Institutional Corruption in Psychiatric Research and Practice: Implications for Humanistic Psychology

Humanistic psychologists have made some of the earliest and most powerful critiques of the medical model. Rather than medicalize experience, the emphasis in our field is on authenticity, empathic seeing, and a relational and contextual approach to understanding emotional distress. As such, humanistic psychologists are typically cautious about the (over) use of psychotropic medications. Yet, all practicing psychologists are required to be knowledgeable about the efficacy and side effects of psychotropic medications, even if they do not have prescriptive authority. However, the prevalence of academic-industry relationships and financial conflicts of interest in psychiatry have eroded trust in the scientific literature because of inflated claims of efficacy and an underreporting of harms. Additionally, industry exerts undue influence on regulatory decisions, educational materials, and patient advocacy groups. Thus, clinicians must take extra steps to ensure they are fully educated about the risk/benefit ratio of psychotropic medications and are aware of, and can respond to, the distorting impact of commercial influence on psychiatric research and practice. In this paper, we use the normative and conceptual framework of institutional corruption to examine the economies of influence that create challenges for ethical practice. We take as our starting point the idea that enhancing the informed consent process for clients considering taking, tapering, or discontinuing psychotropic medication is a social justice issue—and one that aligns well with the core values of our field. Specific recommendations and independent (i.e., nonindustry funded) resources are provided.