Researchers from Australia, writing “from a consumer-recovery perspective” in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing find that “the consumer movement has developed to such a degree that we now have a much more extensive body of material upon which to critique EBP (evidence-based practice) and inform and support the expansion of EBP … This expansion will ultimately enable services to practice in a manner consistent with the key characteristics of supporting personal recovery.”
I know the intention is good, but it would be great not to be reduced to market model of being “a consumer.”
Really! Shows how far the religion of the free market has penetrated even medical thinking. Consumer recovery! Wouldn’t that mean spending within your means?
In psychiatric treatment, if consumers recover, than doctors must be vendors.
If you see ‘author information’, and not just what country the journal is published in, it leads me to think the authors are from New Zealand.
Not that the paper is worth a pinch of (censored).
“evidence” based? Just more lies from a mendacious group of thugs, the psych nurses.
Someone told these people when they were young, that people like me had a brain disease. This was enough “evidence” for them to then spend their lives coercing people like me for living.
I don’t need these people to tell me what recovery is. I don’t want their “services”, but like all good thugs, they stand ever at the ready to impose their “services” on people.
I would advise all persons not to participate in any psychiatric nursing research. It can be very dangerous. You can lose your rights very fast.
If, per chance, you feel you have the freedom to refuse consent to be in their little “studies”.
Anyone who classes coerced people as “consumers”, commits a further offense against those already victimized people.
It seems to me that the authors of this article have decided “If you can’t beat them, join them.” For years I have ranted at anyone who will listen about the bogusness of so-called “evidence-based practices” in mental health. First, I think one has to ask the questions “whose evidence?” and “evidence of what?” But one also has to look at the impetus behind the status quo wanting to create these so-called EBPs; I think it’s basically to perpetuate cookie-cutter ways of responding to people without considering or addressing their indiviudal histories and circumstances, and to make poly-pharmacy a routinized practice.
Personally I’d like to see the “evidence” that psychiatric nurses are even real nurses. And the “evidence” that psychiatrists are real doctors.
I think this is something we expected to take on faith. Like most things in the Church of Lie-chiatry.
It’s sad really. The researchers lives are wasted, and other innocent lives who never asked to be sucked into their vortex of quackery are ruined.
I’d feel sorry for them if they weren’t human rights abusers. I think we need to turn this “research” paper into toilet paper.
This online service prints customized toilet paper maybe I will get some made up http://www.printedtp.com/
What do you think? DSM toilet paper?
I don’t condemn the authors’ intention. From the paper:
“Theoretically, all interventions can be researched to determine their effectiveness. The choice of what is actually investigated is dependent on a number of factors, not least the availability of resources and funding for the proposed research. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry is a key player. Kitcher (2003) stated that elitism in the form of communities of scientists, or scientists in associa- tion with privileged outsiders, such as the funders of research or industry, deciding what to research and how, is no longer an acceptable basis for setting our research agenda. Rather, he advocates for an ‘enlightened democracy’, where the agenda is set based on input from all significant perspectives in society.”
Heck, yes! Treatments should be studied for real-life effectiveness. Long-term followup is essential. RCTs financed by industry for their purposes are completely inadequate.
Isn’t real-life effectiveness, or lack of it (actually, the opposite: generation of iatrogenic illness) the subject of Anatomy of an Epidemic?