Many of the remarks of others replying here I agree with. The one point that strikes me is that the article seems to reflect the position of people who just don’t understand the word “recovery” in a helpful sense: the article states for example; “Peers are trained to share their own personal experiences of recovery from mental illness and open doors that otherwise would remain closed due to the stigma and shame associated with mental illnesses”. That is the definition used by those who buy the medical model. The “recovery” used by former psychiatric inmate’s means not recovery from “mental illness”, but recovery from the “treatment”. The existing drive for peer certification has become a strategic thrust on the part of those advocating the status quo to divide and conquer the current and former psychiatric inmate population and its efforts to restore their civil rights and lives.