What counts as evidence in contemporary debates about antipsychotic efficacy? Current research in the fields of psychiatry, public health, and the social sciences continues to cast doubt upon the efficacy of antipsychotic medications, but patient testimonies illuminating the intersection of psychotic experience and the psychiatric injunction to adhere are largely missing from research about psychotropic medications’ intended and actually reported effects. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in an inpatient psychiatric ward and the community mental health network of Dublin, Ireland, this article explores the ways in which mental health patients are actively engaged in an ongoing process of experimenting with their psychopharmaceuticals, often in the pursuit of an idiosyncratically medicated subjectivity. Joining larger debates about the epistemologically plural nature of evidentiary claims regarding psychopharmaceutical efficacy, this article seeks to foreground the dialogue between clinicians and patients, the latter of whom offer invaluable insights regarding the experience of living with psychosis.

中文翻译：

---

“味道像秩序”：抗精神病药效和药物主观性的精神病学证据

在有关抗精神病功效的当代辩论中，有什么可以作为证据？目前在精神病学，公共卫生和社会科学领域的研究继续使人们对抗精神病药物的功效产生怀疑，但有关精神药物的研究在很大程度上缺乏说明精神病经验和坚持的精神病禁令相交的患者证词。预期和实际报告的效果。利用住院精神病房的人种学现场调查以及爱尔兰都柏林的社区心理健康网络，本文探讨了心理健康患者积极参与正在进行的心理药物实验过程的方式，通常是在追求特质的过程中药物主观性。