Filed Under: The Therapeutic State
Tags: Alan Turing • homosexuality • pseudoscience • psychiatric destruction • psychiatry
The Shame of Medicine: The Case of Alan Turing
The Persecution of Homosexuals is Paradigmatic of the History of Psychiatry’s Monumental Blunders
Alan Mathison Turing (1912–1954) was one of the legendary geniuses of the twentieth century. The only child of a middle-class English family, the Cambridge-educated Turing played a crucial role in breaking the German Enigma code during World War II, an achievement often credited with saving Britain from defeat in the dark days of 1941. Because of the secrecy surrounding the British code-breaking effort, for a long time only a few colleagues and high-ranking politicians were aware of Turing’s towering contribution to science and the war effort.
Turing was a mathematician, cryptographer, and pioneering computer scientist. He was good-looking, athletic, eccentric, and openly homosexual. In 1935, backed by John Maynard Keynes, Turing was elected a Fellow of King’s College, a remarkable achievement for so young a man. In 1936 he published a paper that immediately became a classic in mathematics and earned him an an invitation from John von Neumann to continue his studies at Princeton University. In 1938, having been awarded a Ph.D. in mathematics, Turing returned to Cambridge and was soon working at Bletchley Park, the famous British code-breaking “factory.” When the war ended, Turing moved to Manchester where the university created a special readership in the theory of computing for him.
In 1951 Turing began a homosexual relationship with a working-class youth. Returning home one evening, he found that his house had been burglarized. He reported the crime to the police and communicated his suspicion that the culprit was an associate of his gay friend. He confessed to his homosexual affair and was charged with “gross indecency,” a crime then punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. The judge, taking into account Turing’s intellectual distinction and social position, sentenced him to probation, “on the condition that he submit for treatment by a duly qualified medical practitioner.” In April 1952 he wrote to a friend, “I am both bound over for a year and obliged to take this organo-therapy for the same period. It is supposed to reduce sexual urge whilst it goes on, but one is supposed to return to normal when it is over. I hope they’re right.” Turing was never the same again. His body became feminized. He grew breasts.
Fatal Treatment for a Fictitious Disease
On June 8, 1954, Turing was found dead by his housekeeper, a partly eaten apple laced with cyanide next to his bed. At the inquest, the coroner ruled his death a suicide. Neither his homosexuality nor his psychiatric treatment was mentioned. The coroner said, “I am forced to the conclusion that this was a deliberate act. In a man of this type, one never knows what his mental processes are going to do next.” The verdict was “suicide while the balance of his mind was disturbed.” Even in death, psychiatry and the state stigmatized Turing as mad. The posthumous diagnosis of suicide as mental illness is the ritual degradation ceremony of our therapeutic age, much as the posthumous burning of the heretic’s corpse was the ritual degradation ceremony of an earlier theological age.
No one in Turing’s circle, himself included, was able or willing to transcend the psychiatric zeitgeist: Homoerotic behavior and self-determined death are self-evident symptoms of mental illness, it argues, requiring and justifying coercive medical-psychiatric treatment. Turing’s psychiatrist, Dr. Frank M. Greenbaum, vehemently rejected the coroner’s diagnosis, though not by contesting the claims that engaging in homosexual conduct and self-killing are evidence of diseases curable by doctors. “There is not the slightest doubt to me that Alan died by an accident,” declared Greenbaum.
In 1967 the UK decriminalized homosexuality. Overnight it ceased to be a disease in England but not the United States, where for six more years it remained both a crime and a “treatable disease.”
Turing’s biographer, Andrew Hodges, notes that Turing did not consider his homosexuality a disease, a crime, or a shameful condition. He suggests that Turing opted for medical treatment rather than a brief period of imprisonment because he feared that a criminal conviction would be fatal for his career. Countless of Turing’s gay contemporaries at Cambridge and in London—Wittgenstein, Keynes, Lytton Strachey, many of the Apostles and Bloomsburys—sensibly stayed away from psychiatrists. Many famous people—Gandhi, Russell, and Nehru—spent time in prison, though, and went on to do memorable work. This is not true for people imprisoned in mental hospitals. After the psychiatric degraders finish their job, the “patient” is dead—if not biologically then socially.
