Home ~ About us ~ Ahead of print ~ Current Issue ~ Back Issues ~ Search ~ Instructions ~ Subscription ~ Advertise ~ Feedback ~ Login  
  Mens Sana Monographs
A Monograph Series Devoted To The Understanding Of Medicine, Mental Health, Man, Mind, Music And Their Matrix
 Why MSM | Acknowledgement | Call for papers... | Forthcoming MSM...  Users online: 461  Home Email this article Print this Article Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 


 
PREFACE
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 4
Preface to the seventh monograph


The Editor, Mens Sana Monographs, Mumbai, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajai R Singh
14, Shiva Kripa, Trimurty Road, Nahur, Mulund (West), Mumbai 400080, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 22679343

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions




Like all good neighbours, competing schools of psychiatry claw at each other. Like all good samaritans, some people try to play arbiters and douse the fires. The tradition of fights and retaliation is not new to psy­chiatry, neither is it unique to the branch. Competing schools of thought exist almost everywhere. And it is tempting to say that the more intellec­tually robust a field, the greater the controversies and fights in it.

In fact if intellectuals were to come together and not voice differences, either they are not intellectuals, or they have no opinions. (Or they may be simply scared, or silenced for other reasons.)

Ofcourse we must note that while in other fields of thought there can be controversies, there is one essential difference. They may not be dealing with patients and their lives. And to that the corollary is that psychiatric controversies should not be carried out at the expense of patient welfare.

Having said that, let us also note that when there are fights, arbiters become very active. As do advocates, of one or the other approach.

In this monograph we have tried to act the arbiters. Maybe because it is appropriate. Maybe also because that's the only thing we can do (and may be do well: atleast that's what we would love to believe).

Why not advocates ? Well, for one, there are so many already. For another, we run the risk of doing a poor job of it.

Not that we have necessarily done a good job of being arbiters.

Happy 2005.





 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
   
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (10 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  



 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1829    
    Printed149    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded148    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal