Nassir Ghaemi and I have gone three rounds on "The Truth." I
appreciate his concerns about the dangers of relativism though, I
remained worried about "the truth" when employed by fanatics. In my
own practice of behavioral/developmental pediatrics, parents who come
in with "the truth" about their child's behavior problem often invoke
a reductionistic purely biological explanation and are expecting
medication to treat their kid. I'm ready to invoke a biological
component to the problem behavior. Even environmental influences of
parenting and school are ultimately expressed biologically through
brain chemistry. But just offering medication when there are
potentially effective non-drug interventions is morally dubious.

I instinctively feel that Nassir supports what I'm saying and that
his "pluralism" model (which I think someday I will need a personal
explanation to fully understand) includes this point of view. In the
meantime, let me end by saying drug companies themselves and in
concert working with physicians are not bad. This industry and its
relationship with physicians, though, are in desperate need of a new
set of rules and regulations -- not unlike our current banking and
finance system -- if doctors' credibility and professionalism are to
survive.