Psychiatric destruction often begins with psychiatric self-destruction, the denominated patient believing the psychiatrist’s self-deceptions about nonexisting diseases and their damaging treatments. “The worst enemy of truth and freedom in our society,” declared Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906), “is the compact majority. Yes, the damned, compact, liberal majority.” Let us not forget that the power of science is limited to informing and misinforming. It does not have the power to coerce. In contrast, power to coerce is the very essence of psychiatric pseudoscience allied with the state. Psychiatrists regularly characterize their power to coerce as “suicide prevention.” The opposite is often the case.
The original function of psychiatry—which is approximately 300 years old—was penological: The psychiatrist stigmatized persons as “mad,” deprived them of liberty, and assaulted them with chemical and physical interventions. A little more than 100 years ago individuals began to seek psychiatric help for their own problems. As a result, many people who entrusted themselves to the care of psychiatrists became entrapped in the machinery of punitive mad-doctoring, dramatically portrayed in Ken Kesey’s best-selling novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and the film based on it. The recent film Changeling presents a real-life example.
So does Alan Turing’s psychiatric undoing.
Psychiatry: Trap, Not Treatment
The identification of psychiatry with medical healing and humane helpfulness is factually false and morally deceptive, concealing an existential trap with untold-of potentialities for injury and death for the entrapped. More successfully than ever, the modern “biological” psychiatrist misrepresents his profession as based on biological science and medical discovery, while more than ever it is based on pseudoscience and therapeutic deception.
The persecution of homosexuals is paradigmatic of the history of psychiatry’s monumental blunders and brutalities and of its policy of never acknowledging nor apologizing for them. Instead, organized psychiatry intensifies the celebration of its founding quack, Benjamin Rush (1746–1813). Declared Rush, “I have selected those two symptoms [murder and theft] of this disease [crime] (for they are not vices) from its other morbid effects, in order to rescue persons affected with them from the arm of the law, and render them the subjects of the kind and lenient hand of medicine.” What did Rush mean when he spoke of medical kindness and lenience? Lamenting the “excess of the passion for liberty inflamed by the successful issue of the [Revolutionary] war,” he explained, “Were we to live our lives over again and engage in the same benevolent enterprise, our means should not be reasoning but bleeding, purging, low diet, and the tranquilizing chair.” Psychiatry—glorifying the use of coercion as cure—is the shame of medicine.
Comment by mary maddock on 24 April 2009:
‘Psychiatry—glorifying the use of coercion as cure—is the shame of medicine.’
Yes, psychiatry is happy to coerce others with destructive treatments which deprive its subjects of their humanity. It is happy to use violent methods to those it claims to ‘help’. It has convinced the silent majority that human problems are diseases without any scientific evidence whatsoever.
Vulnerable people’s human rights are abused daily while so called diseases abound.
Comment by Daniel Klein on 25 April 2009:
In economics there are pockets of people and outfits in establishment institutions, notably universities, that expose the quackeries and misadventures of statism.
In psychiatry I imagine there are almost none. Szasz is just remarkable keep doing it so trenchantly, richly, copiously, responsibly, with presumably so little institutional traction. Thank goodness for his vision and moral strength and independence. An inspiration. Thank you Professor Szasz.
Comment by greg white on 26 April 2009:
“In the end,it is not the words of our enemies that hurts us most, but the silence of our friends” Gandhi
To my mind the betrayal lies at the heart of our society. It seems in ancient times, an offending individual was not ostrasized separated or stigmatized for long, as his/her loss was experienced as shame, not guilt.This modern confusion of shame/guilt is critical, especially for the supportive relationship with family and friends.
