terms of the relationship between providers of treatment and those receiving it. Contemporary issues include freedom versus coercion, nature versus nurture, and the right to be different. Critics of antipsychiatry from within psychiatry itself object to the underlying principle that psychiatry is by definition harmful. Most psychiatrists accept that issues exist that need addressing, but that the abolition of psychiatry is harmful. Medical professionals often consider anti-psychiatry movements to be promoting mental illness denial, and has been compared with conspiracy theories. History Precursors The first widespread challenge to the prevailing medical approach in Western countries occurred in the late 18th century. Part of the progressive Age of Enlightenment, a "moral treatment" movement challenged the harsh, pessimistic, somatic (body-based) and restraint-based approaches that prevailed in the system of hospitals and "madhouses" for people considered mentally disturbed, who were generally seen as wild animals without reason. Alternatives were developed, led in different regions by ex-patient staff, physicians themselves in some cases, and religious and lay philanthropists. This "moral treatment" was seen as pioneering more humane psychological and social approaches, whether or not in medical settings; however, it also involved some use of physical restraints, threats of punishment, and personal and social methods of control. As it became the establishment approach in the 19th century, opposition to its negative aspects also grew. According to Michel Foucault, there was a shift in the perception of madness, whereby it came to be seen as less about delusion, i.e. disturbed judgment about the truth, than about a disorder of regular, normal behaviour or will. Foucault argued that, prior to this, doctors could often prescribe travel, rest, walking, retirement and generally engaging with nature, seen as the visible form of truth, as a means to break with artificialities of the world (and therefore delusions). Another form of treatment involved nature's opposite, the theatre, where the patient's madness was acted out for him or her in such a way that the delusion would reveal itself to the patient. Thus the most prominent therapeutic technique became to confront patients with a healthy sound will and orthodox passions, ideally embodied by the physician . The "cure" involved a process of opposition, of struggle and domination, of the patient's troubled will by the healthy will of the physician. It was thought the confrontation would lead not only to bring the illness into broad daylight by its resistance, but also to the