Skip to main content

Lạm dụng chính trị tâm thần học ở Liên Xô


Viện nghiên cứu pháp y trung tâm Serbsky, cũng gọi ngắn gọn là Viện Serbsky (một phần của tòa nhà ở Moscow)

Có sự lạm dụng chính trị có hệ thống đối với tâm thần học ở Liên Xô, [1] dựa trên việc giải thích Đối lập chính trị hoặc bất đồng chính kiến ​​như là một vấn đề tâm thần. [2] Nó được gọi là "cơ chế tâm lý học" của bất đồng chính kiến. người đã công khai bày tỏ niềm tin mâu thuẫn với giáo điều chính thức. [5] Thuật ngữ "nhiễm độc triết học", chẳng hạn, được áp dụng rộng rãi cho các rối loạn tâm thần được chẩn đoán khi mọi người không đồng ý với các nhà lãnh đạo Cộng sản của đất nước và, bằng cách đề cập đến các tác phẩm của các Cha của chủ nghĩa Mác, chủ nghĩa Lênin, giáo sư Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels và Vladimir Lenin, đã biến chúng thành mục tiêu của sự chỉ trích.

Điều 58-10 của Stal Bộ luật hình sự trong thời đại, "kích động chống Liên Xô", ở một mức độ đáng kể được bảo tồn trong Bộ luật hình sự RSFSR năm 1958 mới như Điều 70 "Kích động và tuyên truyền chống Liên Xô". Năm 1967, một luật yếu hơn, Điều 190-1 "Phổ biến những điều bịa đặt là sai, nói xấu hệ thống chính trị và xã hội của Liên Xô", đã được thêm vào Bộ luật Hình sự RSFSR. Những luật này thường được áp dụng cùng với hệ thống chẩn đoán bệnh tâm thần, được phát triển bởi Viện sĩ Andrei Snezhnevsky. Họ cùng nhau thiết lập một khuôn khổ trong đó niềm tin phi tiêu chuẩn có thể dễ dàng được định nghĩa là một hành vi phạm tội hình sự và sau đó, để chẩn đoán tâm thần.

Áp dụng chẩn đoán [ chỉnh sửa ] [19659010] Hành vi chính trị "chống Liên Xô" của một số cá nhân - thẳng thắn phản đối chính quyền, biểu tình cải cách và viết sách phê phán - được định nghĩa đồng thời là hành vi tội phạm (ví dụ, vi phạm Điều 70 hoặc 190-1) , các triệu chứng của bệnh tâm thần (ví dụ: "ảo tưởng về cải cách") và dễ bị chẩn đoán sẵn sàng (ví dụ: "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp"). [8] Trong phạm vi của phạm vi chẩn đoán, các triệu chứng bi quan, xã hội kém sự thích nghi và xung đột với chính quyền đã đủ cho một chẩn đoán chính thức về "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp." [9]

Việc tống giam tâm thần của một số cá nhân đã được thúc đẩy bởi những nỗ lực của họ để thúc đẩy họ. gr, để phân phối hoặc sở hữu các tài liệu hoặc sách bị cấm, tham gia vào các cuộc biểu tình và biểu tình dân quyền, và tham gia vào các hoạt động tôn giáo bị cấm. Niềm tin tôn giáo của các tù nhân, bao gồm cả những người vô thần được giáo dục tốt, những người đã trở thành tín đồ của tôn giáo, được coi là một dạng bệnh tâm thần cần được điều trị. KGB thường xuyên gửi những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​đến bác sĩ tâm thần để chẩn đoán để tránh các thử nghiệm publiс đáng xấu hổ và làm mất uy tín bất đồng là sản phẩm của những tâm trí xấu. Các tài liệu chính phủ được phân loại cao đã có sẵn sau khi Liên Xô tan rã xác nhận rằng chính quyền có ý thức sử dụng tâm thần học như một công cụ để đàn áp bất đồng chính kiến. [13]

Theo "Bình luận" cho bài viết. -Soviet Luật Chăm sóc Tâm thần Liên bang Nga các cá nhân bị buộc phải điều trị tại các cơ sở y tế tâm thần của Liên Xô được quyền phục hồi theo quy trình đã thiết lập và có thể yêu cầu bồi thường. Liên bang Nga thừa nhận rằng trước năm 1991, tâm thần học đã được sử dụng cho mục đích chính trị và chịu trách nhiệm cho các nạn nhân của "tâm thần chính trị". [14]

Tuy nhiên, tình trạng lạm dụng chính trị đối với tâm thần học ở Nga vẫn còn tiếp diễn. kể từ khi Liên Xô sụp đổ [15] và các nhà hoạt động nhân quyền vẫn có thể phải đối mặt với mối đe dọa chẩn đoán tâm thần cho các hoạt động chính trị và dân sự hợp pháp của họ.

Bối cảnh [ chỉnh sửa ]

Định nghĩa [ chỉnh sửa ]

Lạm dụng chính trị tâm thần học là lạm dụng chẩn đoán tâm thần, giam giữ và điều trị cho các mục đích cản trở quyền con người cơ bản của một số nhóm và cá nhân trong một xã hội. [19659021] Nó đòi hỏi sự tha hóa và ủy thác của công dân đối với các cơ sở tâm thần dựa trên các tiêu chí dựa trên chính trị thay vì sức khỏe tâm thần. [18] Nhiều tác giả, bao gồm cả bác sĩ tâm thần, cũng sử dụng thuật ngữ "Tâm thần học chính trị Liên Xô" [19] hoặc "tâm thần học trừng phạt" để chỉ hiện tượng này. [20]

Trong cuốn sách của mình Y học trừng phạt (1979) Alexander Podrabinek đã định nghĩa thuật ngữ này "y học trừng phạt", được xác định là "tâm thần trừng phạt", là "một công cụ trong cuộc đấu tranh chống lại những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​không thể bị trừng phạt bằng các biện pháp hợp pháp". Tâm thần học trừng phạt không phải là một môn học rời rạc cũng không phải là một chuyên ngành tâm thần, nhưng, đúng hơn, nó là một trường hợp khẩn cấp phát sinh trong nhiều ngành khoa học ứng dụng ở các nước chuyên chế, nơi các thành viên của một nghề nghiệp có thể cảm thấy mình bị buộc phải phục vụ quyền lực. Sự giam cầm tâm thần của những người lành mạnh được thống nhất coi là một hình thức đàn áp đặc biệt nguy hiểm [23] và tâm thần trừng phạt của Liên Xô là một trong những vũ khí quan trọng của cả đàn áp bất hợp pháp và hợp pháp. [24] Semyon Gluzman đã viết trong phần chung của họ Sách hướng dẫn về tâm thần học cho những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​"việc Liên Xô sử dụng tâm thần học như một phương tiện trừng phạt dựa trên sự giải thích có chủ ý của bất đồng chính kiến ​​... như là một vấn đề tâm thần."

khả năng lạm dụng vốn có [ chỉnh sửa ]

Tâm thần học có khả năng lạm dụng vốn có lớn hơn so với các lĩnh vực y học khác. Chẩn đoán bệnh tâm thần có thể đưa ra giấy phép của tiểu bang để giam giữ những người chống lại ý muốn của họ và khăng khăng trị liệu cả vì lợi ích của người bị giam giữ và vì lợi ích rộng lớn hơn của xã hội. Ngoài ra, nhận được một chẩn đoán tâm thần tự nó có thể được coi là áp bức. Ở trạng thái nguyên khối, tâm thần học có thể được sử dụng để vượt qua các thủ tục pháp lý tiêu chuẩn để thiết lập cảm giác tội lỗi hoặc vô tội và cho phép giam giữ chính trị mà không cần thông qua các thử nghiệm chính trị như vậy.

Trong giai đoạn từ những năm 1960 đến 1986, lạm dụng tâm thần học cho các mục đích chính trị đã được báo cáo là có hệ thống ở Liên Xô và tình tiết ở các nước Đông Âu khác như Romania, Hungary, Tiệp Khắc và Nam Tư. Việc thực hành giam giữ các nhà bất đồng chính trị tại các bệnh viện tâm thần ở Đông Âu và Liên Xô cũ đã làm tổn hại uy tín của thực hành tâm thần ở các bang này và gây ra sự lên án mạnh mẽ từ cộng đồng quốc tế. Các bác sĩ tâm thần đã tham gia vào các vi phạm nhân quyền ở các bang trên thế giới khi các định nghĩa về bệnh tâm thần được mở rộng để bao gồm sự bất tuân chính trị. Như các học giả đã tranh luận từ lâu, các tổ chức y tế và chính phủ đôi khi đã phân loại các mối đe dọa đối với chính quyền trong thời kỳ xáo trộn chính trị và bất ổn như một dạng bệnh tâm thần. Ở nhiều quốc gia, các tù nhân chính trị đôi khi vẫn bị giam cầm và lạm dụng trong các viện tâm thần.

Ở Liên Xô, những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​thường bị giam giữ trong các phường tâm thần thường được gọi là psikhushkas . Psikhushka Nga mỉa mai cho "bệnh viện tâm thần". Một trong những hình phạt đầu tiên psikhushkas là Bệnh viện Nhà tù Tâm thần ở thành phố Kazan. [35] Năm 1939, nó được chuyển đến sự kiểm soát của NKVD (cảnh sát bí mật và tiền thân của KGB) trên lệnh của Lavrentiy Beria, người đứng đầu của NKVD. Các nhà bảo vệ nhân quyền quốc tế như Walter Reich từ lâu đã ghi lại các phương pháp mà các bác sĩ tâm thần Liên Xô trong Psikhushka bệnh viện chẩn đoán tâm thần phân liệt ở những người chống đối chính trị. Các học giả phương Tây đã xem xét khía cạnh của tâm thần học Xô Viết một cách triệt để như sự tham gia của nó vào sự kiểm soát xã hội của những người chống đối chính trị.

Dưới thời Stalin, Khrushchev và Brezhnev [ chỉnh sửa ] [1990017] cơ quan mật vụ Liên Xô đã quan tâm đến lĩnh vực y học này. Một trong những người chịu trách nhiệm chung cho cảnh sát bí mật Liên Xô, Tổng Kiểm sát viên trước Công tố và Công tố viên Nhà nước, Thứ trưởng Bộ Ngoại giao, ông Andrey Vyshinsky, là người đầu tiên ra lệnh sử dụng tâm thần học như một công cụ đàn áp. Nhà tâm thần học người Nga Pyotr Gannushkin cũng tin rằng trong một xã hội có giai cấp, đặc biệt là trong cuộc đấu tranh giai cấp khốc liệt nhất, tâm thần học không có khả năng không đàn áp. [40] Một hệ thống lạm dụng chính trị tâm thần học đã được phát triển vào cuối chế độ Joseph Stalin. ] Tâm thần học trừng phạt không chỉ đơn giản là một sự kế thừa từ thời Stalin, tuy nhiên, theo Alexander Etkind. GULag, hay Giám đốc điều hành cho các trại lao động khắc phục, là một công cụ hiệu quả của sự đàn áp chính trị. Không có yêu cầu bắt buộc để phát triển một thay thế tâm thần thay thế và đắt tiền hơn. Lạm dụng tâm thần học là một sản phẩm tự nhiên của thời kỳ Xô Viết sau này. Từ giữa những năm 1970 đến những năm 1990, cấu trúc của dịch vụ sức khỏe tâm thần Liên Xô tuân theo tiêu chuẩn kép trong xã hội, được đại diện bởi hai hệ thống riêng biệt cùng tồn tại trong hòa bình, mặc dù có những xung đột định kỳ giữa chúng:

  1. hệ thống một là hệ thống tâm thần trừng phạt. Nó trực tiếp phục vụ chính quyền và những người nắm quyền lực, và được lãnh đạo bởi Viện Pháp y tâm thần Matxcơva có tên để vinh danh Vladimir Serbsky;
  2. hệ thống hai được tạo thành từ các phòng khám định hướng tâm lý ưu tú. Nó được lãnh đạo bởi Viện Tâm lý học Leningrad có tên trong ký ức của Vladimir Bekhterev.

Hàng trăm bệnh viện ở các tỉnh kết hợp các yếu tố của cả hai hệ thống.

Nếu sau đó ai đó bị bệnh tâm thần, anh ta bị đưa đến bệnh viện tâm thần và bị giam cầm. ở đó cho đến ngày chết của anh ấy Nếu sức khỏe tinh thần của anh ta không chắc chắn nhưng anh ta không liên tục không khỏe, anh ta và kharakteristika [testimonial from employers, the Party and other Soviet institutions] đã bị gửi đến một trại lao động hoặc bị bắn. Khi những ám chỉ về tính hợp pháp xã hội chủ nghĩa bắt đầu được đưa ra, nó đã quyết định truy tố những người như vậy. Chẳng mấy chốc, việc đưa những người có bài phát biểu chống Liên Xô ra xét xử chỉ khiến vấn đề trở nên tồi tệ hơn đối với chế độ. Những cá nhân như vậy đã không còn xét xử tại tòa án. Thay vào đó, họ được kiểm tra tâm thần và tuyên bố điên rồ.

Phiên họp chung, tháng 10 năm 1951 [ chỉnh sửa ]

Vào những năm 1950, các bác sĩ tâm thần của Liên Xô đã tự biến mình thành y tế cánh tay của Nhà nước Gulag. Tiền thân của những vụ lạm dụng tâm thần sau này ở Liên Xô, "Phiên họp chung" của Học viện Khoa học Y khoa Liên Xô và Hội đồng Hiệp hội Thần kinh và Tâm thần Liên minh đã diễn ra từ ngày 10 đến 15 tháng 10 năm 1951. Sự kiện này được dành riêng, được cho là, đối với nhà sinh lý học vĩ đại người Nga Ivan Pavlov và cáo buộc rằng một số nhà thần kinh học và tâm thần học hàng đầu của Liên Xô thời đó (trong đó có Grunya Sukhareva, Vasily Gilyarovsky, Raisa Golant, Aleksandr Shmaryan và Mikhail Gurevich) , chống chủ nghĩa Mác, chủ nghĩa duy tâm [and]và điều này đã gây tổn hại cho tâm thần học Xô Viết.

Trong Phiên họp chung, các nhà tâm thần học nổi tiếng này, bị thúc đẩy bởi nỗi sợ hãi, đã phải công khai thừa nhận rằng các vị trí khoa học của họ là sai lầm và họ cũng phải thừa nhận rằng đã phải hứa tuân thủ các học thuyết "Pavlovian". Những tuyên bố vâng lời công khai tỏ ra không đủ. Trong bài phát biểu bế mạc Snezhnevsky, tác giả chính của báo cáo chính sách của Phiên, tuyên bố rằng các bác sĩ tâm thần bị cáo buộc "đã không giải giới và tiếp tục ở lại các vị trí chống Pavlovian cũ", do đó gây ra "thiệt hại nghiêm trọng cho nghiên cứu và thực hành tâm thần của Liên Xô ". Phó chủ tịch của Học viện Khoa học Y khoa Liên Xô đã cáo buộc họ "siêng năng tôn thờ nguồn bẩn của khoa học giả Mỹ". Những người đã nêu rõ những lời buộc tội này tại Phiên họp chung - trong số đó có Irina Strelchuk, Vasily Banshchikov, Oleg Kerbikov và Snezhnevsky - được phân biệt bởi tham vọng nghề nghiệp và nỗi sợ hãi cho vị trí của họ. Không có gì đáng ngạc nhiên, nhiều người trong số họ đã được thăng chức và bổ nhiệm vào các vị trí lãnh đạo ngay sau phiên họp.

Phiên họp chung cũng có tác động tiêu cực đến một số nhà thần kinh học hàn lâm hàng đầu của Liên Xô, như Pyotr Anokhin, Aleksey Speransky, Lina Stern, Ivan Beritashvili, và Leon quỹ đạo. Họ bị gắn mác là những người chống Pavlovia, những người chống chủ nghĩa vật chất và phản động và sau đó họ đã bị cách chức. Ngoài việc mất phòng thí nghiệm, một số nhà khoa học còn bị tra tấn trong tù. Các trường khoa học thần kinh và sinh lý thần kinh Matxcơva, Leningrad, Ucraina và Armenia đã bị hư hại trong một thời gian do mất nhân sự này. Phiên họp chung đã tàn phá nghiên cứu sản xuất trong khoa học thần kinh và tâm thần học trong nhiều năm tới. Khoa học giả đã nắm quyền kiểm soát.

Sau phiên họp chung trước đây của Viện Hàn lâm Khoa học Liên Xô và Học viện Khoa học Y tế Liên Xô (28 tháng 6, ngày 4 tháng 7 năm 1950) và phiên họp chung ngày 10 tháng 10 năm 1951 của Đoàn chủ tịch Học viện Khoa học y tế và Hội đồng liên hiệp các nhà thần kinh học và bác sĩ tâm thần, trường học của Snezhnevky được giao vai trò lãnh đạo. Quyết định năm 1950 trao độc quyền về tâm thần học cho trường phái Slovzhnevsky của Pavlovian là một trong những yếu tố quan trọng trong sự phát triển của tâm thần học chính trị. Các bác sĩ Liên Xô, dưới sự khuyến khích của Snezhnevsky, đã phát minh ra một "lý thuyết tâm thần phân liệt Pavlovian" và ngày càng áp dụng thể loại chẩn đoán này cho các nhà bất đồng chính trị.

"Bệnh tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp" [19195015] "Việc giam giữ những người khỏe mạnh suy nghĩ tự do trong các nhà thương điên là giết người tâm linh, đó là một biến thể của buồng khí, thậm chí còn tàn khốc hơn, sự tra tấn của những người bị giết còn độc hại và kéo dài hơn. Giống như các buồng khí, những tội ác này sẽ không bao giờ bị lãng quên và những người liên quan đến chúng sẽ bị kết án suốt đời trong suốt cuộc đời và sau khi họ chết. " (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

Các chẩn đoán tâm thần như chẩn đoán" tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp "trong các nhà bất đồng chính trị ở Liên Xô được sử dụng cho mục đích chính trị. Đó là chẩn đoán "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp" được sử dụng nổi bật nhất trong các trường hợp bất đồng chính kiến. Tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp là một trong những loại chẩn đoán mới được tạo ra để tạo điều kiện cho sự ngột ngạt của những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​và là nguồn gốc của sự tự lừa dối giữa các bác sĩ tâm thần để xoa dịu lương tâm của họ khi các bác sĩ hành động như một công cụ áp bức nhân danh hệ thống chính trị. Theo Giám đốc điều hành của Sáng kiến ​​Toàn cầu về Tâm thần học Robert van Voren, sự lạm dụng chính trị của tâm thần học ở Liên Xô đã nảy sinh từ quan niệm rằng những người chống lại chế độ Xô Viết bị bệnh tâm thần vì không có lý do hợp lý nào khác tại sao người ta lại phản đối hệ thống chính trị xã hội này tốt nhất trên thế giới. Chẩn đoán "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp", một khái niệm lâu đời được phát triển thêm bởi Trường Tâm thần học Matxcơva và đặc biệt là người đứng đầu Snezhnevsky, đã cung cấp một khuôn khổ rất hữu ích để giải thích hành vi này.

Trọng lượng của ý kiến ​​học giả cho rằng các bác sĩ tâm thần đã chơi Vai trò chính trong sự phát triển của khái niệm chẩn đoán này là theo chỉ thị của Đảng Cộng sản và cơ quan mật vụ Liên Xô, hay KGB, và nhận thức rõ về các ứng dụng chính trị mà nó sẽ được đưa vào. Tuy nhiên, đối với nhiều bác sĩ tâm thần Liên Xô "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp" dường như là một lời giải thích hợp lý để áp dụng cho hành vi phê phán chế độ, những người chống đối họ, dường như sẵn sàng gây nguy hiểm cho hạnh phúc, gia đình và sự nghiệp của họ vì một niềm tin cải cách hay lý tưởng Snezhnevsky, nhà lý luận nổi tiếng nhất của khoa tâm thần học Xô Viết và giám đốc của Viện Tâm thần học thuộc Học viện Khoa học Y khoa Liên Xô, đã phát triển một phân loại tiểu thuyết về rối loạn tâm thần. về các tiêu chuẩn chẩn đoán. [9] Một mô tả được xây dựng cẩn thận về bệnh tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp đã xác định rằng các triệu chứng loạn thần là không cần thiết cho chẩn đoán, nhưng các triệu chứng của bệnh lý tâm thần, hypochondria, depersonalization hoặc lo lắng là trung tâm của nó. [9] "trục tiêu cực" bao gồm bi quan, thích ứng xã hội kém và xung đột với chính quyền, một d đã đủ cho một chẩn đoán chính thức về "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp với các triệu chứng ít ỏi." [9] Theo Snezhnevsky, bệnh nhân mắc bệnh tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp có thể biểu hiện bằng những thay đổi nhân cách tối thiểu nhưng không liên quan đến lâm sàng. [9] Do đó, bệnh nhân mắc chứng rối loạn tâm thần không tâm thần, hoặc thậm chí những người không mắc bệnh tâm thần, có thể dễ dàng được gắn nhãn với chẩn đoán tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp. [9] Cùng với chứng hoang tưởng, tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp là chẩn đoán thường được sử dụng nhất cho bệnh tâm thần Theo dõi các nhà bất đồng chính kiến. [9] Theo lý thuyết của Snezhnevsky và các đồng nghiệp của ông, tâm thần phân liệt phổ biến hơn nhiều so với trước đây vì bệnh có thể xuất hiện với các triệu chứng tương đối nhẹ và chỉ tiến triển sau đó. Do đó, tâm thần phân liệt được chẩn đoán thường xuyên hơn ở Moscow so với các thành phố của các quốc gia khác, vì Nghiên cứu thí điểm của Tổ chức Y tế Thế giới về Bệnh tâm thần phân liệt đã báo cáo vào năm 1973. Thành phố có tỷ lệ mắc bệnh tâm thần phân liệt cao nhất thế giới là Matxcơva. Đặc biệt, phạm vi được mở rộng do tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp vì theo Snezhnevsky và đồng nghiệp, bệnh nhân được chẩn đoán này có khả năng hoạt động gần như bình thường theo nghĩa xã hội. Các triệu chứng của họ có thể giống như các triệu chứng của bệnh thần kinh hoặc có thể giả sử là một nhân vật hoang tưởng. Các bệnh nhân có triệu chứng hoang tưởng vẫn giữ được cái nhìn sâu sắc về tình trạng của họ nhưng đánh giá quá cao ý nghĩa của chính họ và có thể biểu lộ những ý tưởng vĩ đại về cải cách xã hội. Do đó, tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp có thể có các triệu chứng như "ảo tưởng cải cách", "sự kiên trì" và "đấu tranh cho sự thật". Như Viktor Styazhkin đã báo cáo, Snezhnevsky đã chẩn đoán ảo tưởng cải cách cho mọi trường hợp khi một bệnh nhân "phát triển một nguyên tắc mới về kiến ​​thức của con người, phác thảo một học viện về hạnh phúc của con người và nhiều dự án khác vì lợi ích của nhân loại."

trong những năm 1960 và 1960 Những năm 1970, các lý thuyết, trong đó có các ý tưởng về cải cách xã hội và đấu tranh cho sự thật, và niềm tin tôn giáo không được đề cập đến các rối loạn hoang tưởng ảo tưởng trong thực tế tất cả các phân loại nước ngoài, nhưng tâm lý học Xô viết, xuất phát từ các quan niệm tư tưởng, phê phán hệ thống chính trị và đề xuất cải cách hệ thống này để xây dựng ảo tưởng. Phương pháp chẩn đoán quan niệm về tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp và các quốc gia paranoiac với ảo tưởng về chủ nghĩa cải cách chỉ được sử dụng ở Liên Xô và một số nước Đông Âu.

