Finally, in an effort to investigate the higher attrition rate for the placebo patients in the follow-up phase, Rappaport did this analysis: he threw out the four worst scores in the chlorpromazine/off group, and with this smaller sample size, there were now no significant differences between the never-medicated group and the patients randomized to drug who then stopped taking the medication during the follow-up phase. Rappaport also threw out the five worst scores in the chlorpromazine/on group, but even with this manipulation, the significant differences in outcomes between the placebo/off and chlorpromazine/on groups didn’t disappear.
Herein lie answers to most of the questions posed at this beginning of this article. Yes, the term is useful. No, it is not ambiguous. Yes, it is clear which usage to follow. No, it is not subject to degrees. In this last regard, to be clear, one may of course have a strong critique of psychiatry without wanting to get rid of it—but in that case one is “ critical psychiatry,” not “ anti psychiatry.” The same is true of people who call themselves antipsychiatry while taking the position, for example, that they only want to get rid of nonconsensual psychiatry, as vitally important as such an advance would be. To fathom why I am saying this, look at comparable political terms in other areas—terms such as “antiracism” and “anti-sexism.” No one, for example, would say that they are avidly antiracist but that being so does not imply that they want to stop all racism, just “non-consensual racism.” Nor would anyone say they are “anti-ableist” while meaning it is okay if people are ableist privately—that they are only against ableism that is institutionally organized, that they have no objection to other types.