>Psychiatry is a failed science i'm inclined to agree, but i'd also like to temper your use of the "f" word: it's a work in progress. sure they've had decades

>Psychiatry is a failed science i'm inclined to agree, but i'd also like to temper your use of the "f" word: it's a work in progress. sure they've had decades to sort it out, but psychiatry is complex material. general shamanism has been replaced by its modern equivalent which is actually significantly better in quite a few different dimensions and can actually provide relief to some patients. if the science of psychiatry is incomplete and flawed and terrible, fine-- i agree entirely. but if it can provide relief to the median patient-- even if it's only a little bit of relief-- so long as that relief outweighs the medication's side effects, it's worthwhile. and we won't get better without constantly trying things out and learning what works. >usually do more harm with debilitating "side effects" to their drugs this doesn't always follow. not all patients experience side effects, and most of those side effects are less debilitating than the disease symptoms which they are replacing. sure, there's the much shushed SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction (which may be permanent for some), the forcefully ignored antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia (permanent and somewhat disfiguring). but then there's also the upshot: many side effects reside with time, and in some contexts treatment can actually address the underlying condition. remember, the psychiatrist's metric for successful treatment is that the patient stops reporting their detrimental symptoms. for most conditions, there is a drug which will accomplish that end with acceptable casualties.