Theo lệnh của KGB, hàng ngàn nhà cải cách xã hội và chính trị Xô Viết "bất đồng chính kiến" đã bị tống vào bệnh viện tâm thần sau khi được dán nhãn chẩn đoán "tâm thần phân liệt chậm chạp", một căn bệnh do Snezhnevsky và "trường phái Moscow" của tâm thần học. Nhà tâm thần học người Mỹ Alan A. Stone tuyên bố rằng sự chỉ trích của phương Tây đối với tâm thần học Xô Viết nhắm vào cá nhân Snezhnevsky, bởi vì ông chủ yếu chịu trách nhiệm về khái niệm tâm thần phân liệt của Liên Xô với một biểu hiện "chậm chạp" bởi "cải cách" bao gồm các triệu chứng khác. Người ta có thể dễ dàng áp dụng sơ đồ chẩn đoán này cho những người chống đối. Snezhnevsky đã bị tấn công từ lâu ở phương Tây như một ví dụ điển hình về lạm dụng tâm thần ở Liên Xô. Các nhà phê bình hàng đầu ngụ ý rằng Snezhnevsky đã thiết kế mô hình tâm thần phân liệt của Liên Xô và chẩn đoán này để biến bất đồng chính trị thành một bệnh tâm thần. Anh ta bị buộc tội phát triển một hệ thống chẩn đoán có thể bị bẻ cong vì mục đích chính trị, và anh ta đã chẩn đoán hoặc liên quan đến một loạt các trường hợp bất đồng chính kiến ​​nổi tiếng, và, trong hàng chục trường hợp, anh ta đã ký một quyết định của ủy ban về sự điên rồ pháp lý của những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​về tinh thần bao gồm Vladimir Bukovsky, Natalya Gorbanevskaya, Leonid Plyushch, Mikola Plakhotnyuk, và Pyotr Grigorenko.

Bắt đầu xu hướng lạm dụng hàng loạt chỉnh sửa 19659009] [ chỉnh sửa ]

Chiến dịch tuyên bố đối thủ chính trị bị bệnh tâm thần và đưa những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​đến bệnh viện tâm thần bắt đầu vào cuối những năm 1950 và đầu những năm 1960. Như Vladimir Bukovsky đã bình luận về sự xuất hiện của lạm dụng chính trị tâm thần học, [64] Nikita Khrushchev cho rằng mọi người trong xã hội xã hội chủ nghĩa không thể có ý thức chống chủ nghĩa xã hội. Bất cứ khi nào những biểu hiện của sự bất đồng không thể được coi là một sự khiêu khích của chủ nghĩa đế quốc thế giới hoặc một di sản của quá khứ, họ rõ ràng là sản phẩm của bệnh tâm thần. Trong một bài phát biểu được đăng trên tờ nhật báo Pravda vào ngày 24 tháng 5 năm 1959, Khrushchev nói:

Tội phạm là sự sai lệch so với các tiêu chuẩn hành vi thường được công nhận thường xuyên do rối loạn tâm thần. Có thể có bệnh tật, rối loạn thần kinh giữa những người nhất định trong một xã hội Cộng sản? Rõ ràng là có. Nếu đó là như vậy, thì cũng sẽ có những hành vi phạm tội, đó là đặc điểm của những người có tâm trí bất thường. Trong số những người có thể bắt đầu kêu gọi phản đối Chủ nghĩa Cộng sản trên cơ sở này, chúng ta có thể nói rằng rõ ràng trạng thái tinh thần của họ là không bình thường.

Bằng chứng hiện có ủng hộ kết luận rằng hệ thống lạm dụng chính trị tâm thần học được KGB thiết kế cẩn thận. để loại bỏ Liên Xô các yếu tố không mong muốn. Theo một số tài liệu có sẵn và một tin nhắn của một cựu tướng của Tổng cục thứ năm (bất đồng chính kiến) của KGB Ucraina gửi Robert van Voren, lạm dụng chính trị tâm thần như một phương pháp đàn áp có hệ thống đã được phát triển bởi Yuri Andropov cùng với một nhóm cộng sự được chọn

Andropov chịu trách nhiệm triển khai rộng rãi các biện pháp trấn áp tâm thần kể từ thời điểm ông được bổ nhiệm làm người đứng đầu KGB. Ông trở thành Chủ tịch KGB vào ngày 18 tháng 5 năm 1967. Vào ngày 3 tháng 7 năm 1967, ông đã đề xuất thành lập một Ban giám đốc thứ năm (phản gián ý thức hệ) trong KGB để đối phó với sự phản đối chính trị nội bộ đối với chế độ Xô Viết. Ban giám đốc đã được thành lập vào cuối tháng 7 và chịu trách nhiệm về các tệp KGB trên tất cả các nhà bất đồng chính kiến ​​Liên Xô, bao gồm cả Andrei Sakharov và Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Năm 1968, Chủ tịch KGB Andropov đã ban hành một mệnh lệnh của bộ "Về nhiệm vụ của các cơ quan an ninh nhà nước trong việc chống lại sự phá hoại ý thức hệ của kẻ thù", kêu gọi KGB đấu tranh chống lại những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​và chủ nhân đế quốc của họ. [71] Mục đích của ông là "tiêu diệt. bất đồng chính kiến ​​dưới mọi hình thức "và ông nhấn mạnh rằng lập trường của các nước tư bản về nhân quyền, và những chỉ trích của họ về Liên Xô và chính trị nhân quyền của họ từ các vị trí này, chỉ là một phần của âm mưu đế quốc rộng lớn để làm suy yếu nền tảng của nhà nước Liên Xô. [71] Những ý tưởng tương tự có thể được tìm thấy trong cuốn sách năm 1983 Bài phát biểu và bài viết của Andropov được xuất bản khi ông trở thành Tổng thư ký của CPSU:

[w] hen phân tích xu hướng chính trong phê bình tư sản ngày nay [Soviet] chính sách nhân quyền buộc phải đưa ra kết luận rằng mặc dù lời chỉ trích này được ngụy trang với "mối quan tâm" cho tự do, dân chủ và nhân quyền, nhưng tôi Thực tế, đạo diễn chống lại bản chất xã hội chủ nghĩa của xã hội Xô Viết ...

Thực hiện và khung pháp lý [ chỉnh sửa ]

Vào ngày 29 tháng 4 năm 1969, Andropov đã đệ trình một kế hoạch công phu lên Ủy ban Trung ương Đảng Cộng sản Liên Xô để thiết lập một mạng lưới của các bệnh viện tâm thần sẽ bảo vệ "Chính phủ Liên Xô và trật tự xã hội chủ nghĩa" khỏi những người bất đồng chính kiến. [73] Để thuyết phục các thành viên Bộ Chính trị của mình về nguy cơ bị bệnh tâm thần, Andropov lưu hành một báo cáo từ Vùng Krasnodar. [74] nghị quyết của Hội đồng Bộ trưởng Liên Xô đã được thông qua. Đề xuất của Andropov về việc sử dụng tâm thần học để đấu tranh chống lại những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​đã được thông qua và thực hiện.

Năm 1929, Liên Xô có 70 bệnh viện tâm thần và 21.103 giường bệnh tâm thần. Đến năm 1935, con số này đã tăng lên 102 bệnh viện tâm thần và 33.772 giường bệnh tâm thần và đến năm 1955, có 200 bệnh viện tâm thần và 116.000 giường bệnh tâm thần ở Liên Xô. Chính quyền Liên Xô đã xây dựng các bệnh viện tâm thần với tốc độ nhanh chóng và tăng số lượng giường cho bệnh nhân mắc bệnh thần kinh và tâm thần: từ năm 1962 đến 1974, số giường dành cho bệnh nhân tâm thần đã tăng từ 222.600 lên đến 390.000. [78] Số lượng giường tâm thần dự kiến ​​sẽ tiếp tục trong những năm tới 1980. Trong suốt thời gian này, xu hướng chủ đạo trong tâm thần học Xô Viết đã đi ngược lại những nỗ lực mạnh mẽ ở các nước phương Tây để điều trị càng nhiều càng tốt cho bệnh nhân ngoại trú hơn là bệnh nhân nội trú. [19659005] Vào ngày 15 tháng 5 năm 1969, một sắc lệnh của Chính phủ Liên Xô (số 345 Chân209) đã được ban hành "Về các biện pháp ngăn chặn hành vi nguy hiểm (hành vi) đối với người bị bệnh tâm thần". Nghị định này đã xác nhận việc thực hành có những điều không mong muốn bị giam giữ bởi các bác sĩ tâm thần. Các bác sĩ tâm thần Liên Xô đã nói với họ rằng họ nên khám và được đảm bảo rằng họ có thể giam giữ những cá nhân này với sự giúp đỡ của cảnh sát hoặc dụ dỗ họ đến bệnh viện. Do đó, các bác sĩ tâm thần đã nhân đôi vai trò thẩm vấn và bắt giữ các sĩ quan. Các bác sĩ đã đưa ra một chẩn đoán cần phải giam giữ và không có quyết định nào của tòa án để buộc cá nhân phải bị giam cầm vô thời hạn trong một viện tâm thần.

Vào cuối những năm 1950, giam cầm một viện tâm thần đã trở thành phương pháp trừng phạt phổ biến nhất đối với các nhà lãnh đạo phe đối lập chính trị. [9] Trong những năm 1960 và 1970, các thử nghiệm của những người chống đối và giới thiệu họ "điều trị" cho các Bệnh viện Tâm thần Đặc biệt dưới sự kiểm soát và giám sát của MVD [81] đã mở ra và thế giới biết đến một làn sóng của "khủng bố tâm thần" đã bị từ chối thẳng thừng bởi những người phụ trách Viện Serbsky. Phần lớn các cuộc đàn áp tâm thần kéo dài trong giai đoạn từ cuối những năm 1960 đến đầu những năm 1980. Với tư cách là Tổng thư ký CPSU, từ tháng 11 năm 1982 đến tháng 2 năm 1984, Yury Andropov đã thể hiện một chút kiên nhẫn với sự bất đồng trong nước và tiếp tục chính sách Brezhnev kỷ nguyên giam giữ những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​trong các bệnh viện tâm thần.

Kiểm tra và nhập viện ]

Những người bất đồng chính trị thường bị buộc tội theo Điều 70 (kích động và tuyên truyền chống lại nhà nước Liên Xô) và 190-1 (phổ biến những điều bịa đặt phỉ báng nhà nước Liên Xô và hệ thống xã hội) của Bộ luật hình sự RSFSR. [9] yêu cầu kiểm tra những người phạm tội có trạng thái tinh thần được coi là bất thường bởi các sĩ quan điều tra. [9]

Trong hầu hết mọi trường hợp, các nhà bất đồng chính kiến ​​đã được kiểm tra tại Viện nghiên cứu pháp y trung tâm Serbsky ở Moscow, nơi những người đang ở bị truy tố tại tòa án vì phạm tội chính trị đã bị đánh giá bởi một chuyên gia pháp y tâm thần. Sau khi được chứng nhận, các bị cáo và bị kết án đã được gửi đi điều trị không tự nguyện cho các Bệnh viện Tâm thần Đặc biệt do Bộ Nội vụ (MVD) của Cộng hòa Xã hội Chủ nghĩa Liên Xô Nga kiểm soát.

Bị cáo không có quyền kháng cáo. [9] quyền được trao cho người thân của họ hoặc những người quan tâm khác nhưng họ không được phép chỉ định bác sĩ tâm thần tham gia đánh giá, bởi vì tất cả các bác sĩ tâm thần đều được coi là hoàn toàn độc lập và đáng tin cậy như nhau trước pháp luật. [9] ] Theo nhà thơ bất đồng chính kiến ​​Naum Korzhavin, bầu không khí tại Viện Serbsky ở Moscow đã thay đổi gần như chỉ sau một đêm khi Daniil Lunts đảm nhận chức vụ trưởng phòng thứ tư (còn gọi là Bộ chính trị). Trước đây, các khoa tâm thần được coi là 'nơi ẩn náu' chống lại việc được phái đến Gulag. Bây giờ chính sách đó đã thay đổi. Những báo cáo đầu tiên về những người bất đồng chính kiến ​​phải nhập viện vào những ngày không có căn cứ y tế từ đầu những năm 1960, không lâu sau khi Georgy Morozov được bổ nhiệm làm giám đốc của Viện Serbsky. Cả Morozov và Lunt đều trực tiếp tham gia vào nhiều vụ án nổi tiếng và là những kẻ lạm dụng tâm thần khét tiếng vì mục đích chính trị. Hầu hết các tù nhân, theo lời của Viktor Nekipelov, đã mô tả Daniil Lunts là "không tốt hơn các bác sĩ hình sự đã thực hiện các thí nghiệm vô nhân đạo trên các tù nhân trong các trại tập trung của Đức Quốc xã." Thật vậy, thử nghiệm đã diễn ra trên bệnh nhân, bao gồm thiếu ngủ và tiếp xúc với bức xạ điện từ để gây ảo giác thính giác.

Một thực tiễn được ghi chép rõ ràng là sử dụng các bệnh viện tâm thần làm nhà tù tạm thời trong hai hoặc ba tuần vào lễ kỷ niệm Ngày 7 tháng 11 (Cách mạng Tháng Mười), để cách ly những người "nguy hiểm xã hội", những người có thể phản đối nơi công cộng hoặc biểu hiện hành vi lệch lạc khác.

Đấu tranh chống lạm dụng [ chỉnh sửa ]

Vào những năm 1960, một phong trào mạnh mẽ đã nổi lên phản đối lạm dụng tâm thần ở Liên Xô. [88] về tâm thần học ở Liên Xô đã bị tố cáo trong quá trình diễn ra các Đại hội của Hiệp hội Tâm thần Thế giới ở Mexico City (1971), Hawaii (1977), Vienna (1983) và Athens (1989). [9] Chiến dịch chấm dứt lạm dụng chính trị về tâm thần học ở Liên Xô là một giai đoạn quan trọng trong Chiến tranh Lạnh, gây ra thiệt hại không thể khắc phục đối với uy tín của y học ở Liên Xô.

Phân loại các nạn nhân chỉnh sửa phân tích hơn 200 w Các trường hợp được chứng thực bằng ell trong giai đoạn 1962 191976, Sidney Bloch và Peter Reddaway đã phát triển một phân loại các nạn nhân của lạm dụng tâm thần Liên Xô. They were classified as:

  1. advocates of human rights or democratization;
  2. nationalists;
  3. would-be emigrants;
  4. religious believers;
  5. citizens inconvenient to the authorities.

The advocates of human rights and democratization, according to Bloch and Reddaway, made up about half the dissidents repressed by means of psychiatry. Nationalists made up about one-tenth of the dissident population dealt with psychiatrically. Would-be emigrants constituted about one-fifth of dissidents victimized by means of psychiatry. People detained only because of their religious activity made up about fifteen per cent of dissident-patients. Citizens inconvenient to the authorities because of their "obdurate" complaints about bureaucratic excesses and abuses accounted for about five per cent of dissidents subject to psychiatric abuse.

Incomplete figures[edit]

In 1985, Peter Reddaway and Sidney Bloch provided documented data on some five hundred cases in their book Soviet Psychiatric Abuse.

True scale of repression[edit]

On basis of the available data and materials accumulated in the archives of the International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry, one can confidently conclude that thousands of dissenters were hospitalized for political reasons. From 1994 to 1995, an investigative commission of Moscow psychiatrists explored the records of five prison psychiatric hospitals in Russia and discovered about two thousand cases of political abuse of psychiatry in these hospitals alone. In 2004, Anatoly Prokopenko said he was surprised at the facts obtained by him from the official classified top secret documents by the Central Committee of the CPSU, by the KGB, and MVD. According to his calculations based on what he found in the documents, about 15,000 people were confined for political crimes in the psychiatric prison hospitals under the control of the MVD. In 2005, referring to the Archives of the CPSU Central Committee and the records of the three Special Psychiatrial Hospitals — Sychyovskaya, Leningrad and Chernyakhovsk hospitals — to which human rights activists gained access in 1991, Prokopenko concluded that psychiatry had been used as punitive measure against about 20,000 people for purely political reasons. This was only a small part of the total picture, Prokopenko said. The data on the total number of people who had been held in all sixteen prison hospitals and in the 1,500 "open" psychiatric hospitals remains unknown because parts of the archives of the prison psychiatric hospitals and hospitals in general are classified and inaccessible. The figure of fifteen or twenty thousand political prisoners in psychiatric hospitals run by the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs was first put forward by Prokopenko in the 1997 book Mad Psychiatry ("Безумная психиатрия"), which was republished in 2005.

An indication of the extent of the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR is provided by Semyon Gluzman's calculation that the percentage of "the mentally ill" among those accused of so-called anti-Soviet activities proved many times higher than among criminal offenders.[18] The attention paid to political prisoners by Soviet psychiatrists was more than 40 times greater than their attention to ordinary criminal offenders. This derives from the following comparison: 1–2 % of all the forensic psychiatric examinations carried out by the Serbsky Institute targeted those accused of anti-Soviet activities;[18] convicted dissidents in penal institutions made up 0.05% of the total number of convicts;[18] 1–2 % is 40 times greater than 0.05%.[18]

According to Viktor Luneyev, the struggle against dissent operated on many more layers than those registered in court sentences. We do not know how many the secret services kept under surveillance, held criminally liable, arrested, sent to psychiatric hospitals, or who were sacked from their jobs, and restricted in all kinds of other ways in the exercise of their rights. No objective assessment of the total number of repressed persons is possible without fundamental analysis of archival documents. The difficulty is that the required data are very diverse and are not to be found in a single archive. They are scattered between the State Archive of the Russian Federation, the archive of the Russian Federation State Statistical Committee (Goskomstat), the archives of the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD of Russia), the FSB of Russia, the RF General Prosecutor's Office, and the Russian Military and Historical Archive. Further documents are held in the archives of 83 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in urban and regional archives, as well as in the archives of the former Soviet Republics, now the 11 independent countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States or the three Baltic States (Baltics).

Concealment of the data[edit]

According to Russian psychiatrist Emmanuil Gushansky, the scale of psychiatric abuses in the past, the use of psychiatric doctrines by the totalitarian state have been thoroughly concealed.[101] The archives of the Soviet Ministries of Internal Affairs (MVD) and Health (USSR Health Ministry), and of the Serbsky Institute for Forensic Psychiatry, which between them hold evidence about the expansion of psychiatry and the regulations governing that expansion, remain totally closed to researchers, says Gushansky.[101]Dan Healey shares his opinion that the abuses of Soviet psychiatry under Stalin and, even mor e dramatically, in the 1960s to 1980s remain under-researched: the contents of the main archives are still classified and inaccessible. Hundreds of files on people who underwent forensic psychiatric examinations at the Serbsky Institute during Stalin's time are on the shelves of the highly classified archive in its basement where Gluzman saw them in 1989. All are marked by numbers without names or surnames, and any biographical data they contain is unresearched and inaccessible to researchers.

Anatoly Sobchak, the former Mayor of Saint Petersburg, wrote:

The scale of the application of methods of repressive psychiatry in the USSR is testified by inexorable figures and facts. A commission of the top Party leadership headed by Alexei Kosygin reached a decision in 1978 to build 80 psychiatric hospitals and 8 special psychiatric institutions in addition to those already in existence. Their construction was to be completed by 1990. They were to be built in Krasnoyarsk, Khabarovsk, Kemerovo, Kuibyshev, Novosibirsk, and other parts of the Soviet Union. In the course of the changes that the country underwent in 1988, five prison hospitals were transferred from the MVD to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, while another five were closed down. There was a hurried covering of tracks through the mass rehabilitation of patients, some of whom were mentally disabled (in one and the same year no less than 800,000 patients were removed from the psychiatric registry). In Leningrad alone 60,000 people with a diagnosis of mental illness were released and rehabilitated in 1991 and 1992. In 1978, 4.5 million people throughout the USSR were registered as psychiatric patients. This was equivalent to the population of many civilized countries.

In Ukraine, a study of the origins of the political abuse of psychiatry was conducted for five years on the basis of the State archives. A total of 60 people were again examined. All were citizens of Ukraine, convicted of political crimes and hospitalized on the territory of Ukraine. Not one of them, it turned out, was in need of any psychiatric treatment.

Alexander Yakovlev (1923–2005), the head of the Commission for Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression

From 1993 to 1995, a presidential decree on measures to prevent future abuse of psychiatry was being drafted at the Commission for Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression. For this purpose, Anatoly Prokopenko selected suitable archival documents and, at the request of Vladimir Naumov, the head of research and publications at the Commission, Emmanuil Gushansky drew up the report. It correlated the archival data presented to Gushansky with materials received during his visits, conducted jointly with the commission of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, to several strict-regime psychiatric hospitals (former Special Hospitals under MVD control). When the materials for discussion in the Commission for Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression were ready, however, the work came to a standstill. The documents failed to reach the head of the Commission Alexander Yakovlev.

