Posted by Honore on March 11, 2007, at 10:49:19
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 9:52:50
I've read "Talking Back to Prozac." It seemed pretty unbalanced to me, although at the time, I was in agreement with parts of it.
I'm not in agreement with the basic point. Maois are good ADs-- and are, I believe, underused. I hope that will change.
But Breggin is not, from anything I know, a Scientologist, or in it for the money. He seems to be someone who has some good science in his favor, and a lot of good science against his position, but who believes the part of the science that he believes.
I wanted to add that being an expert witness is a perfectly respectable thing to be. Expert Witnesses are paid not to have a point of view==as is the common belief-- but are hired because they genuinely, legitimately and authoritatively have the ability to give facts that are relevant. In cases with complex factual bases, such as cases involving science or certain types of law not generally understood (the law of corporations, or taxation), expert witnesses are brought into court to explain, either to judges or juries, some important facts about the area of science or institutional relationships.My Sig O has testified as an expert witnesses a bunch of times. He only takes cases where he thinks the position he's articulating is right. Often he supplies arguments for a person's position, because he knows more about that area of law than anyone on the defense or prosecution team. If he doesn't think the person is correct or he doesn't believe the arguments they want to make, he turns down the case. He never takes a case just to get paid, or testifies under oath that he belives certain facts or ideas, if he doesn't. His testimony is only worth the money, actually, if he can come into court free of the suggestion that he does say something just for money-- if you see what I mean.
While I don't agree with Breggin, I think he does believe what he says. I think he takes cases, even if he's paid, where he believes the position he's being asked to testify to. There's nothing wrong or phoney about that. It's what expert witnesses do.
Is he doing harm? quite possibly. Is he completely without any justification or leg to stand on? probably not. I wish he didn't enter into these discussions, because I think he's propagating hurtful ideas. But that's an opinion.
Honore
poster:Honore
thread:739762
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070308/msgs/740105.html