To that end the spirit of the law was restorative in nature, not punitive and stigmatizing as at present. Until we grasp that nettle we will continue to suffer the dreadful ministrations of thought police, and all the rest of the control freakery besides.
Meantime thank the Buddha for Tom Szasz and other `offensive’ individuals.
Comment by Phil Barker and Poppy Buchanan-Barker on 27 April 2009:
“It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph” Edmund Burke (attributed)
Having worked in and around the psychiatric/mental health field for 40 years, we are well aware of the considerable number of psychiatric professionals who identify themselves as gay/homosexual, especially within nursing. However, few (if any) acknowledge the debt they owe to Dr Szasz, for his outstanding contribution to the elimination of ‘homosexuality’ from the diagnostic canon. Fewer still support his stance on the moral repugnance of psychiatric coercion. Consequently, they support and maintain systems, which continue to suppress and disqualify (thru diagnosis) forms of human expression, in the same way as once was done in relation to ‘homosexuality.
Comment by Jim Ewins on 30 April 2009:
What happened to the advice, “Keep your own counsel”? One’s personal activities & thoughts, if harmful to none, are no one’s business. Why surrender one’s self to the ideas of others, especially without critical review, doctor, lawyer or psychologist.
Comment by Boetica on 1 May 2009:
So should pedophilia be removed from the DSM as well? Why shouldn’t a ten year old who knows he is gay be able to have a consensual relationship, as well as marry, an older man who is a pedophile? Well, let’s say a 14 year old. Mohammed married a six year old girl, and fondled her until he consummated his marriage when she was 9 years old (how kind of him to wait so long). Homosexuals dispropotionately suffer from other mental and physical disorders, even in countries where that behavior is accepted. How does one account for this, except of course to claim that mental illness doesn’t exist………
Comment by Lynn on 1 May 2009:
Perhaps Boetica can tell us how many pedophiles are “cured” by psychiatrists? Or what, pray tell, medicine has discovered the etiology of pedophilia is?
Protection of children is one area where the pure Libertarian stance breaks down; pedophiles are and should be considered criminals with an incredibly high lifetime rate of recidivism (approaching 100%). Lock ‘em up. Throw away the key. But don’t make noises about how they are “sick” and can be “rehabilitated” with the “right” combo of drugs and therapy. It doesn’t happen.
Groups which also suffer disproportionately from mental and physical disorders include Blacks, Hispanics, women, and left-handed people. Are they all mentally ill as well?
Comment by Ryan on 2 May 2009:
Lynn says \"pedophiles are and should be considered criminals with an incredibly high lifetime rate of recidivism (approaching 100%). Lock ‘em up. Throw away the key.\"
Should one be locked up, the key thrown away, and placed in a government database based on mere testimony of a child?
Should an 18-year-old be locked up and the key thrown away for having consensual sex with someone of age 17? 16? 15? 14?
And what will we do with all those pesky religions that cling to traditional practice and marry off girls as young as 12? Put \’em behind bars?
The presence of arbitrary legal standards does not have any bearing on right and wrong. The libertarian system does not \"break down\" as you claim. If the child is pursued against his will or forcibly entered, it is molestation. If the child is pursued on the parents\’ property, it is trespassing. If the parents wish to protect the child from being deceived into going home with a stranger or school employee, they should give him the tools he needs to be able to deal with strangers and school employees on his way to, from, and through government-mandated public school.
The pedophile may be a grotesque person, but that doesn\’t mean she belongs in prison at taxpayer expense, injuring everyone on an ongoing basis. Nor does it mean that government should be building databases which inevitably ensnare people who are no threat to anyone. Instead, let everyone judge her and deal with her appropriately through their own freedom of assocation. Exclusion from social groups and economic opportunities is a strong incentive to reform one\’s behavior.
Comment by bruce on 4 May 2009:
psychiatry is different from legitimate medicine. real medicine(in u.s. until now at least) has been –and please god forever more will be voluntary. coerced diagnosis, treatment, holdover and stigmatization in the name of parity is a disgrace. this fraud (that is any medical or other practice not 100% voluntary) should be abolished immediately.