The report on political abuse of psychiatry prepared at the request of the Commission by Gushansky with the aid of Prokopenko lay unclaimed and even the Independent Psychiatric Journal (Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal)[101] would not publish it. The Moscow Research Center for Human Rights headed by Boris Altshuler and Alexei Smirnov and the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia whose president is Yuri Savenko were asked by Gushansky to publish the materials and archival documents on punitive psychiatry but showed no interest in doing so. Publishing such documents is dictated by present-day needs and by how far it is feared that psychiatry could again be abused for non-medical purposes.

In its 2000 report, the Commission for Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression included only the following four phrases about the political abuse of psychiatry:

The Commission has also considered such a complex, socially relevant issue, as the use of psychiatry for political purposes. The collected documents and materials allow us to say that the extrajudicial procedure of admission to psychiatric hospitals was used for compulsory hospitalization of persons whose behavior was viewed by the authorities as "suspicious" from the political point of view. According to the incomplete data, hundreds of thousands of people have been illegally placed to psychiatric institutions of the country over the years of Soviet power. The rehabilitation of these people was limited, at best, to their removal from the registry of psychiatric patients and usually remains so today, due to gaps in the legislation.

In the 1988 and 1989, about two million people were removed from the psychiatric registry at the request of Western psychiatrists. It was one of their conditions for the re-admission of Soviet psychiatrists to the World Psychiatric Association.[110] Yury Savenko has provided different figures in different publications: about one million, up to one and a half million, about one and a half million people removed from the psychiatric registry. Mikhail Buyanov provided the figure of over two million people removed from the psychiatric registry.

Theoretical analysis[edit]

In 1990, Psychiatric Bulletin of the Royal College of Psychiatrists published the article "Compulsion in psychiatry: blessing or curse?" by Russian psychiatrist Anatoly Koryagin. It contains analysis of the abuse of psychiatry and eight arguments by which the existence of a system of political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR can easily be demonstrated. As Koryagin wrote, in a dictatorial State with a totalitarian regime, such as the USSR, the laws have at all times served not the purpose of self-regulation of the life of society but have been one of the major levers by which to manipulate the behavior of subjects. Every Soviet citizen has constantly been straight considered state property and been regarded not as the aim, but as a means to achieve the rulers' objectives. From the perspective of state pragmatism, a mentally sick person was regarded as a burden to society, using up the state's material means without recompense and not producing anything, and even potentially capable of inflicting harm. Therefore, the Soviet State never considered it reasonable to pass special legislative acts protecting the material and legal part of the patients' life. It was only instructions of the legal and medical departments that stipulated certain rules of handling the mentally sick and imposing different sanctions on them. A person with a mental disorder was automatically divested of all rights and depended entirely on the psychiatrists' will. Practically anybody could undergo psychiatric examination on the most senseless grounds and the issued diagnosis turned him into a person without rights. It was this lack of legal rights and guarantees that advantaged a system of repressive psychiatry in the country.

According to American psychiatrist Oleg Lapshin, Russia until 1993 did not have any specific legislation in the field of mental health except uncoordinated instructions and articles of laws in criminal and administrative law, orders of the USSR Ministry of Health. In the Soviet Union, any psychiatric patient could be hospitalized by request of his headman, relatives or instructions of a district psychiatrist. In this case, patient's consent or dissent mattered not. The duration of treatment in a psychiatric hospital also depended entirely on the psychiatrist. All of that made the abuse of psychiatry possible to suppress those who opposed the political regime, and that created the vicious practice of ignoring the rights of the mentally ill.

According to Yuri Savenko, the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia (the IPA), punitive psychiatry arises on the basis of the interference of three main factors:[117]

  1. The ideologizing of science, its breakaway from the achievements of world psychiatry, the party orientation of Soviet forensic psychiatry.
  2. The lack of legal basis.
  3. The total nationalization of mental health service.

Their interaction system is principally sociological: the presence of the Penal Code article on slandering the state system inevitably results in sending a certain percentage of citizens to forensic psychiatric examination. Thus, it is not psychiatry itself that is punitive, but the totalitarian state uses psychiatry for punitive purposes with ease.

According to Larry Gostin, the root cause of the problem was the State itself. The definition of danger was radically extended by the Soviet criminal system to cover "political" as well as customary physical types of "danger". As Bloch and Reddaway note, there are no objective reliable criteria to determine whether the person's behavior will be dangerous, and approaches to the definition of dangerousness greatly differ among psychiatrists.

Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Virginia School of Law, mentioned the deformed nature of the Soviet psychiatric profession as one of the explanations for why it was so easily bent toward the repressive objectives of the state, and pointed out the importance of a civil society and, in particular, independent professional organizations separate and apart from the state as one of the most substantial lessons from the period.

According to Norman Sartorius, a former president of the World Psychiatric Association, political abuse of psychiatry in the former Soviet Union was facilitated by the fact that the national classification included categories that could be employed to label dissenters, who could then be forcibly incarcerated and kept in psychiatric hospitals for "treatment". Darrel Regier, vice-chair of the DSM-5 task force, has a similar opinion that the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR was sustained by the existence of a classification developed in the Soviet Union and used to organize psychiatric treatment and care. In this classification, there were categories with diagnoses that could be given to political dissenters and led to the harmful involuntary medication.

According to Moscow psychiatrist Alexander Danilin, the so-called "nosological" approach in the Moscow psychiatric school established by Snezhnevsky boiles down to the ability to make the only diagnosis, schizophrenia; psychiatry is not science but such a system of opinions and people by the thousands are falling victims to these opinions—millions of lives were crippled by virtue of the concept "sluggish schizophrenia" introduced some time once by an academician Snezhnevsky, whom Danilin called a state criminal.

St Petersburg academic psychiatrist professor Yuri Nuller notes that the concept of Snezhnevsky's school allowed psychiatrists to consider, for example, schizoid psychopathy and even schizoid character traits as early, delayed in their development, stages of the inevitable progredient process, rather than as personality traits inherent to the individual, the dynamics of which might depend on various external factors. The same also applied to a number of other personality disorders. It entailed the extremely broadened diagnostics of sluggish (neurosis-like, psychopathy-like) schizophrenia. Despite a number of its controversial premises and in line with the traditions of then Soviet science, Snezhnevsky's hypothesis has immediately acquired the status of dogma which was later overcome in other disciplines but firmly stuck in psychiatry. Snezhnevsky's concept, with its dogmatism, proved to be psychologically comfortable for many psychiatrists, relieving them from doubt when making a diagnosis. That carried a great danger: any deviation from a norm evaluated by a doctor could be regarded as an early phase of schizophrenia, with all ensuing consequences. It resulted in the broad opportunity for voluntary and involuntary abuses of psychiatry. However, Snezhnevsky did not take civil and scientific courage to reconsider his concept which clearly reached a deadlock.

According to American psychiatrist Walter Reich, the misdiagnoses of dissidents resulted from some characteristics of Soviet psychiatry that were distortions of standard psychiatric logic, theory, and practice.

According to Semyon Gluzman, abuse of psychiatry to suppress dissent is based on condition of psychiatry in a totalitarian state.[18] Psychiatric paradigm of a totalitarian state is culpable for its expansion into spheres which are not initially those of psychiatric competence.[18] Psychiatry as a social institution, formed and functioning in the totalitarian state, is incapable of not being totalitarian.[18] Such psychiatry is forced to serve the two differently directed principles: care and treatment of mentally ill citizens, on the one hand, and psychiatric repression of people showing political or ideological dissent, on the other hand.[18] In the conditions of the totalitarian state, independent-minded psychiatrists appeared and may again appear, but these few people cannot change the situation in which thousands of others, who were brought up on incorrect pseudoscientific concepts and fear of the state, will sincerely believe that the uninhibited, free thinking of a citizen is a symptom of madness.[18] Gluzman specifies the following six premises for the unintentional participation of doctors in abuses:[18]

  1. The specificity, in the totalitarian state, of the psychiatric paradigm tightly sealed from foreign influences.
  2. The lack of legal conscience in most citizens including doctors.
  3. Disregard for fundamental human rights on the part of the lawmaker and law enforcement agencies.
  4. Declaratory nature or the absence of legislative acts that regulate providing psychiatric care in the country. The USSR, for example, adopted such an act only in 1988.
  5. The absolute state paternalism of totalitarian regimes, which naturally gives rise to the dominance of the archaic paternalistic ethical concept in medical practice. Professional consciousness of the doctor is based on the almost absolute right to make decisions without the patient's consent (i.e. there is disregard for the principle of informed consent to treatment or withdrawal from it).
  6. The fact, in psychiatric hospitals, of frustratingly bad conditions, which refer primarily to the poverty of health care and inevitably lead to the dehumanization of the personnel including doctors.

Gluzman says that there, of course, may be a different approach to the issue expressed by Michel Foucault. According to Michael Perlin, Foucault in his book Madness and Civilization documented the history of using institutional psychiatry as a political tool, researched the expanded use of the public hospitals in the 17th century in France and came to the conclusion that "confinement [was an] answer to an economic crisis... reduction of wages, unemployment, scarcity of coin" and, by the 18th century, the psychiatric hospitals satisfied "the indissociably economic and moral demand for confinement."

In 1977, British psychiatrist David Cooper asked Foucault the same question which Claude Bourdet had formerly asked Viktor Fainberg during a press conference given by Fainberg and Leonid Plyushch: when the USSR has the whole penitentiary and police apparatus, which could take charge of anybody, and which is perfect in itself, why do they use psychiatry? Foucault answered it was not a question of a distortion of the use of psychiatry but that was its fundamental project. In the discussion Confinement, Psychiatry, PrisonFoucault states the cooperation of psychiatrists with the KGB in the Soviet Union was not abuse of medicine, but an evident case and "condensation" of psychiatry's "inheritance", an "intensification, the ossification of a kinship structure that has never ceased to function." Foucault believed that the abuse of psychiatry in the USSR of the 1960s was a logical extension of the invasion of psychiatry into the legal system.[130] In the discussion with Jean Laplanche and Robert Badinter, Foucault says that criminologists of the 1880—1900s started speaking surprisingly modern language: "The crime cannot be, for the criminal, but an abnormal, disturbed behavior. If he upsets society, it's because he himself is upset".[131] This led to the twofold conclusions.[131] First, "the judicial apparatus is no longer useful." The judges, as men of law, understand such complex, alien legal issues, purely psychological matters no better than the criminal. So commissions of psychiatrists and physicians should be substituted for the judicial apparatus.[131] And in this vein, concrete projects were proposed.[131] Second, "We must certainly treat this individual who is dangerous only because he is sick. But, at the same time, we must protect society against him."[131] Hence comes the idea of mental isolation with a mixed function: therapeutic and prophylactic.[131] In the 1900s, these projects have given rise to very lively responses from European judicial and political bodies.[132] However, they found a wide field of applications when the Soviet Union became one of the most common but by no means exceptional cases.[132]

According to American psychiatrist Jonas Robitscher, psychiatry has been playing a part in controlling deviant behavior for three hundred years. Vagrants, "originals," eccentrics, and homeless wanderers who did little harm but were vexatious to the society they lived in were, and sometimes still are, confined to psychiatric hospitals or deprived of their legal rights. Some critics of psychiatry consider the practice as a political use of psychiatry and regard psychiatry as promoting timeserving.

As Vladimir Bukovsky and Semyon Gluzman point out, it is difficult for the average Soviet psychiatrist to understand the dissident's poor adjustment to Soviet society. This view of dissidence has nothing surprising about it—conformity reigned in Soviet consciousness; a public intolerance of non-conformist behavior always penetrated Soviet culture; and the threshold for deviance from custom was similarly low.

An example of the low threshold is a point of Donetsk psychiatrist Valentine Pekhterev, who argues that psychiatrists speak of the necessity of adapting oneself to society, estimate the level of man's social functioning, his ability to adequately test the reality and so forth. In Pekhterev's words, these speeches hit point-blank on the dissidents and revolutionaries, because all of them are poorly functioning in society, are hardly adapting to it either initially or after increasing requirements. They turn their inability to adapt themselves to society into the view that the company breaks step and only they know how to help the company restructure itself. The dissidents regard the cases of personal maladjustment as a proof of public ill-being. The more such cases, the easier it is to present their personal ill-being as public one. They bite the society's hand that feed them only because they are not given a right place in society. Unlike the dissidents, the psychiatrists destroy the hardly formed defense attitude in the dissidents by regarding "public well-being" as personal one. The psychiatrists extract teeth from the dissidents, stating that they should not bite the feeding hand of society only because the tiny group of the dissidents feel bad being at their place. The psychiatrists claim the need to treat not society but the dissidents and seek to improve society by preserving and improving the mental health of its members. After reading the book Institute of Fools by Viktor Nekipelov, Pekhterev concluded that allegations against the psychiatrists sounded from the lips of a negligible but vociferous part of inmates who when surfeiting themselves with cakes pretended to be sufferers.

According to the response by Robert van Voren, Pekhterev in his article condescendingly argues that the Serbsky Institute was not so bad place and that Nekipelov exaggerates and slanders it, but Pekhterev, by doing so, misses the main point: living conditions in the Serbsky Institute were not bad, those who passed through psychiatric examination there were in a certain sense "on holiday" in comparison with the living conditions of the Gulag; and all the same, everyone was aware that the Serbsky Institute was more than the "gates of hell" from where people were sent to specialized psychiatric hospitals in Chernyakhovsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kazan, Blagoveshchensk, and that is not all. Their life was transformed to unimaginable horror with daily tortures by forced administration of drugs, beatings and other forms of punishment. Many went crazy, could not endure what was happening to them, some even died during the "treatment" (for example, a miner from Donetsk Alexey Nikitin). Many books and memoirs are written about the life in the psychiatric Gulag and every time when reading them a shiver seizes us. The Soviet psychiatric terror in its brutality and targeting the mentally ill as the most vulnerable group of society had nothing on the Nazi euthanasia programs.[137] The punishment by placement in a mental hospital was as effective as imprisonment in Mordovian concentration camps in breaking persons psychologically and physically.[137] The recent history of the USSR should be given a wide publicity to immunize society against possible repetitions of the Soviet practice of political abuse of psychiatry.[137] The issue remains highly relevant.[137]

According to Fedor Kondratev, an expert of the Serbsky Center and supporter of Snezhnevsky and his colleagues who developed the concept of sluggish schizophrenia in the 1960s, those arrested by the KGB under RSFSR Criminal Code Article 70 ("anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda"), 190-1 ("dissemination of knowingly false fabrications that defame the Soviet state and social system") made up, in those years, the main group targeted by the period of using psychiatry for political purposes. It was they who began to be searched for "psychopathological mechanisms" and, therefore, mental illness which gave the grounds to recognize an accused person as mentally incompetent, to debar him from appearance and defence in court, and then to send him for compulsory treatment to a special psychiatric hospital of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The trouble (not guilt) of Soviet psychiatric science was its theoretical overideologization as a result of the strict demand to severely preclude any deviations from the "exclusively scientific" concept of Marxism–Leninism. This showed, in particular, in the fact that Soviet psychiatry under the totalitarian regime considered that penetrating the inner life of an ill person was flawed psychologization, existentionalization. In this connection, one did not admit the possibility that an individual can behave "in a different way than others do" not only because of his mental illness but on the ground alone of his moral sets consistently with his conscience. It entailed the consequence: if a person different from all others opposes the political system, one needs to search for "psychopathological mechanisms" of his dissent. Even in cases when catamnesis confirmed the correctness of a diagnosis of schizophrenia, it did not always mean that mental disorders were the cause of dissent and, all the more, that one needed to administer compulsory treatment "for it" in special psychiatric hospitals. What seems essential is another fact that the mentally ill could oppose the totalitarianism as well, by no means due to their "psychopathological mechanisms", but as persons who, despite having the diagnosis of schizophrenia, retained moral civic landmarks. Any ill person with schizophrenia could be a dissident if his conscience could not keep silent, Kondratev says.

According to St Petersburg psychiatrist Vladimir Pshizov, with regard to punitive psychiatry, the nature of psychiatry is of such a sort that using psychiatrists against opponents of authorities is always tempting for the authorities, because it is seemingly possible not to take into account an opinion by the person who received a diagnosis. Therefore, the issue will always remain relevant. While we do not have government policy of using psychiatry for repression, psychiatrists and former psychiatric nomenklatura retained the same on-the-spot reflexes.

As Ukrainian psychiatrist Ada Korotenko notes, the use of punitive psychiatry allowed of avoiding the judicial procedure during which the accused might declare the impossibility to speak publicly and the violation of their civil rights. Making a psychiatric diagnosis is insecure and can be based on a preconception. Moreover, while diagnosing mental illness, subjective fuzzy diagnostic criteria are involved as arguments. The lack of clear diagnostic criteria and clearly defined standards of diagnostics contributes to applying punitive psychiatry to vigorous and gifted citizens who disagree with authorities. At the same time, most psychiatrists incline to believe that such a misdiagnosis is less dangerous than not diagnosing mental illness.

German psychiattist Hanfried Helmchen says the uncertainty of diagnosis is prone to other than medical influence, e.g., political influence, as was the case with Soviet dissenters who were stifled by a psychiatric diagnosis, especially that of "sluggish schizophrenia," in order to take them away from society in special psychiatric hospitals.

According to Russian psychologist Dmitry Leontev, punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union was based on the assumption that only a madman can go against public dogma and seek for truth and justice.

K. Fulford, A. Smirnov, and E. Snow state: "An important vulnerability factor, therefore, for the abuse of psychiatry, is the subjective nature of the observations on which psychiatric diagnosis currently depends." The concerns about political abuse of psychiatry as a tactic of controlling dissent have been regularly voiced by American psychiatrist Thomas Szasz,[148] and he mentioned that these authors, who correctly emphasized the value-laden nature of psychiatric diagnoses and the subjective character of psychiatric classifications, failed to accept the role of psychiatric power. Musicologists, drama critics, art historians, and many other scholars also create their own subjective classifications; however, lacking state-legitimated power over persons, their classifications do not lead to anyone's being deprived of property, liberty, or life. For instance, plastic surgeon's classification of beauty is subjective, but the plastic surgeon cannot treat his or her patient without the patient's consent, therefore, there cannot be any political abuse of plastic surgery. The bedrock of political medicine is coercion masquerading as medical treatment. What transforms coercion into therapy are physicians diagnosing the person's condition a "illness," declaring the intervention they impose on the victim a "treatment," and legislators and judges legitimating these categorizations as "illnesses" and "treatments." In the same way, physician-eugenicists advocated killing certain disabled or ill persons as a form of treatment for both society and patient long before the Nazis came to power. Szasz argued that the spectacle of the Western psychiatrists loudly condemning Soviet colleagues for their abuse of professional standards was largely an exercise in hypocrisy.[151] Psychiatric abuse, such as people usually associated with practices in the former USSR, was connected not with the misuse of psychiatric diagnoses, but with the political power built into the social role of the psychiatrist in democratic and totalitarian societies alike.[151] Psychiatrically and legally fit subjects for involuntary mental hospitalization had always been "dissidents." It is the contents and contours of dissent that has changed. Before the American Civil War, dissent was constituted by being a Negro and wanting to escape from slavery. In Soviet Russia, dissent was constituted by wanting to "reform" Marxism or emigrate to escape from it. As Szasz put it, "the classification by slave owners and slave traders of certain individuals as Negroes was scientific, in the sense that whites were rarely classified as blacks. But that did not prevent the "abuse" of such racial classification, because (what we call) its abuse was, in fact, its use." The collaboration between psychiatry and government leads to what Szasz calls the "Therapeutic State", a system in which disapproved actions, thoughts, and emotions are repressed ("cured") through pseudomedical interventions. Thus suicide, unconventional religious beliefs, racial bigotry, unhappiness, anxiety, shyness, sexual promiscuity, shoplifting, gambling, overeating, smoking, and illegal drug use are all considered symptoms or illnesses that need to be cured.

As Michael Robertson and Garry Walter suppose, psychiatric power in practically all societies expands on the grounds of public safety, which, in the view of the leaders of the USSR, was best maintained by the repression of dissidence. According to Gwen Adshead, a British forensic psychotherapist at the Broadmoor Hospital, the question is what is meant by the word "abnormal." Evidently it is possible for abnormal to be identified as "socially inappropriate." If that is the case, social and political dissent is turned into a symptom by the medical terminology, and thereby becomes an individual's personal problem, not a social matter.

According to Russian psychiatrist Emmanuil Gushansky, psychiatry is the only medical specialty in which the doctor is given the right to violence for the benefit of the patient. The application of violence must be based on the mental health law, must be as much as possible transparent and monitored by representatives of the interests of persons who are in need of involuntary examination and treatment. While being hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for urgent indications, the patient should be accompanied by his relatives, witnesses, or other persons authorized to control the actions of doctors and law-enforcement agencies. Otherwise, psychiatry becomes an obedient maid for administrative and governmental agencies and is deprived of its medical function. It is the police that must come to the aid of citizens and is responsible for their security.[101] Only later, after the appropriate legal measures for social protection have been taken, the psychiatrist must respond to the queries of law enforcement and judicial authorities by solving the issues of involuntary hospitalization, sanity, etc.[101] In Russia, all that goes by opposites.[101] The psychiatrist is vested with punitive functions, is involved in involuntary hospitalization, the state machine hides behind his back, actually manipulating the doctor.[101] The police are reluctant to investigate offences committed by the mentally ill.[101] After receiving the information about their disease, the bodies of inquiry very often stop the investigation and do not bring it to the level of investigative actions.[101] Thereby psychiatry becomes a cloak for the course of justice and, by doing so, serves as a source for the rightlessness and stigmatization of both psychiatrists and persons with mental disorders.[101] The negative attitude to psychiatrists is thereby supported by the state machine and is accompanied by the aggression against the doctors, which increases during the periods of social unrest.[101]

Vladimir Bukovsky, well known for his struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, explained that using psychiatry against dissidents was usable to the KGB because hospitalization did not have an end date, and, as a result, there were cases when dissidents were kept in psychiatric prison hospitals for 10 or even 15 years. "Once they pump you with drugs, they can forget about you", he said and added, "I saw people who basically were asleep for years."

US President Ronald Reagan attributed the view that the "brutal treatment of Soviet dissidents was due to bureaucratic inertia."

