug-hypnosis, 2 March 1969 doesn't correspond to any taped lecture or transcript of a lecture that I can find. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a lecture, however. The intro mentioned these essays were mostly published in Freedom Magazine. I wasn't able to find a Freedom mag from 1969, but that's probably your best bet to ID it as Hubbard... if you can find a scan of an old Freedom mag. Doesn't have to be online. Not sure why you care about Hub naming names. Send me an email; I'm curious. Grorp (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Pain-drug-hypnosis, 2 March 1969 doesn't correspond to any taped lecture or transcript of a lecture that I can find."

Good to know! I'm content to dismiss it.

Not sure why you care about Hub naming names.

Because we want to accurately characterize the nature and timeline of Hubbard's views of psychiatrists. Some he speaks highly of, some he speaks very poorly of. The Frieda Fromm-Reichmann quote raises the fascinating possibility that even after denouncing most psychiatrists as evil, he was still arguing there were good ones -- that's not as black and white as we might have previously expected.

The Boston Patrol Boat incident is fascinating because it establishes that 'a night in the chain locker' was a punishment Hubbard knew about long before he is alleged to have locked a child in a chain locker during the Sea Org days. (It's also fascinating because it suggests the possibility that Hubbard _was_ the officer locked in the chain locker.) Feoffer (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Fromm quotes are just Hub's tactic of showing 'look, everyone, even other psychs think the psychs are too brutal, unethical, and evil.' Hub has been anti-psych since they ignored/dismissed/rejected his Dianetics book he tried to present as a valid therapy. As for the chain locker, he could have simply heard a tale of a chain locker lockup and spun it into a colorful story, as he was wont to do, then used it as a punishment on the Apollo. Not only was Hub a narcissist and a paranoid, he also had a temper and a mean streak. Grorp (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's absolutely what Hubbard was doing in that quote, but it's still a fascinating datapoint. He starts out praising Thompson and White, but by the 80s, Psychlos have evolved into inhuman alien monsters in Hubbard's writings. Tracking down the last time Hubbard said anything remotely good about psychiatry helps us gain insight into that timeline.

Similarly, Hubbard's knowledge of specific psychiatrists and facilities prior to 1950 point to an era when he may have been a client, patient, family member of a patient, volunteer, or some overlap of multiple roles.

he could have simply heard a tale of a chain locker lockup and spun it into a colorful story

Of course -- but something happened to Hubbard in the Boston Navy Yard that led to the commandant declaring him temperamentally unfit for command. What was it, and is it related to Hubbard recollections of a crew of criminals who nearly starve an officer while confining him to the chain locker. Feoffer (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Have fun with your curiosity. I, on the other hand, have not two sparks of curiosity left about Hubbard, having read so much bizarre stuff about the man that nothing can surprise me any more. I'm just documenting facts. Feel free, however, to hit me up for citation-hunting when needed. Grorp (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)