We had a good meeting this week. We discussed the Johnstone chapter and people seemed to be in agreement about the difficulties we face when we feel that we have no other option but to use psychiatric diagnoses, even if just as an administrative tool. We questioned it's role in legitimising psychiatry, as a metric for funding, as a scientific tool to base treatment and prognosis on, and it's impact on the individual and the system around them when a diagnosis is given by an 'expert'.

We seemed to all be in agreement that psychiatric diagnoses are flawed at their best and abusive at their worst. However, we came up against the same quandary, so what do we do now? Although we can think critically, how to we act critically? 

The Johnstone chapter suggested psychological formulation as an alternative. However, the group spoke more about the need for a political voice and how clinical psychology was not well represented in that way. We felt that our representative bodies were more concerned with cosying up with psychiatry than questioning it. As with always, we are left with more questions than answers. But, I think, it's better to know what you don't know than to think you know it all.....

Finally, if people would like to suggest topics for future discussions then please email me, aidanjakelly[at]gmail.com.