Residual problems[edit]

In the opinion of the Moscow Helsinki Group chairwoman Lyudmila Alexeyeva, the attribution of a mental illness to a prominent figure who came out with a political declaration or action is the most significant factor in the assessment of psychiatry during the 1960–1980s. The practice of forced confinement of political dissidents in psychiatric facilities in the former USSR and Eastern Europe destroyed the credibility of psychiatric practice in these countries. When psychiatric profession is discredited in one part of the world, psychiatry is discredited throughout the world. Psychiatry lost its professional basis entirely with its abuse to stifle dissidence in the former USSR and in the so-called euthanasia program in Nazi Germany. There is little doubt that the capacity for using psychiatry to enforce social norms and even political interests is immense. Now psychiatry is vulnerable because many of its notions have been questioned, and the sustainable pattern of mental life, of boundaries of mental norm and abnormality has been lost, director of the Moscow Research Institute for Psychiatry Valery Krasnov says, adding that psychiatrists have to seek new reference points to make clinical assessments and new reference points to justify old therapeutical interventions.

As Emmanuil Gushansky states, today subjective position of a Russian patient toward a medical psychologist and psychiatrist is defensive in nature and prevents the attempt to understand the patient and help him assess his condition. Such a position is related to constant, subconscious fear of psychiatrists and psychiatry. This fear is caused by not only abuse of psychiatry, but also constant violence in the totalitarian and post-totalitarian society. The psychiatric violence and psychiatric arrogance as one of manifestations of such violence is related to the primary emphasis on symptomatology and biological causes of a disease, while ignoring psychological, existential, and psychodynamic factors. Gushainsky notices that the modern Russian psychiatry and the structure of providing mental health care are aimed not at protecting the patient's right to an own place in life, but at discrediting such a right, revealing symptoms and isolating the patient.[101]

The psychiatrist became a scarecrow attaching psychiatric labels.[101] He is feared, is not confided, is not taken into confidence in the secrets of one's soul and is asked to provide only medications.[101] Psychiatric labels, or stigmas, have spread so widely that there is no such thing as the media that does not call a disliked person schizo and does not generalize psychiatric assessments to phenomena of public life.[101] The word psikhushka entered everyday vocabulary.[101] All persons who deviate from the usual standards of thought and behavior are declared mentally ill, with an approving giggling of public.[101] Not surprisingly, during such a stigmatization, people with real mental disorders fear publicity like the plague.[101]Vilnius psychologist Oleg Lapin has the same point that politicians and the press attach psychological, psychiatric and medical labels; he adds that psychiatry has acquired the new status of normalizing life that was previously possessed by religion. Formerly, one could say: you are going against God or God is with us; now one can say: I behave reasonably, adequately, and you do not behave in that way. In 2007, Alexander Dugin, a professor at the Moscow State University and adviser to State Duma speaker Sergei Naryshkin, presented opponents of Vladimir Putin's policy as mentally ill by saying, "There are no longer opponents of Putin's policy, and if there are, they are mentally ill and should be sent to prophylactic health examination."[165] In The Moscow Regional Psychiatric Newspaper of 2012, psychiatrist Dilya Enikeyeva in violation of medical privacy and ethics publicized the diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder, which she in absentia gave Kseniya Sobchak, a Russian TV anchor and a member of political opposition, and stated that Sobchak was harmful to society.

Robert van Voren noted that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it became apparent that the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR was only the tip of the iceberg, the sign that much more was basically wrong. This much more realistic image of Soviet psychiatry showed up only after the Soviet regime began to loosen its grip on society and later lost control over the developments and in the end entirely disintegrated. It demonstrated that the actual situation was much sorer and that many individuals had been affected. Millions of individuals were treated and stigmatized by an outdated biologically oriented and hospital-based mental health service. Living conditions in clinics were bad, sometimes even terrible, and violations of human rights were rampant. According to the data of a census published in 1992, the mortality of the ill with schizophrenia exceeded that of the general population by 4–6 times for the age of 20–39 years, by 3–4 times for the age of 30–39 years, by 1.5–2 times for the age over 40 years (larger values are for women).

According to Robert van Voren, although for several years, especially after the implosion of the USSR and during the first years of Boris Yeltsin's rule, the positions of the Soviet psychiatric leaders were in jeopardy, now one can firmly conclude that they succeeded in riding out the storm and retaining their powerful positions. They also succeeded in avoiding an inflow of modern concepts of delivering mental health care and a fundamental change in the structure of psychiatric services in Russia. On the whole, in Russia, the impact of mental health reformers has been the least. Even the reform efforts made in such places as St. Petersburg, Tomsk, and Kaliningrad have faltered or were encapsulated as centrist policies under Putin brought them back under control.

Throughout the post-communist period, the pharmaceutical industry has mainly been an obstacle to reform. Aiming to explore the vast market of the former USSR, they used the situation to make professionals and services totally dependent on their financial sustenance, turned the major attention to the availability of medicines rather than that of psycho-social rehabilitation services, and stimulated corruption within the mental health sector very much.

At the turn of the century, the psychiatric reform that had been implemented by Franco Basaglia in Italy became known and was publicly declared to be implemented in Russia, with the view of retrenchment of expenditures. But when it became clear that even more money was needed for the reform, it got bogged down in the same way the reform of the army and many other undertakings did. Russia is decades behind the countries of the European Union in mental health reform, which has already been implemented or is being implemented in them. Until Russian society, Gushansky says, is aware of the need for mental health reform, we will live in the atmosphere of animosity, mistrust and violence. Many experts believe that problems spread beyond psychiatry to society as a whole. As Robert van Voren supposes, the Russians want to have their compatriots with mental disorders locked up outside the city and do not want to have them in community. Despite the 1992 Russian Mental Health Law, coercive psychiatry in Russia remains generally unregulated and fashioned by the same trends toward hyperdiagnosis and overreliance on institutional care characteristic of the Soviet period. In the Soviet Union, there had been an increase of the bed numbers because psychiatric services had been used to treat dissidents.

In 2005, the Russian Federation had one of the highest levels of psychiatric beds per capita in Europe at 113.2 per 100,000 population, or more than 161,000 beds. In 2014, Russia has 104.8 beds per 100,000 population and no actions have been taken to arrange new facilities for outpatient services. Persons who do not respond well to treatment at dispensaries can be sent to long-term social care institutions (internats) wherein they remain indefinitely. The internats are managed by oblast Social Protection ministries. Russia had 442 psychoneurologic internats by 1999, and their number amounted to 505 by 2013. The internats provided places for approximately 125,000 people in 2007. In 2013, Russian psychoneurologic internats accommodated 146,000 people, according to the consolidated data of the Department of Social Protection of Moscow and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation. It is supposed that the number of beds in internats is increasing at the same rate with which the number of beds is decreasing in psychiatric hospitals. Lyubov Vinogradova of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia provides the different figure of 122,091 or 85.5 places in psychoneurologic institutions of social protection (internats) per 100,000 population in 2013 and says that Russia is high on Europe's list of the number of places in the institutions. Vinogradova states that many regions have the catastrophic shortage of places in psychoneurological internats, her words point out to the need to increase the number of places there and to the fact that the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia is forcing transinstitutionalization—relocating the mentally ill from their homes and psychiatric hospitals to psychoneurological internats.

One of the buildings of the Pavlov Psychiatric Hospital in Kiev

At his press conference in 2008, Semyon Gluzman said that the surplus in Ukraine of hospitals for inpatient treatment of the mentally ill was a relic of the totalitarian communist regime and that Ukraine did not have epidemic of schizophrenia but somehow Ukraine had about 90 large psychiatric hospitals including the Pavlov Hospital where beds in its children's unit alone were more than in the whole of Great Britain. In Ukraine, public opinion did not contribute to the protection of citizens against possible recurrence of political abuse of psychiatry. There were no demonstrations and rallies in support of the mental health law. But there was a public campaign against developing the civilized law and against liberalizing the provision of psychiatric care in the country. The campaign was initiated and conducted by relatives of psychiatric patients. They wrote to newspapers, yelled in busy places and around them, behaved in the unbridled way in ministerial offices and corridors. Once Gluzman saw through a trolleybus window a group of 20-30 people standing by a window of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine with red flags, portraits of Lenin and Stalin and the slogan coarsely written on the white cardboard: "Get the Gluzman psychiatry off Ukraine!" Activists of the dissident movement far from the nostalgia for the past also participated in the actions against changes in the mental health system. But in general, it should be remembered that all these protest actions have been activated by nomenklatura psychiatrists. The whole Ukrainian psychiatric system actually consists of the two units: hospital for treatment of acute psychiatric conditions and internat-hospice for helpless "chronic patients" unable to live on their own. And between hospital and internat-hospice is desert. That is why about 40 percent of patients in any Ukrainian psychiatric hospital are so-called social patients whose stay in the psychiatric hospital is not due to medical indications. A similar pattern is in internats. A significant part of their lifelong customers could have lived long enough in society despite their mental illnesses. They could have lived quite comfortably and safely for themselves and others in special dorms, nursing homes, "halfway houses". Ukraine does not have anything like that.

A barrack of a concentration camp seen from outside is of a type of buildings in which Russian psychiatric hospitals have often been located
A barrack of a concentration camp seen from inside

In the Soviet times, mental hospitals were frequently created in former monasteries, barracks, and even concentration camps. Sofia Dorinskaya, a human rights activist and psychiatrist, says she saw former convicts who have been living in a Russian mental hospital for ten years and will have been staying there until their dying day because of having no home.Deinstitutionalization has not touched many of the hospitals, and persons still die inside them. In 2013, 70 persons died in a fire just outside Novgorod and Moscow. Living conditions are often insufficient and sometimes horrible: 12 to 15 patients in a big room with bars on the windows, no bedside tables, often no partitions, not enough toilets. The number of outpatient clinics designed for the primary care of the mentally disordered stopped increasing in 2005 and was reduced to 277 in 2012 as against 318 in 2005. Stigma linked to mental disease is at the level of xenophobia. The Russian public perceive the mentally sick as harmful, useless, incurable, and dangerous. The social stigma is maintained not only by the general public but also by psychiatrists.

Traditional values have endured the attempt by western institutions to impose a positive image of deviant behavior. For instance, in spite of the removal of homosexuality from the nomenclature of mental disorders, 62.5% of 450 surveyed psychiatrists in the Rostov Region view it as an illness, and up to three quarters view it as immoral behavior. The psychiatrists sustain the ban on gay parades and the use of veiled schemes to lay off openly lesbian and gay persons from schools, child care centers, and other public institutions. The chief psychiatrist of Russia Zurab Kekelidze in his 2013 interview to Dozhd says that a part of the cases of homosexuality is a mental disorder, he counters the remark that the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders by stating that it is not true. Homosexuality, which is a mental disorder, was continuously defined as such by the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia in 2005 when its president Savenko expressed their joint surprise at the proposal by the Executive Committee of the American Psychiatric Association to exclude homosexuality as a mental disorder from manuals on psychiatry due to political pressure from western NGOs and governments, referred the proposal to antipsychiatric actions, and stated that ideological, social and liberal reasoning for the proposal was substituted for scientific one. In 2014, Savenko changed his mind about homosexuality, and he along with Alexei Perekhov succumb to pressure and, in their joint paper criticized and referred the trend to consider homosexuality as a mental disorder to Soviet mentality.

In 1994, there was organized a conference concerned with the theme of political abuse of psychiatry and attended by representatives from different former Soviet Republics — from Russia, Belarus, the Baltics, the Caucasus, and some of the Central Asian Republics.Dainius Puras made a report on the situation within the Lithuanian Psychiatric Association, where discussion had been held but no resolution had been passed.Yuri Nuller talked over how in Russia the wind direction was gradually changing and the systematic political abuse of psychiatry was again being denied and degraded as an issue of "hyperdiagnosis" or "scientific disagreement." It was particularly noteworthy that Tatyana Dmitrieva, the then Director of the Serbsky Institute, was a proponent of such belittlement. This was not so queer, because she was a close friend of the key architects of "political psychiatry."

In the early 1990s, she spoke the required words of repentance for political abuse of psychiatry which had had unprecedented dimensions in the Soviet Union for discrediting, intimidation and suppression of the human rights movement carried out primarily in this institution. Her words were widely broadcast abroad but were published only in the St. Petersburg newspaper Chas Pik within the country.[190] However, in her 2001 book Aliyans Prava i Milosediya (The Alliance of Law and Mercy), Dmitrieva wrote that there were no psychiatric abuses and certainly no more than in Western countries. Moreover, the book makes the charge that professor Vladimir Serbsky and other intellectuals were wrong not to cooperate with the police department in preventing revolution and bloodsheds and that the current generation is wrong to oppose the regime.[191] In 2007, Dmitrieva asserted that the practice of "punitive psychiatry" had been grossly exaggerated, while nothing wrong had been done by the Serbsky Institute. After that an official at the Serbsky Institute declared "patient" Vladimir Bukovsky, who was then going to run for the President of the Russian Federation, undoubtedly "psychopathic".

While speaking of the Serbsky Center, Yuri Savenko alleges that "practically nothing has changed. They have no shame at the institute about their role with the Communists. They are the same people, and they do not want to apologize for all their actions in the past." Attorney Karen Nersisyan agrees: "Serbsky is not an organ of medicine. It's an organ of power." According to human rights activist and former psychiatrist Sofia Dorinskaya, the system of Soviet psychiatry has not been destroyed, the Serbsky Institute is standing where it did, the same people who worked in the Soviet system are working there. She says we have a situation like after the defeat of fascism in Germany, when fascism officially collapsed, but all governors of acres, judges and all people remained after the fascist regime.

In his article of 2002, Alan A. Stone, who as a member of team had examined Pyotr Grigorenko and found him mentally healthy in 1979, disregarded the findings of the World Psychiatric Association and the later avowal of Soviet psychiatrists themselves and put forward the academically revisionist theory that there was no political abuse of psychiatry as a tool against pacific dissidence in the former USSR. He asserted that it was time for psychiatry in the Western countries to reconsider the supposedly documented accounts of political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR in the hope of discovering that Soviet psychiatrists were more deserving of sympathy than condemnation. In Stone's words, he believes that Snezhnevsky was wrongly condemned by critics. According to Stone, one of the first points the Soviet psychiatrists who have been condemned for unethical political abuse of psychiatry make is that the revolution is the greatest good for the greatest number, the greatest piece of social justice, and the greatest beneficence imaginable in the twentieth century.[197] In the Western view, the ethical compass of the Soviet psychiatrists begins to wander when they act in the service of this greatest beneficence.[197]

According to St Petersburg psychiatrist Vladimir Pshizov, a disastrous factor for domestic psychiatry is that those who had committed the crime against humanity were allowed to stay on their positions until they can leave this world in a natural way. Those who retained their positions and influence turned domestic psychiatry from politically motivated one to criminally motivated one because the sphere of interests of this public has been reduced to making a business of psychopharmacologic drugs and taking possession of the homes of the ill. In Soviet times, all the heads of departments of psychiatry, all the directors of psychiatric research institutes, all the head doctors of psychiatric hospitals were the CPSU nomenklatura, which they remained so far. The representative of nomenklatura in psychiatry had the scheme of career that is simple and often stereotyped: for one to two years, he run errands as a resident, then joined the party and became a partgrouporg.[199] His junior colleagues (usually non-partisan ones) collected and processed material for his dissertation. Its review of literature, particularly in a research institute for psychiatry, was often written by patients, because only they knew foreign languages, and their party comrades were not up to it, the natural habitat did not stimulate learning a foreign language.

Robert van Voren also says Russian psychiatry is now being headed by the same psychiatrists who was heading psychiatry in Soviet times. Since then Russian psychiatric system has not almost changed. In reality, we still see a sort of the Soviet psychiatry that was in the late 1980s. Russian psychiatrists do not have access to specialized literature published in other countries and do not understand what is world psychiatry. Staff training has not changed, literature is inaccessible, the same psychiatrists teach new generations of specialists. Those of them who know what is world psychiatry and know it is not the same as what is happening in Russia are silent and afraid. The powerful core of the old nomenklatura in psychiatry was concentrated in Moscow, and it was clear that the struggle inside their fortress would be not only difficult, but also it would be a waste of time, energy and resources, so the Global Initiative on Psychiatry has been avoiding Moscow almost completely for all the years. Instead, the Global Initiative on Psychiatry took active part in projects for reforming the mental health service in Ukraine, donated a printing plant to Ukrainian public, organized a publishing house, helped print a huge amount of medical and legal literature distributed for free, but the Ukrainian tax police accused the publishing house of manufacturing counterfeit dollars, and a significant part of humanitarian aid that the Global Initiative on Psychiatry had gathered in the Netherlands for Ukrainian psychiatric hospitals was stolen in Kiev.

Many of the current leaders of Russian psychiatry, especially those who were related to the establishment in Soviet period, have resiled from their avowal read at the 1989 General Assembly of the WPA that Soviet psychiatry had been systematically abused for political purposes. Among such leaders who did so is Aleksandr Tiganov, a pupil of Snezhnevsky, full member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, the director of its Mental Health Research Center, and the chief psychiatrist of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. In 2011, when asked whether ill or healthy were those examined because of their disagreements with authority, Tiganov answered, "These people suffered from sluggish schizophrenia and were on the psychiatric registry." According to Tiganov, it was rumored that Snezhnevsky took pity on dissenters and gave them a diagnosis required for placing in a special hospital to save them from a prison, but it is not true, he honestly did his medical duty. The same ideas are voiced in the 2014 interview by Anatoly Smulevich, a pupil of Snezhnevsky, full member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; he says what was attributed to Snesnevsky was that he recognized the healthy as the ill, it did not happen and is pure slander, it is completely ruled out for him to give a diagnosis to a healthy person.

In 2007, Mikhail Vinogradov, one of the leading staff members of the Serbsky Center, strongly degraded the human rights movement of the Soviet era in every possible way and tried to convince that all political dissidents who had been to his institution were indeed mentally ill. In his opinion, "now it is clear that all of them are deeply affected people." In 2012, Vinogradov said the same, "Do you talk about human rights activists? Most of them are just unhealthy people, I talked with them. As for the dissident General Grigorenko, I too saw him, kept him under observation, and noted oddities of his thinking. But he was eventually allowed to go abroad, as you know... Who? Bukovsky? I talked with him, and he is a completely crazy character. But he too was allowed to go abroad! You see, human rights activists are people who, due to their mental pathology, are unable to restrain themselves within the standards of society, and the West encourages their inability to do so." In the same year, he offered to restore Soviet mental health law and said it "has never been used for political persecution." Human rights activists who claim it did, in Vinogradov's words, "are not very mentally healthy."[207]

Russian psychiatrist Fedor Kondratev not only denied accusations that he was ever personally engaged in Soviet abuses of psychiatry; he stated publicly that the very conception of the existence of Soviet-era "punitive psychiatry" was nothing more than: "the fantasy [vymysel] of the very same people who are now defending totalitarian sects. This is slander, which was [previously] used for anti-Soviet ends, but is now being used for anti-Russian ends." He says that there were attempts to use of psychiatry for political purposes but there was no mass psychiatric terror, he calls allegations about the terror a propagandistic weapon of activists of the Cold War. As Alexander Podrabinek writes, psychiatrists of punitive conscription and namely Kondratev are relatively indifferent to the public's indignation over illegal use of psychiatry both in Soviet times and now, they do not notice this public, allowing themselves to ignore any unprofessional opinion. In response to the article by Podrabinek, Kondratev instituted a suit against Podrabinek under Russian Civil Code Article 152 on protecting one's honor, dignity and business reputation. According to Valery Krasnov and Isaak Gurovich, official representatives of psychiatry involved in its political abuse never acknowledged the groundlessness of their diagnostics and actions. The absence of the acknowledgement and the absence of an analysis of made errors cast a shadow upon all psychiatrists in the USSR and, especially, in Russia. As Russian-American historian Georgi Chernyavsky writes, after the fall of the communist regime, no matter how some psychiatrists lean over backwards, foaming at the mouth to this day when stating that they were slandered, that they did not give dissidents diagnoses-sentences, or that, at least, these cases were isolated and not at all related to their personal activities, no matter how the doctors, if one may call them so, try to rebut hundreds if not thousands of real facts, it is undoable.

In 2004, Savenko stated that the passed law on the state expert activity and the introduction of the profession of forensic expert psychiatrist actually destroyed adversary-based examinations and that the Serbsky Center turned into the complete monopolist of forensic examination, which it had never been under Soviet rule. Formerly, the court could include any psychiatrist in a commission of experts, but now the court only chooses an expert institution. The expert has the right to participate only in commissions that he is included in by the head of his expert institution, and can receive the certificate of qualification as an expert only after having worked in a state expert institution for three years. The Director of the Serbsky Center Dmitrieva was, at the same time, the head of the forensic psychiatry department which is the only one in the country and is located in her Center. No one had ever had such a monopoly.

According to Savenko, the Serbsky Center has long labored to legalize its monopolistic position of the Main expert institution of the country. The ambition and permissiveness—which, due to proximity to power, allow the Serbsky Center to get in touch over the telephone with the judges and explain to them who is who and what is the guideline, although the judges themselves have already learned it—have turned out to be a considerable drop in the level of the expert reports on many positions. Such a drop was inevitable and foreseeable in the context of the Serbsky Center efforts to eliminate adversary character of the expert reports of the parties, then to maximally degrade the role of the specialist as a reviewer and critic of the presented expert report, and to legalize the state of affairs. Lyubov Vinogradova believes there has been a continuous diminution in patients' rights as independent experts are now excluded from processes, cannot speak in court and can do nothing against the State experts.

On 28 May 2009, Yuri Savenko wrote to the then President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev an open letter, in which Savenko asked Medvedev to submit to the State Duma a draft law prepared by the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia to address the sharp drop in the level of forensic psychiatric examinations, which Savenko attributed to the lack of competition within the sector and its increasing nationalization. The open letter says that the level of the expert reports has dropped to such an extent that it is often a matter of not only the absence of entire sections of the report, even such as the substantiation of its findings, and not only the gross contradiction of its findings to the descriptive section of the report, but it is often a matter of concrete statements which are so contrary to generally accepted scientific terms that doubts about the disinterestedness of the experts arise. According to the letter, courts, in violation of procedural rules, do not analyze the expert report, its coherence and consistency in all its parts, do not check experts' findings for their accuracy, completeness, and objectivity.

