Szasz, Vindicated
by Max Raskin Like most healthy people, I have no interest in illness. I am not an expert in bodily diseases and have not, to my knowledge, ever received a medical degree. Thus, it may seem beyond my purview to write an article critical of a review, critical of a book, critical of the history of psychiatry. Why would we read Paris Hilton’s analysis of the geo-politics of Southeast Asia? I am not an expert in psychiatry, but thanks to Dr. Thomas Szasz and his work, libertarians are able to push their analysis to the realm of psychiatric treatment, where the case is made against involuntary hospitalization. The act constitutes definite bodily aggression directed at the "patient" from the "humanitarian." Nothing could be more dangerous than a government that has the power to define who is "sick" and then throw these undesirables into institutions for indefinite sentences. As we have erected a barrier between Church and State, we ought to strive for a wall between Health and State.
So what does reviewer William Anderson charge against Szasz? To begin with, he attacks the very foundation of a free country. Szasz and other libertarians believe that the foundational rule of society should be that men should be free, provided they do no harm to others. This idea is anathema to Dr. Anderson, who instead believes that coercion is appropriate beyond the protection of person and property. He asserts that, "civilization requires that certain actions must be encouraged and others must be prevented. This is accomplished, all else failing, by coercion. To deny this is idle dreaming, an adolescent fantasy of anarchic Arcadia." What are these "actions" that must be encouraged and prevented? Of course, Anderson does not explicitly name any. This then puts us on the slippery slope to tyranny. No dictator ever says that he is being unethical and immoral. Instead, he claims that there exist certain higher values and virtues that must be imposed. What Anderson does say is that psychiatrists should, "try to apply scientific medicine in the service of ameliorating disturbances of thinking, feeling, and action brought about by disturbances of brain function." Isn’t the sole job of a doctor to treat his patients? From this it can be determined that Anderson believes that violence is justified as long as we are trying to cure various disturbances brought about by diseases of the brain. To begin with, the problem with this argument is that it is not an argument, but rather an unfounded assertion. Why are psychiatrists exempt from moral law? But it seems that people will not intuitively accept this answer. Many, like Anderson, believe that, "autonomy may be compromised by illness, that such illness may be treated, and autonomy thus restored." There are two answers to this argument. Szasz would claim that the entire concept of mental illness, as understood by modern psychiatry, is a myth. Because there is no proof of demonstrable biological problems in a schizophrenic, he is no more sick than a person who tells "sick" jokes, or an economy is "sick." Unlike cancer, neurosyphilis, or head trauma, where scientists can point to lesions which cause physical aberrations, schizophrenia and other mental "illnesses" are just ways of denoting socially unacceptable behavior. Szasz stresses the subjectivity of "craziness" with his famous quote, "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." By calling undesirable behaviors diseases, the State now is able to further control society through "medicine." Whether his thesis is true is beyond the scope of this article. One would be crazy to attack or prove Szasz’s lifework in a single article. Well, not crazy. But, even if mental illness does exist, libertarianism can still oppose involuntary incarceration. To begin with, there is no reason why "autonomy-restoration" ought to be the goal of government. There is nothing immoral about being mentally ill, just as there is nothing unethical about having cancer. If the government has any role, it is simply to deal with people who violate the rights of others. Having a disease is a terrible event, but it does not warrant a massive Therapeutic State to cure all ills. It is simply not true that the insane necessarily commit crime. Thus, any actions by the State to "heal" them are done unjustly, as the humanitarian has no right to impose himself on others. But there is nothing wrong with voluntary humanitarianism. Anderson mistakenly claims that Szasz’s philosophy offers, "no room for brotherly love, charity, or assistance to those who may be impaired." This is a common fallacy that many reviewers commit of not understanding what they are reading. Nowhere does Szasz say that people cannot shower their family members and friends with love, charity, puppies, and assistance. What he says is that all those things must be done voluntarily to the person. If you continue to "help" me when I refuse, your paternalism violates my basic right to freedom. This is the same problem The Weekly Standard has in portraying a noninterventionist foreign policy. It does not follow that because there are bad people in the world, a paternalistic America has to establish a warfare state that cures all international problems. As with the libertarian foreign policy, libertarian psychiatry should be guided by voluntary means. We should not invade countries simply because we disagree with how they are acting, just as we should not incarcerate people who are acting strangely. The only time when aggression should be used is when the country or person has violated the rights of others. Similarly, we should not treat "crazy" criminals any different than we treat "normal" criminals, just as we should not treat Muslim countries different from Christian, Jewish, or secular countries. But a mere mischaracterization of an entire philosophy is not enough for those opposed to libertarianism. When all else fails, labeling one’s opponent a murderer is a surefire way to convince people of one’s argument. Dr. Anderson tells the story of his friend Jane who committed suicide after Szasz’s ideas injected her with "a lethal dose of autonomy." To begin with, even Anderson notes that, "a first-rate psychiatrist began to treat her. But her illness was such that she declined to continue her treatment." Read that again. Her illness was such that, after her doctor failed to treat her, she declined to continue treatment. Imagine going to a doctor with a cold and the doctor gives you chemotherapy. Is it the disease’s fault that you would never see that doctor again? As cold as it may seem, however, the simple fact is that a political philosophy cannot be crafted to protect every single person. Having freedom means having the freedom to make wrong decisions. Let’s say a person gets drunk and stumbles off a building. Is being drunk then cause for incarceration? The very fact that there are so many schizophrenics alive today proves that they are not inherently suicidal. Like any group, the mentally insane are not monolithic. Studies have shown that the mentally ill are actually less likely to be criminals then us "normal" people. We see then the importance of defending Szasz. It is a defense of libertarianism. Though there is no official libertarian "position" on the existence of mental illness, it is clear that if one is committed to the principles of freedom, one ought not condone involuntary hospitalization. As Murray Rothbard noted, it is simply another form of involuntary servitude that must be unconditionally opposed. To those mentally ill who have committed crimes, they should be treated like everyone else. Though unequal in other aspects, under the law, all men should be equal. And in spite of his controversial ideas, at base, Szasz professes a position with great historic precedence. The ideas that people should be free, that their bad decisions should be their own, and that punishment should only be meted out to the criminal form the basis of classical liberalism. Naturally, this is something The Weekly Standard cannot tolerate. November 16, 2007 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. He was a summer fellow at the Mises Institute in 2007. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com |
