Redemption in Psychiatry, Part 2: Collegial Reactions

svetazi/AdobeStock

PSYCHIATRIC VIEWS ON THE DAILY NEWS

The first column I wrote on “Redemption in Psychiatry” last Friday ended with my request:

“So, is redemption of some relevance to psychiatry?”

The request was not to demand that attention be paid to redemption in psychiatry, but to consider its relevance, and a good many did so. Here are some representative anonymous samples beyond what was covered in the original column.

Relevance: Either “very interesting or “thought provoking” was by far the most common responses from other psychiatrists.

• “This is very interesting - thought provoking.”
• “Very interesting question.”
• “I would not have thought of that, it’s an original and interesting frame, and with many possible directions as you mention.”
• “Very thoughtful-provoking.”

What such responses meant is uncertain. Being polite? Dismissive? Supportive? Inspired?

Definition: Although most definitions lean toward its religious usage, there was some wondering of whether it could be broader.

• “It seems to me it is a fundamental theological, rather than psychological term, but that may be too narrow a view.”
• “You correctly point that redemption comes from a point of recognizing what’s wrong or lacking.”
• “I would be very interested in hearing about other psychiatrists’ reactions towards the term ‘redemption’—as it is often associated with religious faith.”

Relevance: Some seemed to consider how redemption could also be applied to psychiatry.

• “I love the points you make about the traditional neglect of the theme in the face of the universal moral need to make things right after failure.”
• “I suppose that this is an arm of psychotherapy in a sense, to return an individual to a state that overcomes adversity.”
• “Indeed, we all have to deal with redemption of our misdeeds.”
• And from a Rabbi: “Love the idea that psychiatry can provide a path to healing that also includes redemption.”

Given these collective responses, redemption does seem of some interest to psychiatrists, and with a broad definition being used, of relevance. Both religions and psychiatry have moral and ethical bases, and perhaps redemption connects them. However, it is not a term that has been used in the psychiatric literature. At best, it is implicit in the literature, like Shakespeare’s point in “Romeo and Juliet”:

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

I will try to make it more explicitly relevant in the next column in part 3 of this series: Integrating Redemption into Psychiatric Practice.

Dr Moffic is an award-winning psychiatrist who specialized in the cultural and ethical aspects of psychiatry and is now in retirement and retirement as a private pro bono community psychiatrist. A prolific writer and speaker, he has done a weekday column titled “Psychiatric Views on the Daily News” and a weekly video, “Psychiatry & Society,” since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. He was chosen to receive the 2024 Abraham Halpern Humanitarian Award from the American Association for Social Psychiatry. Previously, he received the Administrative Award in 2016 from the American Psychiatric Association, the one-time designation of being a Hero of Public Psychiatry from the Speaker of the Assembly of the APA in 2002, and the Exemplary Psychiatrist Award from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in 1991. He presented the third Rabbi Jeffrey B. Stiffman lecture at Congregation Shaare Emeth in St. Louis on Sunday, May 19, 2024. He is an advocate and activist for mental health issues related to climate instability, physician burnout, and xenophobia. He is now editing the final book in a 4-volume series on religions and psychiatry for Springer: Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianity, and now The Eastern Religions, and Spirituality. He serves on the Editorial Board of Psychiatric Times.