Background: As has been evaluated in a previous paper, Thomas S. Szasz redoubled his attacks against R. D. Laing in a series of articles which were published in The New Review (TNR) during the 1970s. Laing, however, consciously decided not reply to Szasz, a task taken up instead by Leon Redler on behalf of the Philadelphia Association (PA).
Aims/objective: The main purpose of this paper is to shed light on the motives which led to Laing to decline to take part in TNR debate. Secondly, I evaluate the impact this had on the writing of Szasz in his widely read book, Antipsychiatry. Quackery squared, published in 2009.
Methods: In order to gain a balanced perspective of the issues involved, I review all oral and written sources which I have been able to locate, including correspondence with mental health professionals who met Laing and Szasz in person.
Results and conclusions: My conclusion is that Laing and members of PA would have preferred for Szasz to meet Laing in person to discuss antipsychiatry. However, Szasz opted not to see Laing personally when he traveled to London, whilst Laing decided not to reply to Szasz's harsh criticisms either in public or in print. As a result, the debate on antipsychiatry was brought to an unsatisfactory close, only to be reopened by Szasz in his book on antipsychiatry, published long after Laing's death (1989), and hence requiring others to respond in his memory.
Keywords: Laing; Redler; Szasz; antipsychiatry; existential analysis.