Nassir Ghaemi M.D., M.P.H. on October 2, 2008
Our debate began with our differing responses to the involvement of some psychiatrists with the pharmaceutical industry, some of whom are now under congressional investigation. Larry Diller saw those persons, and their ideas, as mere shills for the pharmaceutical industry. I argued that this approach is one-sided and simplistic. I disagree with some (but not all) of their ideas, on the grounds of their ideas, not because they are corrupt people (which may or may not be the case). I argued that this approach - that money and power is all there is to it - is conceptually unsound and practically dangerous.
Our debate began with our differing responses to the involvement of some psychiatrists with the pharmaceutical industry, some of whom are now under congressional investigation. Larry Diller saw those persons, and their ideas, as mere shills for the pharmaceutical industry. I argued that this approach is one-sided and simplistic. I disagree with some (but not all) of their ideas, on the grounds of their ideas, not because they are corrupt people (which may or may not be the case). I argued that this approach - that money and power is all there is to it - is conceptually unsound and practically dangerous.
Verified by Psychology Today
