Being a founding member of the Critical Psychiatry Network

The Critical Psychiatry Network (CPN), of which I am a founding member, was formed in 1999 (see eg. my article). The group was brought together by Pat Bracken and Phil Thomas (see eg. their guest post on my Thinking Differently about Mental Health blog). Joanna Moncrieff, who has been co-chair since CPN’s beginning, had formed a Critical Psychiatry group as a trainee at the Institute of Psychiatry (see her interview with Awais Aftab). 

I came to my critical position having given up my medical training for 8 years between pre-clinical and clinical training (see my Mad in America radio interview). I completed my psychiatric training as a lecturer at Sheffield University, where Alec Jenner was professor of psychiatry (see another past post). He had been a biomedical psychiatrist, although always retaining an interest in philosophy (see yet another past post), having been motivated to find the biochemical explanation for manic-depressive illness (see eg. his book chapter). His research unit lost its funding from the Medical Research Council, and he became interested in Italian democratic psychiatry (see eg. past post), becoming a friend of Franca Ongaro Basaglia, wife of Franco Basaglia. She represented the interests of the mentally ill in the Italian Senate.

I had started my critical psychiatry website (initially called the anti-psychiatry website - see eg. past post), so therefore welcomed the formation of the Critical Psychiatry Network. I organised three CPN annual conferences, leading to my edited Critical Psychiatry book (see eg. past post). I started my critical psychiatry blog (now called Thinking Differently about Mental Health and before that Relational Psychiatry - see past post) over sixteen years ago (see another past post).

My interview with Awais Aftab sums up my views about psychiatry (see past post). As I say in that interview, there is little evidence that critical psychiatry has really changed psychiatry (see eg. another past post). The difficulty of coping with indoctrination in psychiatric training has been compounded by the dysfunction and fragmentation of services. But psychiatry does need people who are prepared to lead the necessary change. I think that was how some of us saw the foundation of CPN but maybe we now need people to follow through on those intentions. 

Membership

My parents met at Eld Lane Baptist church, Colchester, as did my grandparents on my father’s side. I was baptised into the Baptist Church at Beechon Grove, Watford. But I gave up my Christian faith after University, which included a year in my Cambridge Tripos in Religious Studies (see eg. previous post). 

Nonetheless the membership of the Church provided an identity which it was difficult to give up. And the mystery of life which creates religion of course remains the same. I have tried to apply those limits to our knowledge to psychiatry, even though mainstream psychiatry promotes a wishful thinking to solutions to mental health problems (see eg. my Thinking Differently about Mental Health blog).

No longer a member of the Church of my origins, although recognising the value of social membership, I have been thinking about my current memberships. In retirement I have had time to become a member at the Oval (see eg. previous post). As a Watford grammar school boy, my membership of Trinity College, Cambridge, remains valuable (see eg. another previous post). I am still a member of the mental health Trust that I worked for despite its difficulties over recent years, from which it seems to be recovering (see eg. yet another previous post). I have always been motivated by the rights of people with mental health problems when I was working, as is Mind, of which I am also a member (see eg. see post on my Thinking Differently about Mental Health blog).

Gull Wing bridge

The Gull Wing bridge in Lowestoft opened last September (see Suffolk County Council post). I saw it today on my visit to Lowestoft, where I used to work (see eg. previous post).

A symbol of positive change for Lowestoft.

Defending freedom of speech

I ended a previous post with the following sentence, “How one separates those that are speaking from the position of parrhesia or manipulating 'freedom to speak out' for their own ends is not easy”. Commitment to principles and their expression can create negative consequences and opposition. As Wikipedia says (see entry), exercising the right to free speech carries special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions when necessary for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals.

Donald Trump has recently signed an executive order that is entitled 'Restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship'. Having experienced an ideological attack myself on my views about psychiatry (see eg, my BMJ letter) I agree that freedom of speech should not be manipulated for ideological reasons. But free speech can't be about having the right to say whatever one wants. In fact, Trump could be said to be using the promotion of free speech for his own ideological ends. 

Governments clearly have a right to engage with social media companies about controversial content, as has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court (see article). Although I have exercised my right to block Elon Musk on X, very few people probably do. I used to try not to be oversensitive about blocking people but now tend to do so with those that seem to be promoting violence, whereas Trump has pardoned violent Jan 6 offenders.