> She was given some anti-psychotics and sent away

But that confirms the main point of the experiment, which was that people who didn't need psychiatric treatment were given it anyway.

It's only of secondary importance that the prescribed treatment changed from hospitalization in 1973 to drugs in 2004. The primary point is that there was no objective way to determine who genuinely needed treatment. She didn't, but was diagnosed anyway.

This objection is so obvious that she must have addressed it in the book. Do you remember if she did?

I happen to have the book handy.

> HERE’S WHAT’S DIFFERENT: I was not admitted. This is a very significant difference. No one even thought about admitting me. I was mislabeled but not locked up. Here’s another thing that’s different: every single medical professional was nice to me. Rosenhan and his confederates felt diminished by their diagnoses; I, for whatever reason, was treated with palpable kindness.

Seems she would disagree with your assessment that being prescribed some likely-harmless pills is the same as losing your freedom.

There's also a section earlier where she presents an argument the actual finding of the study is that mental healthcare is not set up to handle adversarial or dishonest patients, which is still a problem and a tough one to solve.