It seems that in the current practice of psychiatry, the fashion for almost every kind of nervous and mental disorder is pharmacotherapy. There are “psychotropic” and “neuroleptic” tranquilizers, energizers (can brain function be “energized”?), antidepressants, hallucinogenic chemicals, and other drugs, all representing the latest in psychiatric treatment. But while the chemists produce more rings and side chains to the already existing compounds, perhaps we should take a second look at the impact of this new wave of pharmacological therapy on clinical practice. Fashions in medicine, as in clothes and cars, can lead too readily to a discard of the usable and useful. Proven therapeutic methods may be brushed aside for the sake of boarding the bandwagon. With such easy acceptance of newer agents no time is taken to evaluate their worth. This illusion of progress can be damaging as dubious rationalizations (needed to reinforce the illusion), often cover up failures in clinical judgment and integrity. Psychiatrists today are pounded by impressive reprints of scientific articles, extravagant brochures, and eloquent detail men offering samples and promoting the therapeutic merits of various pharmacological products. For example, it is claimed that a certain antidepressant drug will “eliminate” or “reduce” the need for electroshock treatment (ECT), or serve as a useful alternative. The sales literature is replete with implications that ECT is to be avoided, that it is old-fashioned, and that it is almost contraindicated when compared to an available drug which can be prescribed in a convenient dosage regimen. Such an appeal (especially if the psychiatrist or other physician is not geared to administer ECT personally), is of course, very persuasive. Just have the patient take the pill and await the desired results. A brochure on one of the very newest antidepressants states that of a certain number of psychotic patients suffering from in-