"Psychiatric expert testimony: mendacity masquerading as medicine"
About this Quote
A scalpel of a phrase, sharpened to make enemies. By calling psychiatric expert testimony "mendacity masquerading as medicine", Thomas Szasz isn’t merely questioning a practice; he’s accusing an entire courtroom ritual of bad faith dressed up in a white coat. The alliteration is a tell: this is polemic designed to stick, to make the listener feel the stink of fraud before they can retreat into procedural niceties.
Szasz’s specific intent is to delegitimize the role of psychiatry as an arbiter of truth in legal settings. Expert testimony, in his framing, doesn’t translate clinical insight into justice; it manufactures authority. "Masquerading" signals performance. Psychiatry becomes theater, and the audience is the jury, hypnotized by credentials. "Mendacity" ups the charge from error to deception: not mistaken science, but strategically useful storytelling.
The subtext is a political argument about power. Szasz spent his career attacking coercive psychiatry and the insanity defense, insisting that labeling someone "mentally ill" often functions as a social control mechanism rather than a medical discovery. In court, where outcomes are punishment, confinement, or exculpation, psychiatric language can become a moral alibi or a velvet hammer: a way to convert contested judgments (dangerous, responsible, competent) into supposedly neutral diagnoses.
The context is mid-to-late 20th-century America, when psychiatry’s institutional reach expanded alongside public anxiety about crime, deviance, and responsibility. Szasz’s line works because it treats the expert not as a healer but as a state-friendly narrator, supplying medicine’s prestige to decisions that are, at their core, ethical and political.
Szasz’s specific intent is to delegitimize the role of psychiatry as an arbiter of truth in legal settings. Expert testimony, in his framing, doesn’t translate clinical insight into justice; it manufactures authority. "Masquerading" signals performance. Psychiatry becomes theater, and the audience is the jury, hypnotized by credentials. "Mendacity" ups the charge from error to deception: not mistaken science, but strategically useful storytelling.
The subtext is a political argument about power. Szasz spent his career attacking coercive psychiatry and the insanity defense, insisting that labeling someone "mentally ill" often functions as a social control mechanism rather than a medical discovery. In court, where outcomes are punishment, confinement, or exculpation, psychiatric language can become a moral alibi or a velvet hammer: a way to convert contested judgments (dangerous, responsible, competent) into supposedly neutral diagnoses.
The context is mid-to-late 20th-century America, when psychiatry’s institutional reach expanded alongside public anxiety about crime, deviance, and responsibility. Szasz’s line works because it treats the expert not as a healer but as a state-friendly narrator, supplying medicine’s prestige to decisions that are, at their core, ethical and political.
Quote Details
| Topic | Mental Health |
|---|
More Quotes by Thomas
Add to List
