Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:59:26.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychiatric power: A personal view

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Pat Bracken*
Affiliation:
Centre for Mental Health Care and Recovery, Bantry General Hospital, Bantry, Co Cork, Ireland

Extract

One of the most important questions facing psychiatry today concerns its relationship to the emerging international service user movement. I believe that this movement presents not only the greatest challenge to psychiatry, but also the greatest opportunity. As it becomes more organised and influential this movement is starting to play a major role in shaping the sort of questions that are being asked about mental health services and their priorities. Yet there is limited reflection in our profession about how we, as doctors, might engage positively with it. It seems that while we are comfortable working with individuals and organisations who accept the medical framing of mental problems, we are less willing to contemplate working with critical service users. These are people who reject the medical model because they feel harmed by a system that describes their problems using the language of psychopathology. If we are serious about having an inclusive debate on mental health we will have to overcome this impasse. We need to entertain the idea that people who reject the medical framing of their problems are nevertheless legitimate stakeholders. It is time that we learned how to talk to them and to listen to their ideas. The user movement, with its substantial critical component, is not going to go away.

One of the most important elements of the relationship between psychiatric services and the people who use them is the reality of psychiatric power. Many critical service users accept that legally sanctioned interventions may be necessary when individuals lose capacity to care for themselves and perhaps put themselves or others at risk. However they do not accept the fact that the Mental Health Act in Ireland gives sole authority to doctors to take decisions on such interventions without any obligation to consult other interested parties.

Type
Opinion
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Katsakou, C, Priebe, S. Patients' experiences of involuntary hospital admission and treatment: a review of qualitative studies. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2007, 16: 172–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Priebe, S, Amos, T, Leese, Met al.Patients' views and readmissions 1 year after involuntary hospitalisation. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 94: 4954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Szasz, T. The medicalization of everyday life. New York: Syracuse University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
4.Porter, R. A social history of madness: Stories of the insane. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987.Google Scholar
5.Porter, R. Madness: A brief history. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
6.Roth, M, Kroll, J. The reality of mental illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986Google Scholar
7.Turner, EH, Matthews, AM, Linardatos, Eet al.Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. NEJM 2008; 358: 252–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kirsch, I, Deacon, BJ, Huedo-Medina, TBet al.Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kirsch, I. The Emperor's new drugs. Exploding the antidepressant myth. London: The Bodley Head; 2009.Google Scholar
10.Moerman, D. Meaning, medicine and the ‘placebo effect’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.McAllister-Williams, RH. Do antidepressants work? A commentary on “Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration” by Kirsch et al. Evidence Based Mental Health 2008; 11: 6668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Leucht, S, Corves, C, Arbter, Det al.Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Lancet, 2009; 373: 3134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Tyrer, P, Kendall, T. The spurious advance of antipsychotic drug therapy. Lancet 2009; 373: 45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Bracken, P. Thomas, P. Postpsychiatry: mental health in the postmodern world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Mental Health Commission. A recovery approach within the Irish mental health services. A framework for development. Dublin: MHC; 2008.Google Scholar
16.Warner, R. Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model? The Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Goss, C, Moretti, F, Mazzi, MA, Del Piccolo, L, Rimondini, M, Zimmermann, C. Involving patients in decisions during psychiatric consultations. Br J Psych 2008; 193: 416421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Fiorillo, A, De Rosa, C, Del Vecchio, Vet al.How to improve clinical practice on involuntary hospital admissions of psychiatric patients: suggestions from the EUNOMIA study. Eur Psychiatry 2011; 26(4): 201207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Sibitz, I, Scheutz, A, Lakeman, R, Schrank, B, Schaffer, M, Amering, M. Impact of coercive measures on life stories: qualitative study. Br J Psych 2011; 199: 239244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed