Utter rot.
That was rude. I apologize.
I first ran into Szasz's theories as a naive college sophomore back in the early 70's. (along with M Scott Peck, Leo Buscaglia (hey, I had breakfast with him once) and Herman Hesse). They sounded good, how dare society discriminate against people just because they might be a little different anyway!
Then I got out in the real world and met actual mentally ill people, and I couldn't believe how wrong he'd got it. I dismissed him as one of the .5% that are crackpots in any field. What I didn't do is go back and read any of his own writings.
Until this weekend. I read "The Myth of Mental Illness" and skimmed "The Myth of Psychotherapy."
Thomas Szasz was a Freudian psychoanalyst, born in 1920, so he must have been out of college in 1942 or so, did his MD and analysis, and actually worked from 1950 to 1954. He predated ALL of the advances in psychology and most of those in medicine. He worked only 4 years, from 1950 to 1954, then he wrote his books and never looked back. He was on staff at a psychoanalytic institute, which means the only patients seen there were very rich, very white, 3/4 Jewish, and their symptoms mild unhappiness. He never saw anybody actually ill (if he saw patients at all. There is no mention in his books of him actually doing therapy, but I assume he must have done some.)
His theory is simpler than I realized. To paraphrase slightly, "all illness is by definition bodily illness. Therefore there can be no mental illness." That's it. No data, no experiments, no clinical experience, just that bold assertion.
The rest of his book mostly attacks Freud's conception of conversion hysteria, a type of patient that was no longer being seen even back when Szasz was writing. But he doesn't talk about research or case studies, he just argues the logic of Freud's writings. All in all, the books are a completely intellectual and academic approach. There is no feel for the patient, nor indication he actually met patients. His one description of schizophrenia (those who impersonate famous personalities) shows a lack of familiarity with serious mental illness.
So. I'm sorry I was not tactful, but having done some research I remain convinced he is not a credible authority on real mental illness.