Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41536702›Full record

ArticleHealth and human rights2025

Without Informed Consent: The Global Export of a Failed Paradigm of Care.

Robert Whitaker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and human rights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Robert WhitakerJournalist in Cambridge, United States, and publisher of madinamerica.com, a website that reports on mental health.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discourse around health as a human rights issue usually focuses on access to medical treatment. However, the "right to health" begins with the right to informed consent about the merits of a treatment, which has been lacking as a US-constructed "disease" model of psychiatric care has been exported around the globe. The narrative that supported the adoption of the disease model told of how major psychiatric disorders were due to chemical imbalances in the brain, which could be treated by a second generation of psychiatric drugs that fixed those imbalances, much like "insulin for diabetes." Randomized clinical trials had proven that antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other psychiatric drugs were safe and effective. However, missing from this narrative of medical progress were three key facts: that investigations failed to validate the chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders; that studies of long-term outcomes regularly failed to show a benefit for the medicated patients; and that this model of care has led to poor public health outcomes in the United States and other developed countries. The principle of informed consent in medicine can be expanded to include the obligation of a medical specialty to be a reliable narrator of its own research, which provides a framework for understanding the violation of human rights that occurred with the exporting of a disease model of care to a global population.

Indexed as

Human RightsInformed ConsentMental DisordersRight to HealthGlobal HealthHealth Services AccessibilityHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41536702
PMCPMC12799049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.