Now, if that is the case, then the psychiatric community has the prerogative to determine which is most likely. Professional and financial interests tend to balance the choice toward the first explanation, which presupposes specific antidepressant effectiveness.
Rated as one of the top 15 breakthroughs in medicine over the last 150 years, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become highly influential in medicine. Put simply, EBM promotes a seemingly irrefutable, principle: that decision-making in medical practice should be based, as much as possible, on the most up-to-date research findings. EBM has been particularly popular within psychiatry, a field that is haunted by a legacy of controversial interventions. For advocates, anchoring psychiatric practice in research data makes psychiatry more scientific valid and ethically legitimate. Few, however, have questioned whether EBM, a concept pioneered by those working in other areas of medicine, can be applied to psychiatric disorders.
In this groundbreaking book, the Canadian psychiatrist and ethicist Mona Gupta analyzes the basic assumptions of EBM, and critically examines their applicability to psychiatry. By highlighting the basic ethical tensions between psychiatry and EBM, the author addresses the fundamental and controversial question - should psychiatrists practice evidence-based medicine at all?
Find the book at the website for Oxford University Press:
Inspired by the homonymous book by Fernando Vidal and Francisco Ortega, this timespace presents the authors' genealogy of the cerebral subject and the influence of the neurological discourse in human sciences, mental health and culture.