On 15 June 2009, the working group chaired by the Director of the Serbsky Center Tatyana Dmitrieva sent the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation a joint application whose purport was to declare appealing against the forensic expert reports of state expert institutions illegal and prohibit courts from receiving lawsuits filed to appeal against the reports. The reason put forward for the proposal was that the appeals against the expert reports were allegedly filed "without regard for the scope of the case" and that one must appeal against the expert report "only together with the sentence." In other words, according to Yuri Savenko, all professional errors and omissions are presented as untouchable by virtue of the fact that they were infiltrated into the sentence. That is cynicism of administrative resources, cynicism of power, he says.

The draft of the application to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was considered in the paper "Current legal issues relevant to forensic-psychiatric expert evaluation" by Elena Shchukina and Sergei Shishkov focusing on the inadmissibility of appealing against the expert report without regard for the scope of the evaluated case. While talking about appealing against "the reports", the authors of the paper, according to lawyer Dmitry Bartenev, mistakenly identify the reports with actions of the experts (or an expert institution) and justify the impossibility of the "parallel" examination and evaluation of the actions of the experts without regard for the scope of the evaluated case. Such a conclusion made by the authors appears clearly erroneous because abuse by the experts of rights and legitimate interests of citizens including trial participants, of course, may be a subject for a separate appeal.

According to the warning made in 2010 by Yuri Savenko at the same Congress, prof. Anatoly Smulevich, author of the monographs Problema Paranoyi (The Problem of Paranoia) (1972) and Maloprogredientnaya Shizofreniya (Continuous Sluggish Schizophrenia) (1987), which had contributed to the hyperdiagnosis of "sluggish schizophrenia", again began to play the same role he played before. Recently, under his influence therapists began to widely use antidepressants and antipsychotics but often in inadequate cases and in inappropriate doses, without consulting psychiatrists. This situation has opened up a huge new market for pharmaceutical firms, with their unlimited capabilities, and the flow of the mentally ill to internists. Smulevich bases the diagnosis of continuous sluggish schizophrenia, in particular, on appearance and lifestyle and stresses that the forefront in the picture of negative changes is given to the contrast between retaining mental activity (and sometimes quite high capacity for work) and mannerism, unusualness of one's appearance and entire lifestyle.

According to the commentary by the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia on the 2007 text by Vladimir Rotstein, a doctrinist of Snezhnevsky's school, there are sufficient patients with delusion of reformism in psychiatric inpatient facilities for involuntary treatment. In 2012, delusion of reformism was mentioned as a symptom of mental disorder in Psychiatry. National Manual edited by Tatyana Dmitrieva, Valery Krasnov, Nikolai Neznanov, Valentin Semke, and Alexander Tiganov. In the same year, Vladimir Pashkovsky in his paper reported that he diagnosed 4.7 percent of 300 patients with delusion of reform. As Russian sociologist Alexander Tarasov notes, you will be treated in a hospital so that you and all your acquaintances get to learn forever that only such people as Anatoly Chubais or German Gref can be occupied with reforming in our country; and you are suffering from "syndrome of litigiousness" if in addition you wrote to the capital city complaints, which can be written only by a reviewing authority or lawyer.

According to Doctor of Legal Sciences Vladimir Ovchinsky, regional differences in forensic psychiatric expert reports are striking. For example, in some regions of Russia, 8 or 9 percent of all examinees are pronounced sane; in other regions up to 75 percent of all examinees are pronounced sane. In some regions less than 2 percent of examinees are declared schizophrenics; in other regions up to 80 percent of examinees are declared schizophrenics.

In April 1995, the State Duma considered the first draft of a law that would have established a State Medical Commission with a psychiatrist to certify the competence of the President, the Prime Minister, and high federal political officials to fulfill the responsibilities of their positions. In 2002, Ukrainian psychiatrist Ada Korotenko stated that today the question was raised about the use of psychiatry to settle political accounts and establish psychiatric control over people competing for power in the country. Obviously, one will find supporters of the feasibility of such a filter, she said, though is it worthwhile to substitute experts' medical reports for elections? In 2003, the suggestion of using psychiatry to prevent and dismiss officials from their positions was supported by Alexander Podrabinek, author of the book Punitive Medicinea 265-page monograph covering political abuses of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. He suggested that people who seek high positions or run for the legislature should bring from the psychiatric dispensary a reference that they are not on the psychiatric registry and should be subjected to psychiatric examination in the event of inappropriate behavior. Concerned about the problem, authorities ruled that the Russian Mental Health Law should not be applied to senior officials and the judiciary on the ground that they are vested with parliamentary or judicial immunity. A psychiatrist who violates this rule can be deprived of his diploma and sentenced to imprisonment.[229] In 2011, Russian psychiatrists again tried to promote the idea that one's marked aspiration in itself for power can be referred to psychopathic symptoms and that there are statistics about 60 percent of current leaders of states suffering from various forms of mental abnormalities.

Documents and memoirs[edit]

The evidence for the misuse of psychiatry for political purposes in the Soviet Union was documented in a number of articles and books. Several national psychiatric associations examined and acted upon this documentation.

The widely known sources including published and written memoirs by victims of psychiatric arbitrariness convey moral and physical sufferings experienced by the victims in special psychiatric hospitals of the USSR.

Samizdat documentation[edit]

In August 1969, Natalya Gorbanevskaya completed Noon ("Полдень"), her book about the case of the 25 August 1968 Demonstration on Red Square and began circulating it in samizdat.[234] It was translated into English and published under the title Red Square at Noon. Parts of the book describe Special Psychiatric Hospitals and psychiatric examinations of dissidents. The book includes "On Special Psychiatric Hospitals", an article written by Pyotr Grigorenko in 1968.[236][237]

In 1971, twin brothers Zhores Medvedev and Roy Medvedev published in London their joint account of Zhores' incarceration in a psychiatric hospital and the Soviet practice of diagnosing political oppositionists as the mentally ill in London, in both English A Question of Madness: Repression by Psychiatry in the Soviet Union and Russian (Who is Mad? "Кто сумасшедший") editions.

Yury Maltsev's Report from a Madhousehis memoirs in Russian ("Репортаж и сумасшедшего дома"), were issued by the New York-based Novy zhurnal publishing house in 1974.

1975 saw the article "My Five Years in Mental Hospitals" by Viktor Fainberg, who had emigrated to France the previous year after four years in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital.

In 1976, Viktor Nekipelov published in samizdat his book Institute of Fools: Notes on the Serbsky Institute documenting his personal experiences during two months' examination at the Serbsky Institute in Moscow. In 1980, the book was translated and published in English. The book was first published in Russia in 2005.[244]

Professional associations and Human Rights groups[edit]

Various documents and reports were published in the Information Bulletin of the Working Commission on the Abuse of Psychiatry For Political Purposes, and circulated in the samizdat periodical Chronicle of Current Events. Other sources were documents by the Moscow Helsinki Group and in books by Alexander Podrabinek (Punitive Medicine1979)[246] Anatoly Prokopenko (Mad Psychiatry1997, "Безумная психитрия") by and Vladimir Bukovsky (Judgment in Moscow1994).[248] To these may be added Soviet psychiatry – fallacies and fantasy by Ada Korotenko and Natalia Alikina ("Советская психиатрия. Заблуждения и умысел") and Executed by Madness1971 ("Казнимые сумасшествием").

In 1972, 1975, 1976, 1984, and 1988 the United States Government Printing Office published documents on political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union .[251]

From 1987 to 1991, the International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry (IAPUP) published forty-two volumes of Documents on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry in the USSR. Today these are preserved by the Columbia University Libraries in the archival collection entitled Human Rights Watch Records: Helsinki Watch, 1952–2003, Series VII: Chris Panico Files, 1979–1992, USSR, Psychiatry, International Association on the Political Use of PsychiatryBox 16, Folder 5–8 (English version) and Box 16, Folder 9–11 (Russian version).

In 1992, the British Medical Association published certain some documents on the subject in Medicine Betrayed: The Participation of Doctors in Human Rights Abuses.

Memoirs[edit]

In 1978, the book I Vozvrashchaetsa Veter... (And the Wind Returns...) by Vladimir Bukovsky, describing the dissident movement, their struggle or freedom, practices of dealing with dissenters, and dozen years spent by Bukovsky in Soviet labor camps, prisons and psychiatric hospitals, was published and later translated into English under the title To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter.

In 1979, Leonid Plyushch published his book Na Karnavale Istorii (At History's Сarnival) in which he described how he and other dissidents were committed to psychiatric hospitals. The same year, the book was translated into English under the title History's Carnival: A Dissident's Autobiography.

In 1980, the book by Yuri Belov Razmyshlenia ne tolko o Sychovke: Roslavl 1978 (Reflections not only on Sychovka: Roslavl 1978) was published.

In 1981, Pyotr Grigorenko published his memoirs V Podpolye Mozhno Vstretit Tolko Krys (In Underground One Can Meet Only Rats), which included the story of his psychiatric examinations and hospitalizations. In 1982, the book was translated into English under the title Memoirs.

In 1982, Soviet philosopher Pyotr Abovin-Yegides published his article "Paralogizmy politseyskoy psikhiatrii i ikh sootnoshenie s meditsinskoy etikoy (Paralogisms of police psychiatry and their relation to medical ethics)."

In 1983, Evgeny Nikolaev's book Predavshie Gippokrata (Betrayers of Hippocrates), when translated from Russian into German under the title Gehirnwäsche in Moskau (Brainwashing in Moscow), first came out in München and told about psychiatric detention of its author for political reasons. In 1984, the book under its original title was first published in Russian which the book had originally been written in.

In 1983, Yuri Vetokhin published his memoirs Sklonen k Pobegu translated into English under the title Inclined to Escape in 1986.

In 1987, Robert van Voren published his book Koryagin: A man Struggling for Human Dignity telling about psychiatrist Anatoly Koryagin who resisted political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.

In 1988, Reportazh iz Niotkuda (Reportage from Nowhere) by Viktor Rafalsky was published. In the publication, he described his confinement in Soviet psychiatric hospitals.

In 1993, Valeriya Novodvorskaya published her collection of writings Po Tu Storonu Otchayaniya (Beyond Despair) in which her experience in the prison psychiatric hospital in Kazan was described.

In 1996, Vladimir Bukovsky published his book Moskovsky Protsess (Moscow trial) containing an account of developing the punitive psychiatry based on documents that were being submitted to and considered by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The book was translated into English in 1998 under the title Reckoning With Moscow: A Nuremberg Trial for Soviet Agents and Western Fellow Travelers.

In 2001, Nikolay Kupriyanov published his book GULAG-2-SN[273] which has a foreword by Anatoly Sobchak, covers repressive psychiatry in Soviet Army, and tells about humiliations Kupriyanov underwent in the psychiatric departments of the Northern Fleet hospital and the Kirov Military Medical Academy.

In 2002, St. Petersburg forensic psychiatrist Vladimir Pshizov published his book Sindrom Zamknutogo Prostranstva (Syndrome of Closed Space) describing the hospitalization of Viktor Fainberg.

In 2003, the book Moyа Sudba i Moyа Borba protiv Psikhiatrov (My Destiny and My Struggle against Psychiatrists) was published by Anatoly Serov, who worked as a lead design engineer before he was committed to a psychiatric hospital.[276]

In 2010, Alexander Shatravka published his book Pobeg iz Raya (Escape from Paradise) in which he described how he and his companions were caught after they illegally crossed the border between Finland and the Soviet Union to escape from the latter country and, as a result, were confined to Soviet psychiatric hospitals and prisons. In his book, he also described methods of brutal treatment of prisoners in the institutions.

In 2012, Soviet dissident and believer Vladimir Khailo’s wife published her book Subjected to Intense Persecution.[278]

2014 saw the book Zha Zholtoy Stenoy (Behind the Yellow Wall) by Alexander Avgust, a former inmate of Soviet psychiatric hospitals who in his book describes the wider circle of their inhabitants than literature on the issue usually does.

Literary works[edit]

In 1965, Valery Tarsis published in the West his book Ward 7: An Autobiographical Novel based upon his own experiences in 1963–1964 when he was detained in the Moscow Kashchenko psychiatric hospital for political reasons. The book was the first literary work to deal with the Soviet authorities' abuse of psychiatry.

In 1968, the Russian poet Joseph Brodsky wrote Gorbunov and Gorchakov, a forty-page long poem in thirteen cantos consisting of lengthy conversations between two patients in a Soviet psychiatric prison as well as between each of them separately and the interrogating psychiatrists. The topics vary from the taste of the cabbage served for supper to the meaning of life and Russia's destiny. The poem was translated into English by Harry Thomas. The experience underlying Gorbunov and Gorchakov was formed by two stints of Brodsky at psychiatric establishments.

In 1977, British playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play Every Good Boy Deserves Favour that criticized the Soviet practice of treating political dissidence as a form of mental illness.[285] The play is dedicated to Viktor Fainberg and Vladimir Bukovsky, two Soviet dissidents expelled to the West.

In the 1983 novel Firefox Down by Craig Thomas, captured American pilot Mitchell Gant is imprisoned in a KGB psychiatric clinic "associated with the Serbsky Institute", where he is drugged and interrogated to force him to reveal the location of the Firefox aircraft, which he has stolen and flown out of Russia.

Documentaries[edit]

The use of psychiatry for political purposes in the USSR was discussed in several television documentaries:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ BMA 1992, p. 66; Bonnie 2002; Finckenauer 1995, p. 52; Gershman 1984; Helmchen & Sartorius 2010, p. 490; Knapp 2007, p. 406; Kutchins & Kirk 1997, p. 293; Lisle 2010, p. 47; Merskey 1978; Society for International Development 1984, p. 19; US GPO (1972, 1975, 1976, 1984, 1988); Voren (2002, 2010a, 2013a)
  2. ^ Bloch & Reddaway 1977, p. 425; UPA Herald 2013
  3. ^ See Vladimir Bukovsky, Judgment in Moscow (forthcoming spring 2016), Chapter 3, Back to the Future: "Deportation or the Madhouse",
  4. ^ US Delegation Report 1989, p. 26; US Delegation Report (Russian translation) 2009, p. 93
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Ougrin, Gluzman & Dratcu 2006.
  6. ^ Gluzman (2009a, 2013a); Voren 2013a, p. 8; Fedenko 2009; see some documents in Pozharov 1999; Soviet Archives 1970
  7. ^ Dmitrieva 2002; Pshizov 2006, p. 73
  8. ^ Voren 2013a, pp. 16–18; Pietikäinen 2015, p. 280
  9. ^ Voren 2010a; Helmchen & Sartorius 2010, p. 491
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Gluzman (2009b, 2010a)
  11. ^ Abouelleil & Bingham 2014; Bloch & Reddaway 1985, p. 189; Kadarkay 1982, p. 205; Korotenko & Alikina 2002, p. 260; Laqueur 1980, p. 26; Munro 2002a, p. 179; Pietikäinen 2015, p. 280; Rejali 2009, p. 395; Smythies 1973; Voren (2010b, p. 95, 2013b); Working Group on the Internment of Dissenters in Mental Hospitals 1983, p. 1
  12. ^ Adler & Gluzman 1993; Amnesty International 1991, pp. 9, 64; Ball & Farr 1984, p. 258; Bebtschuk, Smirnova & Khayretdinov 2012; Brintlinger & Vinitsky 2007, pp. 292, 293, 294; Dmitrieva 2001, pp. 84, 108; Faraone 1982; Fedor 2011, p. 177; Ghodse 2011, p. 422; Grigorenko, Ruzgis & Sternberg 1997, p. 72; Gushansky 2005, p. 35; Horvath 2014; Joffe 1984; Kekelidze 2013b; Khvorostianov & Elias 2015; Korotenko & Alikina 2002, pp. 7, 47, 60, 67, 77, 259, 291; Koryagin (1988, 1989); Kovalyov 2007; Leontev 2010; Magalif 2010; Podrabinek 1980, pp. 10, 57, 136; Pukhovsky 2001, pp. 243, 252; Savenko (2005a, 2005b); Schmidt & Shchurko 2014; Szasz (2004, 2006); US Delegation Report 1989, p. 48; Vitaliev 1991, p. 148; Voren & Bloch 1989, pp. 92, 95, 98; West & Green 1997, p. 226; Zile 1985
  13. ^ Bonnie 2002; US GPO 1984, p. 5; Faraone 1982
  14. ^ West & Green 1997, p. 226; Alexéyeff 1976; US GPO 1984, p. 101
  15. ^ A Chronicle of Current Events No 10, 31 October 1969 — 10.10 "The Kazan Special Psychiatric Hospital".
  16. ^ Vasilenko 2004, p. 29; Chernosvitov 2002, p. 50
  17. ^ Vladimir Boukovsky, Jugement a MoscouRobert Laffont: Paris, 1996, "Le Goulag psychiatrique", p. 190.
  18. ^ a b Andrew & Mitrokhin 1999, p. 7.
  19. ^ Albats 1995, p. 177Luty 2014
  20. ^ The Bukovsky Archives, 22 January 1970 (Pb 151/XIII).
  21. ^ The Bukovsky Archives, 22 February 1972 (St 31/19).
  22. ^ A Chronicle of Current Events No 12, 28 February 1970 — 12.2 "The trial of P.G. Grigorenko", CCE No 13, 28 April 1970 — 13.8 "The trial of Ivan Yakhimovich and other trials", CCE No 15, 31 August 1970 — 15.1 "The trial of Natalya Gorbanevskaya".
  23. ^ Fernando 2003, p. 160.
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Gushansky (1999, 2010a)
  25. ^ Arizona Republic 1988; Prokopenko (1997, p. 159, 2005, p. 191); Schodolski 1989; Szasz 1998, p. 196; Tarasov 2006; US GPO 1988, p. 28; Vasilenko 2004, p. 34
  26. ^ Savenko (2005a, 2009b)
  27. ^ Fernando, Ndegwa & Wilson 1998, p. 37.
  28. ^ a b c d e f Foucault, Laplanche & Badinter (1977, 1989, p. 168, 2006, pp. 62–63)
  29. ^ a b Foucault, Laplanche & Badinter (1977, 1989, p. 169, 2006, pp. 62–63)
  30. ^ a b c d Trehub 2013; Zakal 2013
  31. ^ Adshead 2003; Szasz (1965, 1971, 1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1987)
  32. ^ a b Gosden 2001, p. 220; Szasz 1994
  33. ^ Sokolov 2007; Pasko 2007
  34. ^ Savenko 2004b; Svetova 2007
  35. ^ Gorelik 2003; Savenko 2004b
  36. ^ a b Stone (1984, 1985, p. 72, 2008)
  37. ^ abbreviation expansion: organizer of a party group
  38. ^ RSN 2012; NG 2012
  39. ^ Asriyants & Chernova 2010; NPZ 2007a
  40. ^ A Chronicle of Current Events No 9, 31 August 1969 — 9.1 "First Anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia".
  41. ^ Grigorenko (1970a, p. 461–473, 1970b)
  42. ^ A Chronicle of Current Events No 11, 31 December 1969 — 11.2 "P.G. Grigorenko on the Special Psychiatric Hospitals".
  43. ^ Savenko 2005b; Nekipelov 2005
  44. ^ Podrabinek (1979, 1980); Bernstein 1980
  45. ^ Vladimir Boukovsky, Jugement a Moscou: Un dissident dans les archives, Robert Laffont: Paris, 1995.
  46. ^ US GPO (1972, 1975, 1976, 1984, 1988)
  47. ^ Kupriyanov (2001, 2005)
  48. ^ Baburin 2004; Serov 2003
  49. ^ Andreyev 2012.
  50. ^ Billington 2009; Complete Review 2009; Spencer 2010; National Theatre 2010; Franks 2008
  51. ^ Boltyanskaya (2016a, 2016b)

Sources[edit]

Archival sources

Government publications and official reports

  • Abuse of psychiatry for political repression in the Soviet Union: Hearing, Ninety-second Congress, second session, Part 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1972.
  • Abuse of psychiatry for political repression in the Soviet Union: Hearing, Ninety-second Congress, second session, Volume 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1975.
  • Abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union: hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session, September 20, 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1984.
  • Amnesty International French Medical Commission and Valérie Marange. Doctors and torture: resistance or collaboration?. Bellew Pub; 1991. ISBN 0947792562.
  • British Medical Association. Medicine betrayed: the participation of doctors in human rights abuses. Zed Books; 1992. ISBN 1-85649-104-8.
  • Commission for Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression. Доклад Комиссии при Президенте Российской Федерации по реабилитации жертв политических репрессий о ходе исполнения Закона Российской Федерации "О реабилитации жертв политических репрессий" [The report by the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for rehabilitation of the victims of political repression on the course of executing the Law of the Russian Federation "On rehabilitation of the victims of political repression"]. Moscow: 2000. Russian.
  • International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry, Working Group on the Internment of Dissenters in Mental Hospitals. Soviet Political Psychiatry: The Story of the Opposition. London: International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry, Working Group on the Internment of Dissenters in Mental Hospitals; 1983.
  • International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; 2002 [Retrieved 23 April 2012].
  • Psychiatric abuse of political prisoners in the Soviet Union: testimony by Leonid Plyushch: hearing before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session, March 30, 1976. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1976.
  • Society for International Development. Development: Seeds of change, village through global order. Society for International Development; 1984. p. 19.
  • U.S. Department of State, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Report of the U.S. Delegation to Assess Recent Changes in Soviet Psychiatry. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1989 [Retrieved 5 February 2011];15(4 Suppl):1–79. doi:10.1093/schbul/15.suppl_1.1. PMID 2638045.
  • Reform and human rights: the Gorbachev record. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1988.
  • Global Initiative on Psychiatry. Report of the U.S. Delegation to Assess Recent Changes in Soviet Psychiatry (Russian translation); 2009 [archived 7 April 2014; Retrieved 5 February 2011]. Russian.
  • Vinogradova, Lyubov [Любовь Виноградова]. Соблюдение прав человека в психиатрии [Observing human rights in psychiatry]. In: Kostenko, Nikolay [Николай Костенко] (ed.). Права человека в Российской Федерации: Доклад о событиях 2013 года [Human rights in the Russian Federation: Report on events of 2013]. Moscow: Moscow Helsinki Group; 2014. Russian. tr. 164–172.

