Talk:Psychiatric survivors movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

article is neutral, it describes "Psychiatric survivors movement" and what it is about. It does not appear to have a "pro" or "con" bias. If someone wanted to read the other side of the coin then one should look for that.

Might discuss criticisms of movement by Satel and others, along with "psychiatric survivors'" response to such criticisms. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Scientology links? 2 cleanup 3 Bias 4 merge suggestion 5 Recovery Movement (movements within movements)

[edit] Scientology links?

I believe Scientology has Psychiatry and Psychology as ideological enemies, any further information on this group in this regard? --220.239.179.128 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

The beginning still needs it. Midgley 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC

this is exactly what we need to break the predjudice an maltreatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.9.222 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Smacks of bias and agenda, which is more about skewing the delivery of objective information than truly about sharing knowledge on a level playing field. This in contrary to the point of Wikipedia. Either the article should have a rewrite to be fair to psychiatry while objectively describing the movement against it, or it should be considered for removal.

Barry 1:24 PST, June 11 2006

I think this (the bias) might well be true, but to suggest removing the article on this important and significant subject smacks of a bias of its own. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The language of the article itself seems fairly nuetral, but some of it needs more qualification. Removed quotation marks from "help". Added some words to denote speaker. Changed "torture" to some other words. --Zach Chidester 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge suggestion

I've recently expanded the Consumer/Survivor Movement article. It overlaps with this one. I suggest merging both in to one page, which can give an overview as well as covering the different origins and philosophies of each part. An umbrella term for this, that seems to be in common use (in the US at least), could be Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement. Although this doesn't actually include any mention of psychiatry or mental health services. Any other suggestions? EverSince 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Given no objections or alternative suggestions, I'm planning to move the content of this article to Consumer/Survivor/Ex-patient Movement, which will be created by changing the title of Consumer/Survivor Movement. A page specifically for survivor movement could always be split off again of course. EverSince 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the content of some of this - that which seems most useful/verifiable - to the talk page of consumer/survivor movement. Unless objections raised here, I'm planning to effectively replace this page with that one, under that title, in a few days. EverSince 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This merge happened, after there had been no objections or alternative suggestions raised. But, despite the merge tag since December and related talk, it's just been reverted without any discussion. I've asked the editor concerned to engage in talk rather than just undoing other's work which has carefully followed wikipedia guidelines.

I don't personally have any problem with the term 'psychiatric survivors movement', and think it has some advantages, but I think there should be a central page using the broadest umbrella title, incorporating the range of views and experiences and identities of those involved (and e.g. there could be a specific section on the psychiatric survivors movement as it differs from other parts of the wider movement) with offshoot pages only developing if necessary. From the content currently on this page, it does not seem to currently be necessary. If you think it is necessary, please could you explain why? Regarding the more cumbersome term (admittedly), quickly searching Google shows:

• (From the Capstone Report 2001 (PDF)) (p.s. I've not read through it fully yet but this report looks really excellent and thorough as a source for lots of relevant issues)

"The Consumer/Survivor Movement(see footnote 3)

Led by those who refer to themselves variously as “ex-patients,” “consumers,” “ex-psychiatric inmates,” and “psychiatric survivors” the consumer/survivor movement has gained momentum over the past 30 years. The different uses of terminology can be confusing, but each term reflects a slightly different ideology. All of the descriptors commonly used—ex-patients, consumers, ex-psychiatric inmates, and psychiatric survivors—reflect a general distaste for labels like “mental patient” and “schizophrenic.” Members of the movement prefer people centered language (Chamberlin, 1990; McLean, 1995; Reidy, 1994; Van Hoorn, 1992). “Consumer” and “ex-patient” suggest identification with the current mental health system that more radical members of the movement would like to reject (McLean, 1995). Those who refer to themselves as “expsychiatric inmates” or “psychiatric survivors” feel as though they have overcome psychiatric oppression and distance themselves from the dominant paradigm (Chamberlain, 1990; McLean, 1995).

(footnote 3) The consumer/survivor movement is also known as the consumer/survivor/ex-patient or "c/s/x" movement."

• Random other pages just whatever popped up:

"The seminal 1999 Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health specifically urges all mental health facilities to not only adopt a recovery philosophy into their programs, but also work actively with members of the consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement to further implement individual practices that will support self-determination, autonomy, empowerment, and general enhancement of the quality of lives of people recovering from mental illness."[1]

"As we say in the consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement: “Nothing about us without us.”"[2]

"This week's Newsweek includes this prominent piece on the tremendous gains made over the past few decades by the national consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement which, in all its diversity, has successfully made personal rights and self-determination, and healing and recovery as priority goals for local and state mental health systems across the nation."[3]

