>Thankful also for Arwin's caveat that the 'only real
>difference should be that a psychiatrist is qualified to prescribe
>medicine, basically being a doctor, and a psychotherapist limits himself
>[sic] to alteration of thinking and behavioural patterns',
 
This is not a statement coming from nowhere, as my father is a
psychotherapist, specialising in child psychology and family therapy.
 
>though I think the
>historical and contemporary range of differences within and between both
>professions might be immeasurably more complex - as also, following Daniel
>Pearlmen (and Edward Said?), the exchanges between amateurs and
>professionals in numerous fields.
>
>Richard Read
 
Of course; but in our country, as in many others, clear standards about
qualifications in these professions are continually developing; similar to
doctors, surgeons, and so forth. And as research on "how the brain works"
progresses, increasingly less guessing about what the right approach for
treatment is involved, so that standards become more easily definable.
Until quite recently, insanity was insanity and treatment was rarely
successful. Today, because we know that an imbalance of certain
neurotransmittors causes certain "deviant" behaviour, we can quite
effectively treat many instances of the disorder. Too much dopamine results
in schizophrenia; prescription: medicine and/or behaviour which restores a
natural and functional balance of the neurochemical (an investigation of
the possible cause of this imbalance should of course follow, I'm
simplifying a little, but what a change from the days that we believed such
people were possessed by the devil...).
 
One interesting area in which we should expect to see results is drug
policy and addiction treatment, as nearly every aspect of the addiction
process in every aspect, right down to the molecular detail, is now known.
 
Arwin