Books

  • Albats, Yevgenia. KGB: state within a state. I.B.Tauris; 1995. ISBN 1-85043-995-8.
  • Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The sword and the shield: the Mitrokhin archive and the secret history of the KGB. Basic Books; 1999. ISBN 0-465-00310-9.
  • Andreyev, Galina. Subjected to Intense Persecution. Xulon Press; 2012. ISBN 1622304063.
  • Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: a history. Doubleday; 2003. ISBN 0-7679-0056-1.
  • Altshuler, Stuart. From exodus to freedom: a history of the Soviet Jewry movement. Rowman & Littlefield; 2005. ISBN 0742549364.
  • Artyomova, A.; Rar, L.; Slavinsky M. [А. Артёмова, Л. Рар, М. Славинский]. Казнимые сумасшествием: Сборник документальных материалов о психиатрических преследованиях инакомыслящих в СССР [The executed by madness: a collection of documentary materials about psychiatric persecutions of dissenters in the USSR]. Frankfurt am Main: Посев (Posev publishers); 1971. Russian.
  • Avgust, Alexander [Александр Август]. За жёлтой стеной (сборник) [Behind the Yellow Wall (collection)]. Издательские решения [Publishing solutions]; 2014. Russian. ISBN 5457623866.
  • Ball, Terence; Farr, James. After Marx. CUP Archive; 1984. ISBN 0-521-27661-6.
  • Barańczak, Stanisław. Breathing under water and other East European essays. Harvard University Press; 1990. ISBN 0-674-08125-0.
  • Belov, Yuri [Юрий Белов]. Размышления не только о Сычёвке: Рославль 1978 [Reflections not only on Sychovka: Roslavl 1978]. Frankfurt am Main: Посев (Posev publishers); 1980. Russian.
  • Birstein, Vadim. The perversion of knowledge: the true story of the Soviet science. Westview Press; 2004. ISBN 0-8133-4280-5.
  • Bloch, Sidney; Reddaway, Peter. Russia's political hospitals: The abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Victor Gollancz Ltd; 1977. ISBN 0-575-02318-X.
  • Bloch, Sidney; Reddaway, Peter. Soviet psychiatric abuse: the shadow over world psychiatry. Westview Press; 1985. ISBN 0-8133-0209-9.
  • Brintlinger, Angela; Vinitsky, Ilya. Madness and the mad in Russian culture. University of Toronto Press; 2007. ISBN 0-8020-9140-7.
  • Bukovsky, Vladimir [Владимир Буковский]. И возвращается ветер... [And the wind returns...]. New York: Хроника [Chronicle]; 1978a. Russian.
  • Bukovsky, Vladimir. To build a castle: my life as a dissenter. London: Andrei Deutsch; 1978b. ISBN 0-233-97023-1.
  • Bukovsky, Vladimir [Владимир Буковский]. Московский процесс [Judgment in Moscow]. Paris—Moscow: Издательство "Русская мысль—МИК" ["Russian Thought—MIK" Publishing house]; 1996. Russian. ISBN 5-87902-071-1.
  • Bukovsky, Vladimir. Jugement a Moscou. Un dissident dans les archives du Kremlin. Robert Laffont: Paris; 1995. ISBN 0895263890.
  • Buyanov, Mikhail [Михаил Буянов]. Тяжёлые люди [Difficult people]. Moscow: Российское общество медиков-литераторов [Russian Society of Medics and Writers]; 1993. Russian.
  • Caute, David. The dancer defects: the struggle for cultural supremacy during the Cold War. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Oxford; 2005. ISBN 0-19-927883-0.
  • Chernosvitov, Evgeny [Евгений Черносвитов]. Социальная медицина: Учебное пособие для вузов [Social medicine: a manual for higher schools]. Moscow: Юнити-Дана [Unity-Dana]; 2002. Russian. ISBN 5238003447.
  • Costigan, Lucy. Social Awareness in Counselling. iUniverse; 2004. ISBN 0-595-75523-2.[self-published source]
  • Dmitrieva, Tatyana [Татьяна Дмитриева]. Законодательство Российской Федерации в области психиатрии. Комментарий к закону РФ о психиатрической помощи и гарантиях прав граждан при ее оказании, ГК РФ и УК РФ (в части, касающейся лиц с психическими расстройствами) [The legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of psychiatry. Commentary on the Law of the Russian Federation on Mental Health Care and Guarantees of Citizens' Rights during Its Provision, on the Civil Code and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (with regard to people with mental disorders)]. Mоscow: Спарк [Spark]; 2002. Russian. ISBN 5-88914-187-2.
  • Dmitrieva, Tatyana [Татьяна Дмитриева]. Альянс права и милосердия: о проблеме защиты прав человека в психиатрии [The alliance of law and mercy: on the issue of human rights protection in psychiatry]. Mоscow: Nauka; 2001. Russian. ISBN 5020226645.
  • Dmitrieva, Tatyana; Krasnov, Valery; Neznanov, Nikolai; Semke, Valentin; Tiganov, Alexander [Татьяна Дмитриева, Валерий Краснов, Николай Незнанов, Валентин Семке, Александр Тиганов] (eds.). Психиатрия: Национальное руководство [Psychiatry: National manual]. Moscow: ГЭОТАР-Медиа [GEOTAR-Media]; 2012. Russian. ISBN 5970420301.
  • Dorinskaya, Sofia [Софья Доринская]. Записки психиатра [The psychiatrist's notes]. Moscow: Издательство Русского физического общества "Общественная польза" [The publishing house of the Russian Physical Society "Public Benefit"]; 2014. Russian. ISBN 5856171225.
  • Dudley, Michael; Silove, Derrick; Gale, Fran. Mental Health and Human Rights: Vision, praxis, and courage. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Oxford; 2012. ISBN 0199213968.
  • Fedor, Julie. Russia and the Cult of State Security: The Chekist Tradition, From Lenin to Putin. Routledge; 2011. ISBN 1136671862.
  • Fernando, Suman. Cultural diversity, mental health and psychiatry: The struggle against racism. Psychology Press; 2003. ISBN 1583912533.
  • Fernando, Suman; Ndegwa, David; Wilson, Melba. Forensic Psychiatry, Race and Culture. Psychology Press; 1998. ISBN 0415153220.
  • Finckenauer, James. Russian youth: law, deviance, and the pursuit of freedom. Transaction Publishers; 1995. ISBN 1-56000-206-9.
  • Foucault, Michel; Kritzman, Lawrence. Politics, philosophy, culture: interviews and other writings, 1977–1984. Routledge; 1990. ISBN 0-415-90149-9.
  • Ghodse, Hamid. International Perspectives on Mental Health. RC Psych Publications; 2011. ISBN 1908020008.
  • Gorbanevskaya, Natalia [Наталья Горбаневская]. Полдень: Дело о демонстрации 25 августа 1968 года на Красной площади [Noon: The case on the demonstration of 25 August 1968 at the Red Square]. Frankfurt-on-Main: Посев [Seeding]; 1970a. Russian.
  • Gorbanevskaya, Natalia. Red Square at Noon. Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1970b. ISBN 0-03-085990-5.
  • Gosden, Richard. Punishing the Patient: How Psychiatrists Misunderstand and Mistreat Schizophrenia. Melbourne: Scribe Publications; 2001. ISBN 0-908011-52-0.
  • Grigorenko, Pyotr [Пётр Григоренко]. В подполье можно встретить только крыс... [In the underground one can meet only rats...]. Нью-Йорк [New York]: Детинец [Detinets]; 1981. Russian.
  • Grigorenko, Pyotr. Memoirs. New York: Norton; 1982. ISBN 0-393-01570-X.
  • Grigorenko, Elena; Ruzgis, Patricia; Sternberg, Robert. Psychology of Russia: past, present, future. Nova Publishers; 1997. ISBN 1-56072-389-0.
  • Helmchen, Hanfried; Sartorius, Norman. Ethics in Psychiatry: European Contributions. Springer; 2010. ISBN 90-481-8720-6.
  • Hunt, Kathleen. Abandoned to the state: cruelty and neglect in Russian orphanages. Human Rights Watch; 1998. ISBN 1-56432-191-6.
  • Jena, S.P.K.. Behaviour Therapy: Techniques, Research and Applications. Sage Publications; 2008. ISBN 0-7619-3624-6.
  • Kadarkay, Árpád. Human rights in American and Russian political thought. University Press of America; 1982.
  • Katona, Cornelius; Robertson, Mary. Psychiatry at a glance. Wiley-Blackwell; 2005. ISBN 1-4051-2404-0.
  • Knapp, Martin. Mental health policy and practice across Europe: the future direction of mental health care. McGraw-Hill International; 2007. ISBN 0-335-21467-3.
  • Kondratev, Fedor [Фёдор Кондратьев]. Судьбы больных шизофренией: клинико-социальный и судебно-психиатрический аспекты [The fates of the ill with schizophrenia: clinico-social and forensico-psychiatric aspects]. Moscow: ЗАО Юстицинформ [Closed joint-stock company Justitsinform]; 2010. Russian. The ISBN printed in the document (978-5-9977-0014-9) is bad; it causes a checksum error.
  • Korolenko, Caesar; Dmitrieva, Nina [Цезарь Короленко, Нина Дмитриева]. Социодинамическая психиатрия [Sociodynamic Psychiatry]. Moscow: Академический проект [Academic Project]; 2000. Russian. ISBN 5829100150.
  • Korotenko, Ada; Alikina, Natalia [Ада Коротенко, Наталия Аликина]. Советская психиатрия: Заблуждения и умысел [Soviet psychiatry: fallacies and wilfulness]. Kiev: Издательство "Сфера" [Publishing house "Sphere"]; 2002. Russian. ISBN 966-7841-36-7.
  • Kupriyanov, Nikolai [Николай Куприянов]. ГУЛАГ–2–СН [GULAG–2–SN]. St Petersburg: Вертикаль, АБРИС [Vertical, ABRIS]; 2001. Russian. ISBN 5-85333-051-9.
  • Kutchins, Herb; Kirk, Stuart. Making us crazy. DSM: the psychiatric bible and the creation of mental disorders. Free Press; 1997. ISBN 0-684-82280-6.
  • Lisle, Angela. Reflexive Practice. Xlibris Corporation; 2010. ISBN 1-4500-9197-0.[self-published source]
  • Laqueur, Walter. The Political Psychology of Appeasement: Finlandization and Other Unpopular Essays. Transaction Publishers; 1980. ISBN 1412838320.
  • Luneyev, Viktor [Виктор Лунеев]. Преступность XX века: Мировые, региональные и российские тенденции [20th century criminality: Worldwide, regional and Russian trends]. Wolters Kluwer Russia; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5-466-00098-1.
  • Malterud, Kirsti; Hunskaar, Steinar. Chronic myofascial pain: a patient-centered approach. Radcliffe Publishing; 2002. ISBN 1-85775-947-8.
  • Maltsev, Yuri [Юрий Мальцев]. Репортаж из сумасшедшего дома [Reportage from Madhouse]. Нью-Йорк [New-York]: Издательство Нового журнала [New Journal publishing house]; 1974. Russian.
  • Marsh, Rosalind. Soviet fiction since Stalin: science, politics and literature. Croom Helm; 1986. ISBN 0-7099-1776-7.
  • Matvejević, Predrag. Between exile and asylum: an eastern epistolary. Central European University Press; 2004. ISBN 963-9241-85-7.
  • Medvedev, Žores; Medvedev, Roj. A Question of Madness: Repression by Psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Macmillan; 1971.
  • Metzl, Jonathan. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. Beacon Press; 2010. ISBN 0-8070-8592-8.
  • Munro, Robin. Dangerous minds: political psychiatry in China today and its origins in the Mao era. Human Rights Watch; 2002. ISBN 1-56432-278-5.
  • Nekipelov, Viktor. Institute of fools: notes from the Serbsky (translated by Marco Carynnyk and Marta Horban). Orion Books Limited; 1980. ISBN 0575028920.
  • Nekipelov, Viktor [Виктор Некипелов]. Институт дураков [The Institute of Fools]. Барнаул [Barnaul]: Изд-во организации "Помощь пострадавшим от психиатров" [Publishing house of the "Help for the Victims of Psychiatry" Organization]; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5985500225.
  • Nikolaev, Evgeny. Gehirnwäsche in Moskau [Brainwashing in Moscow]. München: Klaus Schulz Verlag; 1983. German. ISBN 3-8162-0501-1.
  • Nikolaev, Evgeny [Евгений Николаев]. Предавшие Гиппократа [The betrayal of Hippocrates]. London: Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd.; 1984. Russian. ISBN 0-903868-81-4.
  • Noll, Richard. The encyclopedia of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Infobase Publishing; 2007. ISBN 0-8160-6405-9.
  • Novodvorskaya, Valeriya [Валерия Новодворская]. По ту сторону отчаяния [Beyond Despair]. Moscow: Издательство "Новости" [Publishing house "News"]; 1993. Russian.
  • Nuller, Yuri [Юрий Нуллер]. Структура психических расстройств [The Structure of Mental Disorders]. Kyiv: Сфера [Sphere]; 2008. Russian. ISBN 966-8782-44-5. tr. 17–18.
  • Nuti, Leopoldo. The crisis of détente in Europe: from Helsinki to Gorbachev, 1975–1985. Taylor & Francis; 2009. ISBN 0-415-46051-4.
  • Pietikäinen, Petteri. Madness: A History. Routledge; 2015. ISBN 1317484444.
  • Plyushch, Leonid [Леонид Плющ]. На карнавале истории [At history's carnival]. London: Overseas Publications Interchange; 1979a. Russian.
  • Plyushch, Leonid. History's carnival: a dissident's autobiography. Collins and Harvill Press; 1979b. ISBN 0-00-262116-9.
  • Podrabinek, Alexander [Александр Подрабинек]. Карательная медицина [Punitive medicine]. New York: Издательство "Хроника" [Khronika Press]; 1979. Russian.
  • Podrabinek, Alexander. Punitive medicine. Karoma Publishers; 1980. ISBN 0-89720-022-5.
  • Pospielovsky, Dimitry. Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: Vol. 2 of A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer. New York: St Martin's Press; 1988. ISBN 0312009054.
  • Prokopenko, Anatoly [Анатолий Прокопенко]. Безумная психиатрия: секретные материалы о применении в СССР психиатрии в карательных целях [Mad psychiatry: classified materials on the use of psychiatry in the USSR for punitive purposes]. Moscow: "Совершенно секретно" ["Top Secret"]; 1997. Russian. ISBN 5-85275-145-6.
  • Pshizov, Vladimir [Владимир Пшизов]. Синдром замкнутого пространства (Записки судебного психиатра) [Syndrome of closed space (The forensic psychiatrist's notes)]. St Petersburg: 2002. Russian. ISBN 9785724302425.
  • Pukhovsky, Nikolai [Николай Пуховский]. Очерки общей психопатологии шизофрении [Essays on the general psychopathology of schizophrenia]. Moscow: Академический проект [Academic Project]; 2001. Russian. ISBN 5-8291-0154-8.
  • Regier, Darrel. The Conceptual Evolution of DSM-5. American Psychiatric Pub; 2011. ISBN 1585623881.
  • Rejali, Darius. Torture and Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009. ISBN 0-691-14333-1.
  • Rhoer, Edward Van Der. The shadow network. Scribner; 1983. ISBN 0684179601.
  • Robertson, Michael; Walter, Garry. Ethics and Mental Health: The Patient, Profession and Community. CRC Press; 2013. ISBN 1444168649.
  • Robitscher, Jonas. The powers of psychiatry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1980. ISBN 0395282225.
  • Semple, David; Smyth, Roger. Oxford handbook of psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. ISBN 0-19-969388-9. tr. 6.
  • Serov, Anatoly [Анатолий Серов]. Моя судьба и моя борьба против психиатров [My destiny and my struggle against psychiatrists]. Moscow: Экслибрис-Пресс [Ex libris-Press]; 2003. Russian. ISBN 5-88161-128-4.
  • Shatravka, Alexandr [Александр Шатравка]. Побег из рая [Escape from paradise]. New York: Liberty Publishing House; 2010. Russian. ISBN 978-1-932686-62-3.
  • Smulevich, Anatoly [Анатолий Смулевич]. Малопрогредиентная шизофрения и пограничные состояния [Continuous sluggish schizophrenia and borderline conditions]. Moscow: МЕДпресс-информ [MEDpress-inform]; 2009. Russian. ISBN 5983224891. 1. Клиническое сходство малопрогредиентной шизофрении и пограничных состояний [Clinical similarity between continuous sluggish schizophrenia and borderline conditions].
  • Stone, Alan. Law, Psychiatry, and Morality: Essays and Analysis. American Psychiatric Pub; 1985. ISBN 0-88048-209-5.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Cruel compassion: Psychiatric control of society's unwanted. Syracuse University Press; 1998. ISBN 0815605102.
  • Taylor, Chloe. The Culture of Confession from Augustine to Foucault: A Genealogy of the 'Confessing Animal'. Routledge; 2008. ISBN 0203890566. p. 129.
  • Tarsis, Valeriĭ. Ward 7: an autobiographical novel. Dutton; 1965.
  • Thomas, Craig. Firefox Down. New York: Bantam Books; 1983. ISBN 0-553-17095-3.
  • Tiganov, Alexandr [Александр Тиганов] (ed.). Руководство по психиатрии [Handbook of Psychiatry]. Tập 1. Moscow: Медицина [Medicine]; 1999. Russian. ISBN 5-225-02676-1.
  • Vasilenko, N.Y. [Н.Ю. Василенко]. Основы социальной медицины [Fundamentals of social medicine]. Vladivostok: Издательство Дальневосточного университета [Publishing house of Far Eastern Federal University]; 2004. Russian.
  • Veenhoven, Willem; Ewing, Winifred; Samenlevingen, Stichting. Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey. Tập 1. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1975. ISBN 90-247-1780-9.
  • Vetokhin, Yuri [Юрий Ветохин]. Склонен к побегу [Inclined to Escape]. Author's edition; 1983. Russian.
  • Vetokhin, Yuri. Inclined to Escape. Author's edition; 1986.
  • Vitaliev, Vitali. Dateline freedom. Hutchinson; 1991. ISBN 0-09-174677-9.
  • Voren, Robert van. Koryagin: a man struggling for human dignity. Second World Press; 1987. ISBN 90-71271-07-2.
  • Voren, Robert van. On dissidents and madness: From the Soviet Union of Leonid Brezhnev to the "Soviet Union" of Vladimir Putin. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi Publishers; 2009a. ISBN 978-90-420-2585-1.
  • Voren, Robert van. Cold war in psychiatry: human factors, secret actors. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi Publishers; 2010b. ISBN 90-420-3048-8.
  • Voren, Robert van. Psychiatry as a tool of coercion in post-Soviet countries. The European Parliament; 2013a. doi:10.2861/28281. ISBN 978-92-823-4595-5. Russian text: Voren, Robert van [Роберт ван Ворен]. Психиатрия как средство репрессий в советских и постсоветских странах [Psychiatry as a tool of coercion in post-Soviet countries]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2013;(5). Russian.
  • Voren, Robert van; Bloch, Sidney. Soviet psychiatric abuse in the Gorbachev era. International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry; 1989. ISBN 90-72657-01-2.
  • West, Donald; Green, Richard. Sociolegal control of homosexuality: a multi-nation comparison. Springer; 1997. ISBN 0-306-45532-3.