Comment by S. R. Kretchmar on 15 May 2009:
As Dr. Szasz has so ably pointed out for decades, the issue is NOT what is right or wrong, moral or immoral (e.g., homosexuality, pedophilia). Society will always exercise its power and its right to make such evaluations. Individuals may collaborate or resist.
The issue is responsibility. \"Mental illness\" is an abdication by society, of responsibility for organized criminal justice. It is also an abdication by the individual, of responsibility for choosing his/her own actions.
Psychiatry thus represents the gravest threat to both social cohesion and individual autonomy.
Comment by Aaron on 26 May 2009:
I’m going to take a wild guess and say that very few (if any) of these anti-psychiatry commentors have actually been mentally ill and helped by psychiatry. Psychiatric meds are helping me, and nobody has ever used violent methods on me. Psychiatry helped my friend with schizoaffective disorder (aka the “human problem” of extreme depression and seeing things that don’t exist). Don’t tell us that our illnesses aren’t real, because we know they are. We don’t take medications for fun. Psychological suffering is a reality for those of us who actually know what mental illness feels like. Don’t be pretentious asses and call us “vulnerable.” And don’t assume that something is a lie merely because it doesn’t have much scientific/physical evidence.
Comment by Nicolas Martin on 5 June 2009:
It is an profound disgrace that so many libertarians are indifferent or hostile to the views of Dr. Szasz. Like liberals and conservatives, most libertarians are content to let the state deprive people of freedom in the name of \"mental illness.\" It is the Achilles heel of the libertarian movement.
Comment by Loretta on 20 June 2009:
First, answering Aaron, who had posted on 26 May 2009. (Will answer Boetica at the end of this post.)
Aaron, I\’m a daughter of a psychiatrist. I don\’t see my parent as a \"scientist\" but as an apparatschik of an increasingly socialistic state.
(By the way, many psychiatric treatments, including many \"modern\" treatments, are known to damage the human brain — and sometimes the brains get so damaged that they do shrink in size! How do you think that psychiatrists have collectively managed to acquire such derisive names as \"shrinks\" and \"headshrinkers\"?!)
By the way, I\’ve NEVER heard any of us so-called \"pretentious asses\" (your words, sir) accuse you self-described mental patients of taking your psychiatric drugs \"for fun\" (also your words)!
As for the word \"vulnerable\", is it such a crime to use that word — especially when you like to call us heretics a bunch of \"pretentious asses\"?! Geez!
And in response to a different person:
To Boetica (who had posted on 1 May 2009): ICK!! You should listen to what both Lynn and Ryan have said about molesters, you slippery, oily E.-Fuller-Torrey sympathizer! Lynn and Ryan both write honest, intelligent answers to your slippery red-herring comment about molesters. Listen to Lynn and Ryan!
Comment by Aaron on 20 June 2009:
Loretta: It\’s obvious by reading the comments that many of the people posting here believe they are above the mentally ill because they have seen the error in the ways of this society\’s attempts to help \"vulnerable\" people. I think they fit the description of \"pretentious asses\" quite well. The description of mental illnesses as \"so-called diseases\"–a phrase which conveys a message similar to that of a parent trying to convince his or her children that there are no monsters under their beds–makes it clear that the above commentors feel like they are educated enough to know what is actual suffering as opposed to imaginary suffering. You got in a hissy fit about my use of a swear word and neglected to address my first point: how can anyone call illnesses (for instance, schizophrenia, particularly the kind with both visual and auditory hallucinations) simply a human problem? And don\’t throw Szasz\’s words at me by saying that it\’s only a sane reaction to an insane society; seeing death-angels and hearing voices telling an individual to kill himself or herself is in no way the sign of a sane, well-adjusted individual. And regarding the belief that society will judge for itself what is right and wrong; look at the streets. There are thousands of homeless people out there. Many homeless people with psychotic disorders are mocked, abused and murdered (people even went so far as to behead one homeless man) every day, for no reason other than that their socially unacceptable behavior makes them easy targets. If the penalty for mental agony and the eccentric behavior which arises from that agony is hatred, abuse, or death, is society any better than the people that try to help the mentally ill? It\’s true that psychiatry is at fault in some places–I\’m not denying that–but to want to abolish the practice of psychiatry altogether is ignoring the good it has done. One could claim that non-pschiatric medicine has done and is still doing harm to people (ever seen Michael Moore\’s \"Sicko\"?). Should we abolish that, too? Of course not. There is no doubt that psychiatry has done harm, but they aren\’t the only ones misdiagnosing and disabling people across the country. For instance, the news article in which doctors amputated a lady\’s arms and legs when all she had was a kidney stone (http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/642987). She lost the court case against the doctors. Still, even when such injustices go on, should we rid the US of all medicinal practices? No. We should reach the same conclusion with psychiatry.