If there are no alternative suggestions raised in due course, I will merge this page into the umbrella page again. EverSince 11:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It seems like User:Ombudsman's edit was done without taking the time to read the talk page or earlier history where the merge tag sat on the page for a week. Vees 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume so much. If you two are familiar with the Wikipedia, then you must be aware that the double standards that are enforced hereabouts have tended to encourage, rather than prevent, abusiveness and harassment, particularly on discussion pages related to certain medical articles, rendering content discussions much more difficult to enter into than necessary. Such caveats shouldn't be necessary, but the point boils down to the fact that common curtesy dictates that content should be the focal point here. That would be much appreciated. Speaking of which, regardless of the alternative titles floated for this article, the psychiatric survivors movement is most commonly referred to as such, so the redirect must be discarded. The inappropriate redirect is not an isolated case, as the Wiki has been plagued by an unconscionable pattern of having medical articles redirected away from pages with common usage titles where useful content should be found. Medical articles should be carefully and systematically monitored, and not just because misleading or outright deceptive redirects discourage collaborative editing. Alternative titles clearly tend to negatively skew both the quality of edits, the type of content, and the very subject matter of articles and specific contributions, in part because search engine results generally will not yield articles that are redirected to obscurely titled pages. This problem (which, sadly, often seems to result from deliberate deception and/or [[Wikiturfing]), has cropped up repeatedly across a broad swath of the Wiki's medical articles. Allowing such redirects to proliferate unabated would be a grave disservice to the Wiki community and general readership. In the case of this particular article, it should be noted that dysfunctional clinical responses to clear cases of a patient's medical condition can usually be traced to inadequate knowledge concerning underlying (non-psychiatric) medical conditions and drug contraindicators. An inappropriate diagnosis, especially in the case of inherently subjective psychiatric labels, will likely preclude any chance of properly assessing the actual causes of a patient's deteriorating medical condition. For example, atypical antipsychotic prescriptions are strongly associated with preventable medical conditions and/or deaths due to underlying but unrecognized medical conditions. These knowledge gaps, black holes in many instances, have contributed to unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates for psychiatric consumers and survivors -- much like the editorial condition of this article that existed while it was blanked and redirected. All too often, a myopic focus on subjective psychiatric labels --which are defined politically by committee, rather than scientifically-- will obscure the reality of a non-psychiatric medical diagnosis, which is far more likely to be objectively defined. Similarly, an inappropriate article title should be defined by reality, rather than designed to conform with Wikiality. Rather than mirroring the enormous medical disaster caused by the off-label Zyprexa (pardon the redirect) marketing campaign, the Wiki should reign in the growing medical article redirect problem. Unless there is an overwhelming need or irrefutable justification, medical articles should not be cloaked, undermined or skewed via alternative title redirects. Ombudsman 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to have events clear, the merge tag was on the article from 19th December until the redirect on 30th January, with a brief interlude of a week where it was a deletion tag. Having said that, I'm personally OK to start over to establish consensus on the best article titles and structure. I do personally agree that wiki policies can sometimes seem to allow (relatively mild) "abusiveness and harassment" as you put it, that can make fair content discussions harder to engage with. I agree that content, and people's access to it, should be the most important consideration.

I don't feel the case for the need for this page has been made still, esp. with its current content and sourcing, when there is a multiply-sourced umbrella page which includes this subject and terminology as one key part (which can be expanded/highlighted further of course). I've provided examples and sources for this umbrella term in common usage. I see that you feel that redirecting this title to that umbrella page would leave things "cloaked, undermined or skewed", whereas I feel it would allow all these issues and perspectives to be covered on one page, thus facilitating people's access to all the content. So I do feel the case for this page needs to be made still, in terms of both arguments and sources. EverSince 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Having checked Naming conflict help-page, Googling English-language sites excluding term "wikipedia":

"psychiatric survivor movement" then "psychiatric survivors movement" gives 385 pages then 184 pages = 569 (searches done separately so don't know if there'll be overlap in those page counts, not sure how to combine into one search...)

"consumer survivor movement" gives 683 pages. "user survivor movement" gives 204 pages (this seems to find the phrase whether or nnot it uses hyphens/slashes. Total 887

"consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement" gives just 157 pages

(Without the "movement" term, just "psychiatric survivor" gives 27,400. "consumer/survivor" gives 62,200. "consumer/survivor/ex-patient" gives 375.)

"Offical" usage, and/or usage by those described in these terms, seems to vary so much it seems hard to assess. I think varies between countries too. Perhaps consumer/survivor movement is the best compromise, allowing sources and info to be easily added to one place? On the other hand I do accept that many feel the psychiatric survivor movement is a sufficiently different movement from the consumer movement that they shouldn't be joined together into consumer/survivor terminology. But it does seem to be the case that the boundaries are very blurred, in practice and in the organization of sources, so that the umbrella terms do seem useful. What do you/people think? EverSince 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just adding another source on definitions/terminology I stumbled on, A Matter of Definition: Acknowledging Consumer/Survivor Experiences through Narrative it's by the same woman as the above "Capstone report". EverSince 10:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Just noticed it's part of special issue of Radical Psychology on The Survivor's Voice (2006) EverSince 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the long delay with no further comments, and the sources above, it seems that Consumer/Survivor or Consumer/Survivor Movement is the simplest term in most common usage (known as User/Survivor in the UK). Please could anyone state soon whether they have a preference for either of these, or think it should be somethign else. If no further comments, I intend making one of these the page to hold the content of both Psychiatric Survivors Movement and Consumer/Survivor/Ex-patient Movement. I suggest then waiting to see how one single page develops and fills out, to then decide if a particular subsection should be broken off into a separate page again.