Journal articles and book chapters

  • 15 лет Независимому психиатрическому журналу [15th anniversary of the Independent Psychiatric Journal]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2005 [Retrieved 24 July 2011];(4). Russian.
  • Взгляд на реформу психиатрической помощи на XIII съезде НПА России [The view to the reform of psychiatric care at the XIII Congress of the IPA of Russia]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2008 [Retrieved 18 February 2014];(№ 2):15–19. Russian.
  • Выступления П.Д. Тищенко, Б.Г. Юдина, А.И. Антонова, А.Г. Гофмана, В.Н. Краснова, Б.А. Воскресенского [Speeches by P.D. Tishchenko, B.G. Yudin, A.I. Antonov, A.G. Gofman, V.N. Krasnov, B.A. Voskresensky]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2004 [Retrieved 14 January 2012];(2). Russian.
  • Лиц со статусом неприкосновенности не надо лечить без их письменного согласия? [Persons with the status of immunity should not be treated without their consent having been taken?]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2007a [Retrieved 18 February 2014];(№ 4):86. Russian.
  • Проблема социальной опасности психически больных [The problem of the social danger of the mentally ill]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2007b [Retrieved 18 February 2014];(№ 4):12–17. Russian.
  • Судебный процесс против Гражданской комиссии по правам человека в Санкт-Петербурге [The trial against the Citizens Commission on Human Rights in St Petersburg]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2012 [Retrieved 24 July 2011];(3):83. Russian.
  • Цитатник номера [Quote set of the issue]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2013;(5). Russian.
  • Abuse of Psychiatry against Dissenters. Economic and Political Weekly. 7 February 1981;16(6):185, 187–188.
  • Abouelleil, Mohammed; Bingham, Rachel. Can psychiatry distinguish social deviance from mental disorder?. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology. September 2014;21(3):243–255. doi:10.1353/ppp.2014.0043.
  • Abovin-Yegides, Pyotr [Пётр Абовин-Егидес]. Паралогизмы полицейской психиатрии и их соотношение с медицинской этикой [Paralogisms of police psychiatry and their relation to medical ethics]. Поиски [Quests]. 1982 [Retrieved 14 July 2015];(4):221–248. Russian.
  • Adler, Nanci; Gluzman, Semyon [Нэнси Адлер, Семён Глузман]. Пытка психиатрией. Механизм и последствия [Torture by psychiatry. Mechanism and consequences]. Обозрение психиатрии и медицинской психологии имени В.М. Бехтерева. 1992;(3):138–152. Russian.
  • Adler, Nancy; Gluzman, Semyon. Soviet special psychiatric hospitals. Where the system was criminal and the inmates were sane. The British Journal of Psychiatry. December 1993;163(6):713–720. doi:10.1192/bjp.163.6.713. PMID 8306112.
  • Adshead, Gwen. Symposium on psychiatric ethics. Commentary on Szasz. Journal of Medical Ethics. August 2003;29(4):230–232. doi:10.1136/jme.29.4.230. PMC 1733764.
  • Alexéyeff, Sergei. Abuse of psychiatry as a tool for political repression in the Soviet Union. The Medical Journal of Australia. 31 January 1976;1(5):122–123. PMID 1263959.
  • Bebtschuk, Marina; Smirnova, Daria; Khayretdinov, Oleg. Family and family therapy in Russia. International Review of Psychiatry. April 2012;24(2):121–127. doi:10.3109/09540261.2012.656305. PMID 22515460.
  • Bernstein, Norman. Punitive Medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 21 November 1980;244(20):2354. doi:10.1001/jama.1980.03310200078038.
  • Bloch, Sidney. The political misuse of Soviet psychiatry: Honolulu and beyond. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. June 1980 [Retrieved 19 February 2013];14(2):109–114. doi:10.3109/00048678009159364. PMID 6107077.
  • Bloch, Sidney. Psychiatry: An Impossible Profession?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. April 1997;31(2):172–183. doi:10.3109/00048679709073818. PMID 9140623.
  • Bloch, Sidney. Psychiatry as ideology in the USSR. Journal of Medical Ethics. September 1978;4(3):126–131. doi:10.1136/jme.4.3.126. PMID 691016. PMC 1154661.
  • Bonnie, Richard. Political Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union and in China: Complexities and Controversies. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2002 [Retrieved 24 February 2011];30(1):136–144. PMID 11931362.
  • Bonnie, Richard; Polubinskaya, Svetlana. Unraveling Soviet psychiatry. The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. 1999 [Retrieved 15 June 2013];10:279–298.
  • Clark, Fiona. Is psychiatry being used for political repression in Russia?. The Lancet. 11 January 2014;383(9912):114–115. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62706-3. PMID 24422214.
  • Chernyavsky, Georgi [Георгий Чернявский]. Преступники в белых халатах [Criminals in white coats]. In: Taras, Anatoly [Анатолий Tapac] (ed.). Карательная психиатрия [Punitive psychiatry]. Moscow & Minsk: АСТ, Харвест [AST, Harvest]; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5170301723. p. 8–32.
  • Chodoff, Paul. Ethical conflicts in psychiatry: the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. September 1985;36(9):925–928. doi:10.1176/ps.36.9.925. PMID 4065851.
  • Chorny, Roman [Роман Чорный]. Позиция гражданской комиссии по правам человека [The stand of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2010 [Retrieved 16 December 2012];(4):18–24. Russian.
  • Danilin, Alexander [Александр Данилин]. Тупик [Deadlock]. Russkaya Zhizn. 28 March 2008 [Retrieved 21 April 2011]. Russian.
  • Dmitriev, Dmitry [Дмитрий Дмитриев]. Книжная полка Дмитрия Дмитриева [The bookshelf of Dmitry Dmitriev]. Novy Mir [New World]. 2002 [Retrieved 30 January 2013];(7). Russian.
  • Fainberg, Victor. My five years in mental hospitals. Index on Censorship. 1975;4(2):67–71. doi:10.1080/03064227508532427.
  • Faraone, Stephen. Psychiatry and political repression in the Soviet Union. American Psychologist. 37(10):1105–1112. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.10.1105. PMID 7149424.
  • Finlayson, James. Political abuse of psychiatry with a special focus on the USSR: Report of a meeting held at the Royal College of Psychiatrists on 18 November 1986. The Psychiatrist. April 1987;11(4):144–145. doi:10.1192/pb.11.4.144.
  • Foucault, Michel; Laplanche, Jean; Badinter, Robert. L'angoisse de juger [The anxiety of judging]. Le Nouvel Observateur. 30 May 1977;(655):92–126. French.
  • Foucault, Michel; Laplanche, Jean; Badinter, Robert. The anxiety of judging. In: Lotringer, Sylvere (ed.). Foucault Live: Collected Interviews, 1961–1984. Semiotext(e); 1989. tr. 157–178.
  • Foucault, Michel; Laplanche, Jean; Badinter, Robert [Мишель Фуко, Жан Лапланш, Робер Бадантер]. Страх судить. Смертная казнь: преступная личность или опасная система? [Capital punishment. The anxiety of judging: criminal personality or dangerous system?]. Альманах "Неволя" ["Bondage" Almanac]. 2006;(9):58–66. Russian.
  • Fulford, K.; Smirnov, A.; Snow, E.. Concepts of disease and the abuse of psychiatry in the USSR. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 1993 [Retrieved 23 January 2012];162(6):801–810. doi:10.1192/bjp.162.6.801.
  • Gershman, Carl. Psychiatric abuse in the Soviet Union. Society. 1984;21(5):54–59. doi:10.1007/BF02695434. PMID 11615169.
  • Gluzman, Semyon. A personal testament. In: Dudley, Michael; Silove, Derrick; Gale, Fran (eds.). Mental Health and Human Rights: Vision, Praxis, and Courage. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Oxford; 2012. ISBN 0199213968. p. xxv–xxvii.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. История психиатрических репрессий [The history of psychiatric repression]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2013a;(2). Russian.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. Психиатрия: Что делать? [Psychiatry: What to do?]. Новости медицины и фармации [Medicine and Pharmacy News]. 2013b;14(465). Russian.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. Снежневский [Snezhnevsky]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2013c;(6):79–80. Russian.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. Чья смирительная рубашка? [Whose straitjacket is it?]. Новости медицины и фармации [Medicine and Pharmacy News]. 2013d;7(455). Russian.
  • Gluzman, Semyon. Abuse of psychiatry: analysis of the guilt of medical personnel. Journal of Medical Ethics. December 1991;17(Supplement):19–20. doi:10.1136/jme.17.Suppl.19. PMID 1795363.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. Украинское лицо судебной психиатрии [The Ukrainian face of forensic psychiatry]. Новости медицины и фармации [Medicine and Pharmacy News]. 2009a;15(289). Russian.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. Этиология психиатрических злоупотреблений: попытка мультидисциплинарного анализа [The etiology of psychiatric abuses: an attempt at multidisciplinary analysis]. Новости медицины и фармации [Medicine and Pharmacy News]. 2009b [Retrieved 2 January 2013];20(300):18–19. Russian.
  • Gluzman, Semyon [Семён Глузман]. Этиология злоупотреблений в психиатрии: попытка мультидисциплинарного анализа [The etiology of abuses in psychiatry: an attempt at multidisciplinary analysis]. Нейроnews: Психоневрология и нейропсихиатрия [Neuronews: Psychoneurology and Neuropsychiatry]. January 2010a;1(20). Russian.
  • Gostin, Larry. Soviet Psychiatric Abuse: the Shadow Over World Psychiatry. Journal of Medical Ethics. September 1986;12(3):161–162. doi:10.1136/jme.12.3.161-a.
  • Grigorenko, Pyotr [Пётр Григоренко]. О специальных психиатрических больницах (дурдомах) [On special psychiatric hospitals ("madhouses")]. In: Gorbanevskaya, Natalia [Наталья Горбаневская]. Полдень: Дело о демонстрации 25 августа 1968 года на Красной площади [Noon: The case on the demonstration of 25 August 1968 at the Red Square]. Frankfurt-on-Main: Посев [Seeding]; 1970a. Russian. tr. 461–473.
  • Grigorenko, Pyotr. On special psychiatric hospitals ("madhouses"). In: Gorbanevskaya, Natalia. Red Square at Noon. Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1970b. ISBN 0-03-085990-5.
  • Gushansky, Emmanuil [Эммауил Гушанский]. Предисловие к книге Анатолия Прокопенко "Безумная психиатрия" [PrefacetothebookbyAnatolyProkopenkoMad Psychiatry]. In: Taras, Anatoly [Анатолий Tapac] (ed.). Карательная психиатрия [Punitive psychiatry]. Moscow & Minsk: АСТ, Харвест [AST, Harvest]; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5170301723. p. 33–34.
  • Gushansky, Emmanuil [Эммануил Гушанский]. Нужны ли правозащитники в психиатрии? [Are human rights activists needed in psychiatry?]. Российский бюллетень по правам человека [Russian Bulletin on Human Rights]. 1999 [archived 19 January 2013; Retrieved 18 February 2013];(13). Russian.
  • Gushansky, Emmanuil [Эммануил Гушанский]. Нужны ли правозащитники в психиатрии? [Are human rights activists needed in psychiatry?]. Адвокатская палата [Advocatory chamber]. 2010a [Retrieved 12 July 2013];(8):23–25. Russian.
  • Gushansky, Emmanuil (Эммануил Гушанский). Субъективная картина болезни и гуманистические проблемы в психиатрии [Subjective picture of disease and humanistic issues in psychiatry]. Человек (Man). 2000;(2):112–119. Russian.
  • Healey, Dan. Book Review: Robert van Voren, Cold War in Psychiatry. History of Psychiatry. June 2011;22(2):246–247. doi:10.1177/0957154X110220020802.
  • Healey, Dan. Russian and Soviet forensic psychiatry: Troubled and troubling. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. January–February 2014;37(1):71–81. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.09.007. PMID 24128434.
  • Helmchen, Hanfried. Comment on Lara Rzesnitzek (2013) "Early Psychosis" as a mirror of biologist controversies in post-war German, Anglo-Saxon, and Soviet Psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychology. 8 November 2013. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00830. PMID 24265624.
  • Horvath, Robert. Breaking the Totalitarian Ice: The Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR. Human Rights Quarterly. February 2014;36(1):147–175. doi:10.1353/hrq.2014.0013.
  • Ivanova, Alla [Алла Иванова]. Социальная среда и психическое здоровье населения [Social environment and mental health of population]. Социологические исследования [Sociological studies]. 1992;(1):19–31. Russian.
  • Jenkins, Rachel; Lancashire, Stuart; McDaid, David; Samyshkin, Yevgeniy; Green, Samantha; Watkins, Jonathan; Potasheva, Angelina; Nikiforov, Alexey; Bobylova, Zinaida; Gafurov, Valery; Goldberg, David; Huxley, Peter; Lucas, Jo; Purchase, Nick; Atun, Rifat. Mental health reform in the Russian Federation: an integrated approach to achieve social inclusion and recovery. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. November 2007;85(11):858–866. PMID 18038076. PMC 2636246.
  • Joffe, Olimpiad. Perspectives on Soviet Law for the 1980s. American Journal of International Law. July 1984;78(3):728–732.
  • Keukens, Rob; Voren, Robert van. Coercion in psychiatry: still an instrument of political misuse?. BMC Psychiatry. 2007;7(Suppl 1):S4. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-7-S1-S4.
  • Khvorostianov, Natalia; Elias, Nelly. 'Leave us alone!': Representation of social work in the Russian immigrant media in Israel. International Social Work. 2015. doi:10.1177/0020872815574131.
  • Koryagin, Anatoly. World psychiatry: readmitting the Soviet Union. The Lancet. 30 June 1988;2(8605):268–269. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(88)92549-4. PMID 11644351.
  • Koryagin, Anatoly. The involvement of Soviet psychiatry in the persecution of dissenters. The British Journal of Psychiatry. March 1989;154(3):336–340. doi:10.1192/bjp.154.3.336. PMID 2597834.
  • Koryagin, Anatoliy. Compulsion in psychiatry: blessing or curse?. The Psychiatrist. July 1990;14(7):394–398. doi:10.1192/pb.14.7.394.
  • Kovalyov, Andrei [Андрей Ковалёв]. Взгляд очевидца на предысторию принятия закона о психиатрической помощи [View of the eyewitness to the backstory of the adoption of the Mental Health Law]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2007 [Retrieved 28 February 2014];(№ 3):82–90. Russian.
  • Krasnov, Valery; Gurovich, Isaak. History and current condition of Russian psychiatry. International Review of Psychiatry. August 2012;24(4):328–333. doi:10.3109/09540261.2012.694857. PMID 22950772.
  • Kupriyanov, Nikolay [Николай Куприянов]. ГУЛАГ-2-СН [GULAG-2-SN]. In: Taras, Anatoly [Анатолий Tapac] (ed.). Карательная психиатрия [Punitive psychiatry]. Moscow & Minsk: АСТ, Харвест [AST, Harvest]; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5170301723. p. 205–577.
  • Lakritz, Kenneth. Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Psychiatric Times. 4 June 2009.
  • Lambelet, Doriane. The contradiction between Soviet and American human rights doctrine: Reconciliation through perestroika and pragmatism. Boston University International Law Journal. 1989 [archived 3 February 2014];7(61):61–83.
  • Lapshin, Oleg [Олег Лапшин]. Недобровольная госпитализация психически больных в законодательстве России и Соединенных Штатов [Involuntary hospitalization of mental patients in the legislation of Russia and the United States]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2003 [Retrieved 8 July 2011];(4). Russian.
  • Lavretsky, Helen. The Russian Concept of Schizophrenia: A Review of the Literature. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1998 [Retrieved 21 April 2011];24(4):537–557. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033348. PMID 9853788.
  • Leontev, Dmitry [Дмитрий Леонтьев]. Расширить границы нормального [Broadening the boundaries of normality]. Psychologies. 16 April 2010;(47). Russian.
  • Luty, Jason. Psychiatry and the dark side: eugenics, Nazi and Soviet psychiatry. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. January 2014;20(1):52–60. doi:10.1192/apt.bp.112.010330.
  • Lyons, Declan; O'Malley, Art. The labelling of dissent — politics and psychiatry behind the Great Wall. The Psychiatrist. December 2002;26(12):443–444. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.443.
  • Magalif, Alexandr [Александр Магалиф]. Коготок увяз — всей птичке пропасть [Chickens come home to roost]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal The Independent Psychiatric Journal. 2010 [Retrieved 21 April 2011];(1):69–71. Russian.
  • Merskey, Harold. Political neutrality and international cooperation in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics. June 1978;4(2):74–77. doi:10.1136/jme.4.2.74. PMID 671475.
  • Moran, Mark. Historic Visit Documented Abuses, Led to Psychiatric System Reform. Psychiatric News. 3 December 2010;45(23):9, 37. doi:10.1176/pn.45.23.psychnews_45_23_014.
  • Mundt, Adrian; Frančišković, Tanja; Gurovich, Isaac; Heinz, Andreas; Ignatyev, Yuriy; Ismayilov, Fouad; Kalapos, Miklós Péter; Krasnov, Valery; Mihai, Adrian; Mir, Jan; Padruchny, Dzianis; Potočan, Matej; Raboch, Jiří; Taube, Māris; Welbel, Marta; Priebe, Stefan. Changes in the Provision of Institutionalized Mental Health Care in Post-Communist Countries. PLoS One. 8 June 2012;7(6):858–866. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038490. PMID 22715387. PMC 3371010.
  • Munro, Robin. On the Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong and Other Dissenters in China: A Reply to Stone, Hickling, Kleinman, and Lee. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2002b;30(2):266–274. PMID 12108564.
  • Murray, Thomas. Genetic screening in the workplace: ethical issues. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. June 1983;25(6):451–454. doi:10.1097/00043764-198306000-00009. PMID 6886846.
  • Ougrin, Dennis; Gluzman, Semyon; Dratcu, Luiz. Psychiatry in post-communist Ukraine: dismantling the past, paving the way for the future. The Psychiatrist. November 2006;30(12):456–459. doi:10.1192/pb.30.12.456.
  • Park, Young Su; Park, Sang Min; Jun, Jin Yong; Kim, Seog Ju. Psychiatry in Former Socialist Countries: Implications for North Korean Psychiatry. Psychiatry Investigation. October 2014;11(4):363–370. doi:10.4306/pi.2014.11.4.363. PMID 25395966. PMC 4225199.
  • Pashkovsky, Vladimir [Владимир Пашковский]. О клиническом значении религиозно-архаического бредового комплекса [The clinical meaning of religious-archaic delusions]. Социальная и клиническая психиатрия [Social and Clinical Psychiatry]. 2012;22(2):43–48. Russian.
  • Pasko, Grigori [Григорий Пасько]. Шизофрения, или Будьте здоровы! [Schizophrenia, or To your health!]. Index on Censorship. 2007 [Retrieved 1 April 2014];(27). Russian.
  • Pekhterev, Valentine [Валентин Пехтерев]. Ода Институту Сербского [Ode to the Serbsky Institute]. Новости медицины и фармации [Medicine and Pharmacy News]. 2013 [Retrieved 8 February 2014];14(465). Russian.
  • Perlin, Michael. International Human Rights and Comparative Mental Health Law: The Role of Institutional Psychiatry and the Suppression of Political Dissent. Israel Law Review. 2006;39:71–97.
  • Pozharov, Alexei [Алексей Пожаров]. КГБ и партия [The KGB and the Party]. Отечественная история [Domestic history]. 1999;(4):169–174. Russian.
  • Prokopenko, Anatoly [Анатолий Прокопенко]. Безумная психиатрия [Mad psychiatry]. In: Taras, Anatoly [Анатолий Tapac] (ed.). Карательная психиатрия [Punitive psychiatry]. Moscow & Minsk: АСТ, Харвест [AST, Harvest]; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5170301723. p. 187.
  • Pshizov, Vladimir [Владимир Пшизов]. Психиатрия тронулась? [Has psychiatry moved on?]. Альманах "Неволя" ["Bondage" Almanac]. 2006 [Retrieved 29 December 2012];(6):72–85. Russian.
  • Rafalsky, Viktor [Виктор Рафальский]. Репортаж из ниоткуда [Reportage from nowhere]. Воля: журнал узников тоталитарных систем [Unconstraint: the journal of prisoners of totalitarian systems]. 1995 [Retrieved 5 April 2012];(4–5):162–181. Russian.
  • Safonova, Catherine [Екатерина Сафонова]. Если вы не отзовётесь, мы напишем в "Спортлото"! [If you do not respond we will write to the 'sports lottery'!]. Ogonyok. 27 September 1999 [archived 25 May 2013; Retrieved 18 December 2012];(27). Russian.
  • Sagan, Leonard; Jonsen, Albert. Medical Ethics and Torture. Tạp chí Y học New England . June 1976;294(26):1427–1430. doi:10.1056/NEJM197606242942605. PMID 944852.
  • Sartorius, Norman. Revision of the classification of mental disorders in ICD-11 and DSM-V: work in progress. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 2010;16:2–9. doi:10.1192/apt.bp.109.007138.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Отчетный доклад о деятельности НПА России за 2000–2003 гг [The summary report on the activities of the IPA of Russia over 2000–2003]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2004a [Retrieved 20 July 2011];(2). Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Тенденции в отношении к правам человека в области психического здоровья [Trends in the attitude to human rights in the field of mental health]. In: Novikova, A. [А. Новикова] (ed.). Права человека и психиатрия в Российской Федерации: Доклад по результатам мониторинга и тематические статьи [Human rights and psychiatry in the Russian Federation: Report on the results of monitoring and subject articles]. Moscow: Moscow Helsinki Group; 2004b. Russian. ISBN 5-98440-007-3.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Карательная психиатрия в России (рецензия) [Punitive psychiatry in Russia (review)]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2005a [Retrieved 21 April 2011];(1). Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. "Институт дураков" Виктора Некипелова [Institute of fools by Viktor Nekipelov]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2005b [Retrieved 21 April 2011];(4). Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Апология полицейской психиатрии [Apology of police psychiatry]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2007a [Retrieved 20 December 2013];(4). Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Дело Андрея Новикова. Психиатрию в политических целях использует власть, а не психиатры: Интервью Ю.С. Савенко корреспонденту "Новой газеты" Галине Мурсалиевой [The case of Andrei Novikov. Psychiatry for political purposes used by authority, not psychiatrists: Yuri Savenko interviewed by Galina Mursalieva, correspondent of "Novaya Gazeta"]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2007b [Retrieved 26 December 2011];(4):88–91. Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Михаил Осипович (Иосифович) Гуревич [Mikhail Osipovich (Iosifovich) Gurevich]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2009a [Retrieved 4 July 2011];(3). Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. 20-летие НПА России [20th anniversary of the IPA of Russia]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal The Independent Psychiatric Journal. 2009b [Retrieved 20 July 2011];(1):5–18. Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Открытое письмо Президенту Российской Федерации Д.А. Медведеву [The open letter to the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2009c [Retrieved 12 July 2011];(2):5–6. Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Синдром Еникеевой [Enikeyeva's syndrome]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2012 [Retrieved 16 December 2012];(4):84. Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri [Юрий Савенко]. Латентные формы антипсихиатрии как главная опасность [Latent forms of anti-psychiatry as a major threat]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2010 [Retrieved 16 December 2012];(4):13–17. Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri; Bartenev, Dmitry [Юрий Савенко, Дмитрий Бартенев]. Психиатр и юрист о новой инициативе центра им. Сербского [The psychiatrist and lawyer comment a new initiative of the Serbsky Center]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2010 [Retrieved 12 July 2011];(1):85–86. Russian.
  • Savenko, Yuri; Perekhov, Alexei. The State of Psychiatry in Russia. Psychiatric Times. 13 February 2014.
  • Savenko, Yuri; Vinogradova, Lyubov. Латентные формы антипсихиатрии как главная опасность [Latent forms of anti-psychiatry as a major threat]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal. 2005;№ 4.
  • Scarnati, Rick. The prostitution of forensic psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 1980;8(1):111–113. PMID 7225584.
  • Schmidt, Victoria; Shchurko, Tatsiana. Children's rights in post-Soviet countries: The case of Russia and Belarus. International Social Work. September 2014;57(5):447–458. doi:10.1177/0020872814537852.
  • Shchukina, Elena; Shishkov, Sergei [Елена Щукина, Сергей Шишков]. Актуальные правовые вопросы судебно-психиатрической экспертизы [Relevant legal issues of forensic-psychiatric expert evaluation]. Rossiyskiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [Russian Psychiatric Journal]. 2009;(6):24–28. Russian.
  • Smythies, John. Psychiatry and the neurosciences. Psychological Medicine. August 1973;3(3):267–269. doi:10.1017/S0033291700049576. PMID 4125732.
  • Sobchak, Anatoly [Анатолий Собчак]. Предисловие к книге Николая Куприянова "ГУЛАГ-2-СН" [PrefacetothebookbyNikolayKupriyanovGULAG-2-SN]. In: Taras, Anatoly [Анатолий Tapac] (ed.). Карательная психиатрия [Punitive psychiatry]. Moscow & Minsk: АСТ, Харвест [AST, Harvest]; 2005. Russian. ISBN 5170301723. p. 6–7.
  • Styazhkin, Viktor. Diagnosis of a Paranoiac (Delusional) Personality Development in the Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination. In: Popov, Yuri (ed.). The Bekhterev Review of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1992 [Retrieved 21 April 2011]. ISBN 0-88048-667-8. tr. 65–68.
  • Stone, Alan. The Ethical Boundaries of Forensic Psychiatry: A View from the Ivory Tower. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 1984;12(3):209–219. PMID 6478062.
  • Stone, Alan. The Ethical Boundaries of Forensic Psychiatry: A View from the Ivory Tower. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. June 2008;36(2):167–174. PMID 18583690.
  • Stone, Alan. Psychiatrists on the side of the angels: the Falun Gong and Soviet Jewry. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2002;30(1):107–111. PMID 11931357.
  • Svetova, Zoya [Зоя Светова]. Злоупотребление психиатрической властью в России – свидетельствует пресса [The abuse of psychiatric power in Russia, as witnessed by the press]. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal [The Independent Psychiatric Journal]. 2007 [Retrieved 8 August 2011];(2):87–89. Russian.
  • Szasz, Thomas. 'More cruel than the gas chamber'. New Society. 16 December 1971:1213–1215.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Pharmacracy in America. Society. July/August 2004;41(5):54–58. doi:10.1007/BF02688218.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Psychiatric diagnosis, psychiatric power and psychiatric abuse. Journal of Medical Ethics. September 1994;20(3):135–138. doi:10.1136/jme.20.3.135. PMID 7996558. PMC 1376496.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Psychiatry and dissent. The Spectator. 4 March 1978a [archived 23 February 2014];240(7809):12–13. PMID 11665013.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Secular humanism and "scientific psychiatry". Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 25 April 2006;1(1). doi:10.1186/1747-5341-1-5. PMID 16759353.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Soviet psychiatry: the historical background. Inquiry. 5 December 1977:4–5.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Soviet psychiatry: its supporters in the West. Inquiry. 2 January 1978b:4–5.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Soviet psychiatry: winking at psychiatric terror. Inquiry. 6 February 1987:3–4.
  • Szasz, Thomas. The Therapeutic State: The Tyranny of Pharmacracy. The Independent Review. Spring 2001 [Retrieved 20 January 2012];V(4):485–521.
  • Szasz, Thomas. Toward the therapeutic state. The New Republic. 11 December 1965:26–29.
  • Tarasov, Alexander [Александр Тарасов]. Психиатрия: контроль над сознанием или тем, что от него осталось [Psychiatry: the control over consciousness or what is left of it]. Альманах "Неволя" ["Bondage" Almanac]. 2006 [Retrieved 10 March 2014];(9):154–159. Russian.
  • Tobin, John. Editorial: political abuse of psychiatry in authoritarian systems. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. June 2013;30(2):97–102. doi:10.1017/ipm.2013.23.
  • Voren, Robert van [Роберт ван Ворен]. От политических злоупотреблений психиатрией к реформе психиатрической службы [From political abuses of psychiatry to the reform of psychiatric service]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2013b;(2). Russian.
  • Voren, Robert van [Роберт ван Ворен]. Отзыв на статью об Институте Сербского [The response to an article on the Serbsky Institute]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2013c;(5). Russian.
  • Voren, Robert van [Роберт ван Ворен]. Украинская психиатрия: уроки прошлого и настоящего [Ukrainian psychiatry: the lessons of the past and present]. Вестник Ассоциации психиатров Украины [The Herald of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association]. 2012;(2). Russian.
  • Voren, Robert van. Comparing Soviet and Chinese Political Psychiatry. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2002 [Retrieved 27 February 2011];30(1):131–135. PMID 11931361.
  • Voren, Robert van. Political Abuse of Psychiatry—An Historical Overview. Schizophrenia Bulletin. January 2010a;36(1):33–35. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbp119. PMID 19892821.
  • Voren, Robert van [Роберт ван Ворен]. История повторяется и в политической психиатрии [History repeats itself in political psychiatry too]. Новости медицины и фармации [Medicine and Pharmacy News]. 2009b;(303). Russian.
  • Zakal, Yuri [Юрій Закаль]. Портрет українського психіатра двадцять років тому [The portrait of the Ukrainian psychiatrist twenty years ago]. Нейроnews: Психоневрология и нейропсихиатрия [Neuronews: Psychoneurology and Neuropsychiatry]. December 2013;10(55):33–35. Ukrainian.
  • Zile, Zigurds. Embarrassing in form, promising in substance. Soviet law in theory and practice. Wisconsin Law Review. March/April 1985:349.