Comment by Nigga Joe on 1 September 2009:
Let food be your medicine. Stay away from needles, recreational, or medicinal. Keep your spirit and your chemicals in balance, stay away from bureuacracy and govt’s. Rely on yourself, and as the man said, keep your own counsel.
Comment by Loretta on 12 April 2010:
Aaron,
Am not a regular member of this site, so don’t be surprised that this answer came several months late.
One thing, it’s noticeable that instead of answering directly anything I’d said, you went on into a babbling tirade about several different things all at once. Many a Denial-Of-Service email-attack also attacks through the mass of many words (in the form of emails). Were those words that you threw at me simply a bunch of Talking-Points or something similar, Aaron?
Seems that you’re the one going into a “hissy” fit, notice how you ramble. If you make such a long post, than at least divide it up into paragraphs — don’t ramble the way you do, because it sounds like you are babbling, and like also you’re having a “hissy fit”.
If you haven’t noticed, probably nobody is trying to sound more “educated” than they really are. They are most likely trying to honestly communicate.
Please don’t complain that I just used an Ad Hominem — when now, you yourself are very guilty of using such tactics, Ad Hominems.
As for the “homeless” problem, it is an obvious red herring that you threw. They can remain in institutional homes, if nothing better can be available for them; but they should not be tortured through the treatments of false psychiatry — and false psychiatry is either the majority or perhaps even the totality of psychiatry!
While you might find it offensive for me to “throw up” any of Szasz’s words, I’ll paraphrase Szasz anyway: Szasz NEVER approved of throwing some of the mental hospitals’ victims out on their ear! He simply wanted them to have homes, BUT ALSO HAVE FREEDOM ALONG WITH THEIR HOMES!
(Also, I find it offensive that you would accuse us who oppose the quackery of psychiatry of wanting to cause great suffering to anybody, including the homeless. Keep your false accusation to yourself!)
Your reference to “a sane reaction to an insane society” does not sound like Szasz’s typical words; it sounds like you’re paraphrasing somebody else. Szasz does not focus on any alleged or apparent collective sickness of society nearly as much as he focuses upon the individual and their responsibilities and potentials for both good and bad. You should at least keep your Talking-Points straight!
No, I did not see Michael Moore’s “Sicko”. Moore is a filthy toad, and don’t you dare accuse me of watching any of his repulsive propaganda movies.
The way you used the phrase “human problem” sounds like the word “human” is a contemptuous word in your vocabulary. In my vocabulary, “human” is not a contemptuous word.
Oh, one last thing, sir: how do you know the real state of another’s mind or intentions? Are you a telepath or something? If you are, then, wonderful — I’ve never met a real, live mind-reader with real psychic powers! Sounds like YOU’RE the real “pretentious ass”!
Comment by Loretta on 12 April 2010:
I like what “Nigga Joe” had to say.
“Nigga Joe” basically said to take care of yourself, independent from all drugs and from all bureaucrats.
“Nigga Joe” should have the last word, so please re-read what he had written.