I wonder whether some qualifying parentheses should be added to the title, like Consumer/Survivor (mental health), but many don't like the use of health/medical terms, and qualifiers like (psychiatric) relate it only to the one profession of psychiatry. A paragraph could be added to the generic page Consumer to explain this particular usage in this context. EverSince 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The current article title is clearly the more commonly used term, per google, and even more so if a close variation, psychiatric survivor movement, is taken into account. The proposal to use an alternative UK colloqualism not only doesn't make any sense, it would make the article more difficult to find online. Moreover, slashes are not quite proper English (e.g., spoken English), unless the language has mysteriously taken a steep downward spiral in the UK. Ombudsman 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ombudsman, I do'nt know how you can blithely deny what is listed just immediately above - more Google pages for the consumer/survivor terminology. And I did not propose using the "user/survivor" instead, I was just noting that this was an equivalent phrase also in use (not that you can necessarily say that American terminology is actual and non-American is colloquial). And I'm not aware that there's a Wikipedia issue with using slashes? I understand you have an arbitration decision against you for tendentiously disrupting medically-related articles in the past - I'm not sure if you're doing that now but I think it's fair to say you did when you reverted the previous long-suggested move without any discussion and with an edit marked as minor and a derogatory edit comment.

Having said that, I can't be bothered pursuing this personally, partly because I see, as I've previously mentioned, that some who identify themslves as psychiatric survivors want nothing to do with the consumer terminology. I do think it's a shame this page doesn't have more information or directly relevant sources. For the timebeing I'm going to work on a Consumer/Survivor Movement page but maybe I'll come back to this one and add stuff here too or suggest a merge again, if no one else has in the meantime. EverSince 10:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. the above stats were obtained searching for the terms in the "exact phrase" box of advanced google search; if you just put them in the top box you get many more hits, but the same kind of ratio or even more so. EverSince 10:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this merger is pretty straightforward. The consumer survivor movement is much more notable than the psychiatric survivors movement and so, the first should absorb the second. IMO, the psychiatric survivors movement itself toes the line of non-notability. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• In researching this topic for a mental health policy course, it seems to be that the two movements, while certainly related, are slightly different. The psychiatric survivors movement appears to be more adamantly against psychiatric interventions. The consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement is more moderate in its views (as much as a movement can be said to have views), often advocating for consumers working in partnership with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. Mmrace 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Melanie

• Hmm, the discussion seems to have stagnated a bit. Would anyone be incredibly opposed to merging the articles and seeing what happens? Cause if nobody has major issues, I'd like to try it and see how it turns out. The caveat that Mmrace cited could easily be integrated into the section. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The survivor movement and the consumer movement are somewhat distinguishable in the way Mmrace describes, and have somewhat different histories. But the term consumer/survivor (/expatient) is used to refer to both movements, to both moderate and extreme factions. The question for Wikipedia is whether both the overall term and the constitute terms need separate articles - and on balance I would agree that, for now at least, they probably don't. EverSince 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway so can we go ahead and create a single Consumer/Survivor Movement page for now? And only split off later if necessary? EverSince 14:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery Movement (movements within movements)

The problem of discussing the Psychiatric survivors movement being merged in to the article on the Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement is that the meaning of “Psychiatric survivor” has an anti-psychiatry connotation to it; while the meaning of Consumer has a pro-psychiatry connotation to it. While Psychiatric survivors can be grouped in with the category of mental health consumers, the term consumer implies empowerment or choice. I would suggest that the term “Recovery Movement” be used to describe the overall discussion. As psychiatric rehabilitation worker associations like USPRA claim to be the leaders of the recovery movement. By this they are referring to the recovery model with its’ connection to the Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement and the Psychiatric survivor Movement While the two belong separate from another, the two terms to have connection to each other, they are similar but different and have a symbiotic relationship. The term anti-psychiatry however only fits in to a smaller degree as one can read in articles on the history of the consumer movement by Judi Chamberlin and others who have written of such, that anti-psychiatry groups hold opposition to psychiatry but offer very little in terms of support or assistance to “persons in recovery” this is the void filled by the Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement, the Psychiatric survivor Movement, the recovery model, the clubhouse model, psychosocial rehabilitation, and the recovery movement--Recovery Psychology (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)