Newspapers

  • Лишённые наследства. Законно ли запрещают рожать пациенткам психоневрологических интернатов? [The deprived of descent. Is it legal to ban patients of psychoneurological internats from bearing children?]. Novaya Gazeta. 12 December 2005 [Retrieved 23 April 2012]. Russian.
  • Ряд врачей предлагают вернуть советский закон о психиатрии [A number of doctors offer to restore Soviet mental health law]. Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 15 November 2012 [Retrieved 18 February 2014]. Russian.
  • Soviets to trim list of 'mental patients': End of abuses would mean reclassifying 2 million people. The Arizona Republic. 12 February 1988.
  • Asriyants, Sergei [Cергей Асриянц]. 24 апреля – Юрий Савенко и Любовь Виноградова (онлайн конференции) [24 April–Yuri Savenko and Lyubov Vinogradova (online conferences)]. Novaya Gazeta. 24 April 2009 [archived 2 December 2013; Retrieved 18 February 2014]. Russian.
  • Asriyants, Sergei; Chernova, Natalia [Cергей Асриянц, Наталья Чернова]. Юрий Савенко и Любовь Виноградова (интервью) [Yuri Savenko and Lyubov Vinogradova (interview)]. Novaya Gazeta. 17 February 2010 [archived 24 December 2013; Retrieved 18 February 2014]. Russian.
  • Billington, Michael. Every Good Boy Deserves Favour. Người bảo vệ . Monday 19 January 2009 [Retrieved 21 April 2011].
  • Blomfield, Adrian. Asylums used as 'tools of repression'. The Daily Telegraph. 13 August 2007 [Retrieved 8 January 2014].
  • Davidoff, Victor. Soviet Psychiatry Returns. The Moscow Times. 13 October 2013 [Retrieved 9 January 2014].
  • Franks, Alan. Tom Stoppard and Andre Previn on Every Good Boy Deserves Favour. Thời đại . 22 December 2008 [archived 16 October 2012].
  • Glasser, Susan. Psychiatry's Painful Past Resurfaces in Russian Case; Handling of Chechen Murder Reminds Many of Soviet Political Abuse of Mental Health System. The Washington Post. 15 December 2002. Russian text: Glasser, Susan [Сьюзен Глассер]. inoSMI. Болезненное прошлое российской психиатрии вновь всплыло в судебном деле Буданова [Psychiatry's Painful Past Resurfaces in Russian Case; Handling of Chechen Murder Reminds Many of Soviet Political Abuse of Mental Health System]; 15 December 2002 [Retrieved 12 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Gushansky, Emmanuil [Эммауил Гушанский]. Право на насилие [The right to violence]. Троицкий вариант — Наука [Troitsky Variant — Science]. 23 November 2010 [Retrieved 6 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Gushansky, Emmanuil [Эммауил Гушанский]. Язык как лечебное средство [Language as a remedy]. Троицкий вариант — Наука [Troitsky Variant — Science]. 14 September 2010 [Retrieved 20 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Mishina, Irina [Ирина Мишина]. Во власти диагноза: 60 процентов современных лидеров страдают разными формами психических отклонений [In the power of a diagnosis: 60 percent of current leaders are suffering from various forms of mental abnormalities]. Наша версия [Our Version]. 26 December 2011 [Retrieved 3 March 2014]. Russian.
  • Mishina, Irina [Ирина Мишина]. Раздвоение личностей: Почему преступников считают здоровыми, а общественных деятелей — законченными психами? [Dual personalities: Why are criminals considered healthy, while public figures are considered complete madmen?]. Наша версия [Our Version]. 17 December 2012 [Retrieved 3 March 2014]. Russian.
  • Reich, Walter. The world of Soviet psychiatry. Thời báo New York . 30 January 1983 [Retrieved 12 January 2014]. Russian text: Reich, Walter [Уолтер Рейч]. inoSMI. Мир советской психиатрии [The world of Soviet psychiatry] [archived 11 February 2012; Retrieved 12 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Rodriguez, Alex. Russian dissidents called mentally ill. Chicago Tribune. 7 August 2007 [Retrieved 2 May 2011].
  • Schodolski, Vincent. Soviet Psychiatric Practices Inspected by U.S. Delegation. Chicago Tribune. 28 February 1989 [Retrieved 22 June 2014].
  • Smulevich, Anatoly; Morozov, Pyotr [Анатолий Смулевич, Пётр Морозов]. Психиатрию нельзя выдумать из головы или из учебников [Psychiatry cannot be invented in mind or textbooks]. Дневник психиатра [The Psychiatrist's Diary]. 2014 [archived 24 April 2012]:1–4. Russian.
  • Sokolov, Maxim [Максим Соколов]. Путин абсолютен [Putin is absolute]. Izvestia. 5 October 2007 [Retrieved 1 April 2014]. Russian.
  • Spencer, Charles. Every Good Boy Deserves Favour at the National Theatre, review. The Telegraph. 14 January 2010 [Retrieved 21 April 2011].
  • Trehub, Hanna. Political Madness: Dutch Sovietologist Robert van Voren speaks about Soviet repressive psychiatry and its surviving offshoots. The Ukrainian Week. 22 February 2013 [Retrieved 6 January 2014].
  • Vyzhutovich, Valeri [Валерий Выжутович]. Когда болит душа [When the soul hurts]. Rossiyskaya Gazeta [Russian Newspaper]. 3 November 2011 [Retrieved 4 January 2013]:Week number 5624 (248). Russian.

Websites

  • The Complete Review. Every Good Boy Deserves Favour by Tom Stoppard; 2009 [Retrieved 21 April 2011].
  • National Theatre of Great Britain. Every good boy deserves favour; January 2010 [Retrieved 21 April 2011].
  • Ukrainian Independent Information Agency. В Украине слишком много психбольниц: пресс-конференция С. Глузмана [There are too many psychiatric hospitals in Ukraine: S. Gluzman's press conference]; 4 October 2008 [Retrieved 27 July 2011]. Russian.
  • Russian News Service [Русская служба новостей]. Врачи предлагают вернуть советский закон о психиатрии [Doctors offer to restore Soviet mental health law]; 15 November 2012 [Retrieved 14 December 2013]. Russian.
  • Agamirov, Karen [Карэн Агамиров]. Radio Liberty. Человек имеет право. Карательная психиатрия: постигнет ли Китай участь Советского Союза, исключенного в 1983 году из членов Всемирной Ассоциации психиатров, и подтягивается ли к ним Россия? [Man has the right. Punitive psychiatry: will China suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union expelled from members of the World Psychiatric Association in 1983, and is Russia moving closer up to them?]; 25 January 2005 [Retrieved 18 February 2014]. Russian.
  • Agamirov, Karen [Карэн Агамиров]. Radio Liberty. Человек имеет право. Право на защиту от карательной психиатрии [Man has the right. The right to defence against punitive psychiatry]; 17 July 2007 [Retrieved 18 February 2014]. Russian.
  • Baburin, Vladimir [Владимир Бабурин]. Radio Liberty. Человек имеет право. Возобновился процесс по делу Игоря Сутягина. Инженер Вадим Лашкин, написавший в 70-е годы письмо в защиту Солженицына, попавший в психлечебницу, не может добиться сегодня реабилитации [Man has the right. The trial in the case of Igor Sutyagin has resumed. Engineer Vadim Lashkin, who in the 70s wrote the letter in defense of Solzhenitsyn and was taken to a psychiatric hospital, cannot today get rehabilitation]; 31 October 2001 [Retrieved 16 December 2012]. Russian.
  • Baburin, Vladimir [Владимир Бабурин]. Radio Liberty. Человек имеет право. Выставка "Разрушенные жизни. Разоблачения психиатрии" [Man has the right. The exhibition "Destroyed lives. Psychiatry exposed."]; 10 August 2004 [Retrieved 22 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Demina, Nataliya [Наталия Демина]. Polit.ru. Круг лиц, которые пытаются "купить" эксперта, очень широк [The circle of persons who try to bribe an expert is very broad]; 15 January 2008 [Retrieved 13 February 2014]. Russian.
  • Fedenko, Pavel [Павел Феденко]. The BBC Russian Service. Был бы человек, а диагноз найдется [A diagnosis is quickly found to attribute a person with]; 9 October 2009.
  • Gorelik, Kristina [Кристина Горелик]. Radio Liberty. Человек имеет право. О злоупотреблениях в области психиатрии [Man has the right. On abuses in psychiatry]; 17 September 2003 [Retrieved 24 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Kekelidze, Zurab [Зураб Кекелидзе]. Dozhd. Главный психиатр России: Раньше геев били втихаря, а теперь это обсуждают [The chief psychiatrist of Russia: Gays were previously beaten on the sly, and now their being beaten is discussed]; 26 January 2013a [Retrieved 31 January 2014]. Russian.
  • Kekelidze, Zurab [Зураб Кекелидзе]. Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia. Кому выгоден миф о карательной психиатрии? (Пресс-конференция проф. З.И. Кекелидзе в связи с направлением на принудительное лечение оппозиционера Михаила Косенко) [For whom is the myth of punitive psychiatry profitable? (Press conference of prof. Z.I. Kekelidze in connection with sending oppositionist Mikhail Kosenko to compulsory treatment]; 22 October 2013b [Retrieved 9 August 2014]. Russian.
  • Kondratev, Fedor [Фёдор Кондратьев]. Переправа [Pereprava]. Савенко под крышей Подрабинека. Актуальное интервью проф. Ф. Кондратьева [Savenko under the roof of Podrabinek. Actual interview of Prof. F. Kondratev]; 26 March 2014 [Retrieved 27 April 2014]. Russian.
  • Ovchinsky, Vladimir [Владимир Овчинский]. Radio Liberty. Российская психиатрия: чего изволите? [Russian psychiatry: how may I serve you?]; 29 June 2010 [Retrieved 29 December 2012]. Russian.
  • Peters, Irina [Ирина Петерс]. Radio Liberty. В Литве живут с верой в НАТО [Lithuania lives, trusting in NATO]; 28 March 2014 [Retrieved 29 March 2014]. Russian.
  • Podrabinek, Alexander [Александр Подрабинек]. Grani.ru. Синдром Кондратьева [Kondratev's syndrome]; 3 March 2014 [Retrieved 10 March 2014]. Russian.
  • Polyakovskaya, Elena; Gorelik, Kristina [Елена Поляковская, Кристина Горелик]. Radio Liberty. Психиатрия как инструмент принуждения [Psychiatry as a tool of coercion]; 10 October 2013 [Retrieved 10 October 2013]. Russian.
  • Reiter, Svetlana [Светлана Рейтер]. Lenta.ru. За чертой беспросветности [Below the hopelessness line]; 29 October 2013. Russian.
  • Schultz, Frederick. The University of Toledo Digital Repository. Andropov and the U.S. media: a comparative study of Yuri Andropov's premiership of the USSR as viewed through the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. In: Theses and Dissertations. Paper 710.; 2011 [archived 1 July 2015].
  • Valovich, Tatiana [Татьяна Валович]. Radio Liberty. Владимир Пшизов [Vladimir Pshizov]; 13 March 2003 [Retrieved 10 March 2014]. Russian.

Audio-visual material

  • Russia: [TV documentary]Тюремная психиатрия [Prison Psychiatry]; 2005 [archived 19 July 2013; Retrieved 21 April 2011]; tr. duration 00.43.11. Russian.
  • Institute of Modern Russia, USA: [TV documentary]They Chose Freedom: The Story of Soviet Dissidents [Retrieved 20 February 2014]; tr. duration 00.22.21 (part 1), 00.22.38 (part 2), 00.21.10 (part 3), 00.22.31 (part 4). English. Rissian version: Institute of Modern Russia, USA: [TV documentary]Они выбирали свободу": фильм о советских диссидентах [They Chose Freedom: The Story of Soviet Dissidents] [archived 21 February 2014; Retrieved 20 February 2014]; p. duration 00.21.18 (part 1), 00.22.32 (part 2), 00.21.12 (part 3), 00.22.40 (part 4). Russian.
  • C-SPAN, USA: [TV interview]Psychiatric Practices in the Soviet Union. Guests were members of the delegation which visited Soviet psychiatric facilities and patients in February of 1989 [Retrieved 20 February 2014]; p. duration 01.01.05. English.
  • Boltyanskaya, Natella. Voice of America. Episode nine — punitive psychiatry (part one); 16 March 2016; p. duration 00.16.25.
  • Boltyanskaya, Natella. Voice of America. Episode ten — punitive psychiatry (part two); 16 March 2016; p. duration 00.16.15.

Further reading[edit]

  • Alexeyeva, Ludmilla (1987). Soviet dissent: contemporary movements for national, religious, and human rights. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Wesleyan. ISBN 0-8195-6176-2.
  • Alexeyeva, Ludmilla [Людмила Алексеева] (1992). История инакомыслия в СССР: новейший период [History of dissent in the USSR: contemporary period] (in Russian). Vilnius—Moscow: Весть [News]. (The Russian text of the book)
  • Antébi, Elizabeth (1977). Droit d'asiles en Union Soviétique. Paris: Editions Julliard. ISBN 2-260-00065-7.
  • Bloch, Sidney; Reddaway, Peter (1977). Russia's political hospitals: The abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Victor Gollancz Ltd. ISBN 0-575-02318-X.
  • Bloch, Sidney; Reddaway, Peter (1985). Soviet psychiatric abuse: the shadow over world psychiatry. Báo chí Westview. ISBN 0-8133-0209-9.
  • Bloch, Sidney; Reddaway, Peter [Сидней Блох, Питер Реддауэй] (1996). Диагноз: инакомыслие [Diagnosis: dissent]. Карта: Российский независимый исторический и правозащитный журнал [Karta: Russian Independent Historical and Human Rights Journal] (in Russian) (№13–14): 56–67. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  • Fireside, Harvey (1982). Soviet Psychoprisons. W. W. Norton & Công ty. ISBN 0-393-00065-6.
  • Gluzman, Semyon (1989). On Soviet totalitarian psychiatry. Amsterdam: International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry. ISBN 90-72657-02-0.
  • Korotenko, Ada; Alikina, Natalia [Ада Коротенко, Наталия Аликина] (2002). Советская психиатрия Советская психиатрия: Заблуждения и умысел [Soviet psychiatry: fallacies and wilfulness] (in Russian). Kiev: Издательство "Сфера" ["Sphere" publishers]. ISBN 966-7841-36-7.
  • Medvedev, Zhores; Medvedev, Roy (1979). A Question of Madness: Repression by Psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Norton. ISBN 0-393-00921-1.
  • Podrabinek, Alexander (1980). Punitive medicine. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. ISBN 0-89720-022-5. Russian text: Podrabinek, Alexander [Александр Подрабинек] (1979). Карательная медицина [Punitive medicine] (PDF) (in Russian). New York: Издательство "Хроника" [Khronika Press]. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 March 2014.
  • Prokopenko, Anatoly [Анатолий Прокопенко] (1997). Безумная психиатрия: секретные материалы о применении в СССР психиатрии в карательных целях [Mad psychiatry: classified materials on the use of psychiatry in the USSR for punitive purposes] (in Russian). Moscow: "Совершенно секретно" ["Top Secret"]. ISBN 5-85275-145-6.
  • Smith, Theresa; Oleszczuk, Thomas (1996). No Asylum: State Psychiatric Repression in the Former U.S.S.R. New York City: New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-8061-X.
  • Soviet Political Psychiatry: The Story of the Opposition. London: International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry, Working Group on the Internment of Dissenters in Mental Hospitals. 1983.
  • Voren, Robert van (2009). On Dissidents and Madness: From the Soviet Union of Leonid Brezhnev to the "Soviet Union" of Vladimir Putin. Amsterdam—New York: Rodopi Publishers. ISBN 978-90-420-2585-1.


visit site
site

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Saint-Martin-des-Champs, Seine-et-Marne – Wikipedia tiếng Việt

Saint-Martin-des-Champs Hành chính Quốc gia Pháp Vùng Île-de-France Tỉnh Seine-et-Marne Quận Provins Tổng La Ferté-Gaucher Liên xã none as of 2007 Xã (thị) trưởng Lysiane Germain (2008-2014) Thống kê Độ cao 112–186 m (367–610 ft) Diện tích đất 1 10,42 km 2 (4,02 sq mi) INSEE/Mã bưu chính 77423/ 77320 Saint-Martin-des-Champs là một xã ở tỉnh Seine-et-Marne, thuộc vùng Île-de-France ở miền bắc nước Pháp. Mục lục 1 Dân số 2 Xem thêm 3 Tham khảo 4 Liên kết ngoài Người dân ở Saint-Martin-des-Champs được gọi là Saint-Martiniens . Điều tra dân số năm 1999, xã này có dân số là 552. Xã của tỉnh Seine-et-Marne 1999 Land Use, from IAURIF (Institute for Urban Planning and Development of the Paris-Île-de-France région (tiếng Anh) Map of Saint-Martin-des-Champs on Michelin (tiếng Anh) x t s Xã của tỉnh Seine-et-Marne Achères-la-Forêt  · Amillis  · Amponville  · Andrezel  · Annet-sur-Marne  · Arbonne-la-Forêt  · Argentières  · Armentières-en-Brie  · Arville  · Aubepierre-Ozou

Saint-Victoret – Wikipedia tiếng Việt

Tọa độ: 43°25′18″B 5°14′03″Đ  /  43,4216°B 5,23416°Đ  / 43.4216; 5.23416 Saint-Victoret Saint-Victoret Hành chính Quốc gia Pháp Vùng Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Tỉnh Bouches-du-Rhône Quận Istres Tổng Marignane Liên xã Marseille Provence Métropole Xã (thị) trưởng Claude Piccirillo (2001-2008) Thống kê Độ cao 15–120 m (49–394 ft) (bình quân 26 m/85 ft) Diện tích đất 1 4,73 km 2 (1,83 sq mi) INSEE/Mã bưu chính 13102/ 13730 Saint-Victoret là một xã ở tỉnh Bouches-du-Rhône, thuộc vùng Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur ở miền nam nước Pháp. Xã của tỉnh Bouches-du-Rhône Bài viết chủ đề Pháp này vẫn còn sơ khai. Bạn có thể giúp Wikipedia bằng cách mở rộng nội dung để bài được hoàn chỉnh hơn. x t s Wikimedia Commons có thêm hình ảnh và phương tiện truyền tải về Saint-Victoret x t s Xã của tỉnh Bouches-du-Rhône Aix-en-Provence  · Allauch  · Alleins  · Arles  · Aubagne  · Aureille  · Auriol  · Aurons  · La Barben  · Barbentane  · Les Baux-de-Provence  · Beaurecueil