The issue is definitely underdiscussed.  I've been criticized by libertarians just for saying that "mental illness does not exist".  Here is Szasz's summary statement from his website, www.szasz.com

Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

1. "Myth of mental illness." Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.

    

2. Separation of Psychiatry and the State. If we recognize that "mental illness" is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior. Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a "wall." At the same time, the State ought not to interfere with mental health practices between consenting adults. The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.

    

3. Presumption of competence. Because being accused of mental illness is similar to being accused of crime, we ought to presume that psychiatric "defendants" are mentally competent, just as we presume that criminal defendants are legally innocent. Individuals charged with criminal, civil, or interpersonal offenses ought never to be treated as incompetent solely on the basis of the opinion of mental health experts. Incompetence ought to be a judicial determination and the "accused" ought to have access to legal representation and a right to trial by jury.

    

4. Abolition of involuntary mental hospitalization. Involuntary mental hospitalization is imprisonment under the guise of treatment; it is a covert form of social control that subverts the rule of law. No one ought to be deprived of liberty except for a criminal offense, after a trial by jury guided by legal rules of evidence. No one ought to be detained against his will in a building called "hospital," or in any other medical institution, or on the basis of expert opinion. Medicine ought to be clearly distinguished and separated from penology, treatment from punishment, the hospital from the prison. No person ought to be detained involuntarily for a purpose other than punishment or in an institution other than one formally defined as a part of the state's criminal justice system.

    

5. Abolition of the insanity defense. Insanity is a legal concept involving the courtroom determination that a person is not capable of forming conscious intent and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for an otherwise criminal act. The opinions of experts about the "mental state" of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court, exactly as the opinions of experts about the "religious state" of defendants are inadmissible. No one ought to be excused of lawbreaking or any other offense on the basis of so-called expert opinion rendered by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a person of responsibility for an otherwise criminal act on the basis of inability to form conscious intent is an act of legal mercy masquerading as an act of medical science. Being merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a moral and legal matter, unrelated to the actual or alleged expertise of medical and mental health professionals.

    

6. In 1798, Americans were confronted with the task of abolishing slavery, peacefully and without violating the rights of others. They refused to face that daunting task and we are still paying the price of their refusal. In 1998, we Americans are faced with the task of abolishing psychiatric slavery, peacefully and without violating the rights of others. We accept that task and are committed to working for its successful resolution. As Americans before us have eventually replaced involuntary servitude (chattel slavery) with contractual relations between employers and employees, we seek to replace involuntary psychiatry (psychiatric slavery) with contractual relations between care givers and clients.

Thomas Szasz March 1998

When you look at some issues, such as depression, that they can show what physcially causes it, I can't deny what's in front of my face. Not to mention, I've dated someone who had depression issues and it's odd to see a confident PhD candidate suddently break into tears in WalMart. Seriously. But, much like religion, government and other large groups, I think there are some things that psychology blows out of proportion.  For example, I think psych is WAY to quick to medicate children. I say that from experience as I was on ritilan when I was in middle school. To be frank, I chalk it up to the fact that my step-mother didn't care enough to actually take the time to deal with me, so I was medicated to make things easier for her. I think that's the same reasons most children are medicated. It's easier for the parents to medicate their kids than to actually be parents. (For the record, parents have done more to keep me from wanting to have kids than any kids I've ever seen). For every child that may legitimately have an issue, they medicate 50,000 that don't. I believe, like religion and government, they create reasons to keep themselves around and take all the money and resources they want in the process.

 It's seems like "disease" and "illness" are rather arbitrary labels, but probably can be useful.  Human beings simply find labels to be useful for the communication of concepts.  That's not to imply that they are never unhelpful.  But if you tell somebody you suffer from depression, they instantly have some idea what you are talking about, right? 

Here is a video of Szasz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQegsqYhuZE&feature=related (about 5 minutes)

This is a very interesting discussion.

Unfortunately I happen to know a fair bit about psychiatry from life experience etc.

A question I’d pose is about how is insanity defined? How does one determine whether somebody is suffering from a mental illness or a mental disorder?

Is somebody defined as being mentally ill by the standards of society or as a means of keeping psychiatrists in business?

This is a question which has fascinated me for some years.

Here’s another question If somebody is mentally ill is it their responsibility or society’s

Oh & people might want to check out the work of R D Lang & his anti psychiatry movement.

If psychiatry can be proven by brain scans showing abnormal activity in 'mentally ill' patients, would this make Szasz's arguement fall apart?  What if ADHD can be shown on scans this way?  Could it be proven that the patient has no choice in the matter, that the only way to fix it is with medication/therapy?  Same with an alcoholic, if you could show and quantify the brain's physical reactions to such things.

If we know that depression is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in one's brain, does that still classify it as a mental illness under Szasz's defination?  Its mind vs. brain, where the brain is physical and the mind is abstract. From what I gathered from Szasz so far, the mislabeling of mental illness occuring in the mind is his target. 

This is tricky.   I cannot concieve of how the mind at some level is not physical in nature, if only defined by a certain arrangement of energy and matter, maybe even outside newtonian physics and in the realm of the quantum.  If this is the case it cannot be concluded that the mind is separate from the brain or non-physical.  This would make it theoretically possible to define behavior by assigning a physical definition to what is "normal" or "ill" in somebody.

I think what is  really important is the removal of the concept of authority and coercion,  the tendancy most of us have to think that somebody special (preferably ourselves) gets to decide for others how they will be defined in accord with some sort of "society" consensus to which everybody must aquiese.    That's the illness.

It’s a truism to say that without government that psychiatrists wouldn’t be as powerful & they’d have to respond far more to the market etc.

I find it curious that in just about every western country its mandatory for transsexuals like me to have to obtain letters from two consultant psychiatrists to get the chop. Its pretty obvious that it has been the lobbying of the psychiatrists which has moved governments to make it mandatory that I have to seek permission tio do what I like with my own body. Its kind of stupid when considering that what I have between my legs has never worked properly & makes me feel worse about myself etc, which is the case with just about the same deal with every other male to female transsexual.