@article{goulart_psychiatrization_2017,
	title = {The psychiatrization of human practices worldwide: discussing new chains and cages},
	volume = {25},
	issn = {1468-1366, 1747-5104},
	shorttitle = {The psychiatrization of human practices worldwide},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681366.2016.1160673},
	doi = {10.1080/14681366.2016.1160673},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2020-04-02},
	journal = {Pedagogy, Culture \& Society},
	author = {Goulart, Daniel Magalhães},
	month = jan,
	year = {2017},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000010},
	pages = {151--156},
}

@article{kvaale_side_2013,
	title = {The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: {A} meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma},
	volume = {33},
	issn = {02727358},
	shorttitle = {The ‘side effects’ of medicalization},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0272735813000883},
	doi = {10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.002},
	abstract = {Reducing stigma is crucial for facilitating recovery from psychological problems. Viewing these problems biomedically may reduce the tendency to blame affected persons, but critics have cautioned that it could also increase other facets of stigma. We report on the first meta-analytic review of the effects of biogenetic explanations on stigma. A comprehensive search yielded 28 eligible experimental studies. Four separate meta-analyses (Ns = 1207–3469) assessed the effects of biogenetic explanations on blame, perceived dangerousness, social distance, and prognostic pessimism. We found that biogenetic explanations reduce blame (Hedges g = − 0.324) but induce pessimism (Hedges g = 0.263). We also found that biogenetic explanations increase endorsement of the stereotype that people with psychological problems are dangerous (Hedges g = 0.198), although this result could reflect publication bias. Finally, we found that biogenetic explanations do not typically affect social distance. Promoting biogenetic explanations to alleviate blame may induce pessimism and set the stage for self-fulfilling prophecies that could hamper recovery from psychological problems.},
	language = {en},
	number = {6},
	urldate = {2020-04-02},
	journal = {Clinical Psychology Review},
	author = {Kvaale, Erlend P. and Haslam, Nick and Gottdiener, William H.},
	month = aug,
	year = {2013},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000286},
	pages = {782--794},
}

@article{szasz_psychiatry_2003,
	title = {Psychiatry and the control of dangerousness: on the apotropaic function of the term "mental illness"},
	volume = {29},
	issn = {0306-6800},
	shorttitle = {Psychiatry and the control of dangerousness},
	url = {http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/jme.29.4.227},
	doi = {10.1136/jme.29.4.227},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2020-03-23},
	journal = {Journal of Medical Ethics},
	author = {Szasz, T},
	month = aug,
	year = {2003},
	pages = {227--230},
}

@misc{noauthor_normalizing_nodate,
	title = {Normalizing the {Abnormal}: {Do} {Antipsychotic} {Drugs} {Push} the {Cortex} {Into} an {Unsustainable} {Metabolic} {Envelope}? {\textbar} {Schizophrenia} {Bulletin} {\textbar} {Oxford} {Academic}},
	url = {https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/46/3/484/5637929},
	urldate = {2020-09-03},
}

@article{bracken_szasz_nodate,
	title = {From {Szasz} to {Foucault}: {On} the {Role} of {Critical} {Psychiatry}},
	abstract = {In this article, we examine the different ways in which Thomas Szasz and Michel Foucault have challenged dominant perspectives within psychiatry. We identify, analyze, and compare the central elements of their respective discourses on psychiatry and show that although they are often bracketed together, in fact there are certain fundamental differences between Szasz and Foucault. Of most importance is their contrasting ways of characterizing the nature and role of critical thought. Whereas Szasz’s analysis is predicated on a number of binary distinctions, Foucault works to overcome such distinctions. In the past ten years, a new movement of critical psychiatry has emerged. Although this shares certain concerns with the critical psychiatry of the 1960s and 1970s, there are substantial differences. We argue that this discourse is more resonant with the Foucauldian approach.},
	language = {en},
	author = {Bracken, Pat and Thomas, Philip},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000082},
	pages = {11},
}

@article{haslam_biogenetic_nodate,
	title = {Biogenetic {Explanations} of {Mental} {Disorder}: {The} {Mixed}-{Blessings} {Model}},
	abstract = {Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder are increasingly prominent. However, they have decidedly mixed implications for how affected persons are perceived. We review evidence of these mixed blessings from three perspectives: how people with mental disorders are viewed by the public, by themselves, and by clinicians. Although biogenetic explanations may soften public stigma by diminishing blame, they increase it by inducing pessimism, avoidance, and the belief that affected people are dangerous and unpredictable. These explanations may also induce pessimism and helplessness among affected people and reduce the empathy their treating clinicians feel for them. We interpret these findings in light of social psychology research on essentialist and mechanistic thinking.},
	language = {en},
	author = {Haslam, Nick and Kvaale, Erlend P},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000092},
	pages = {6},
}

@article{boisvert_iatrogenic_nodate,
	title = {Iatrogenic {Symptoms} in {Psychotherapy} {A} {Theoretical} {Exploration} of the {Potential} {Impact} of {Labels}, {Language}, and {Belief} {Systems}},
	language = {en},
	journal = {AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY},
	author = {Boisvert, Charles M},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000072},
	pages = {16},
}