David L. Rosenhan publishes “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” reporting on research he conducted a decade earlier that consisted of two parts:

• He sent associates with no prior history of mental illness to 12 different psychiatric hospitals across the nation to gain admission as patients faking psychiatric maladies.  Once admitted they were to act perfectly normal and request to be released.  Seven pseudo-patients were diagnosed as exhibiting schizophrenic behavior.  The eighth was diagnosed as being manic depressive.  Although the true status of the pseudo-patients was never discerned by the psychiatrists supervising them, many legitimate patients believed them to be imposters.  All eight were kept confined for various periods ranging from a week to nearly two months.  None of the eight were released until they admitted that they were mentally ill, that the treatment had helped them, and they agreed to ingest prescribed psychotropic drugs.
• The staff at a leading psychiatric hospital heard of Rosenhan’s findings, and challenged him to send his pseudo-patients to their hospital.  They would identify the imposters, and refuse them admission.  Rosenhan agreed that he would send imposters over the course of the next three months.  Three months and 193 applicants later, the hospital had identified 41 imposters, and was suspicious of 42 others.  It was then that Rosenhan had told the hospital that he had sent no one; that all those identified as imposters or suspect were in fact legitimate.

Rosenhan’s conclusion was that, “It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals”

       Question: If psychiatry is that an inexact science, why are psychiatrists allowed to testify in court as to the mental state of a suspect, and judges accepting these judgments in some cases to rationalize the denial of a trial?

       [added 11/3/2022] Thanks to Adam Curtis for this entry.