Why a rights-based approach is not anti-psychiatry

Cosgrove, Lisa; Jureidini, Jon

doi:10.1177/0004867419833450

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, many of the leaders within the WHO and in the Global Mental Health movement remain steadfast in framing emotional distress within an intraindividual, biomedical model, and dismiss critiques of this dominant model. For example, the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , featured a point/counterpoint between researchers who supported a rights-based focus, including Gill (2019) and Cosgrove and Jureidini (2019), and those who dismissed this approach as “anti-psychiatry” (see e.g., Dharmawardene & Menkes, 2019).…”

Section: Global Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global health, human rights, and neoliberalism: The need for structural frameworks when addressing mental health disparities.

Herrawi¹,

Logan²,

Cheng³

et al. 2022

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we argue that the field of psychology—and the psy-disciplines generally—need to embrace an interdisciplinary approach if they are to be relevant and contribute to global social justice initiatives. We focus on two such initiatives: The Global Mental Health movement and calls for increasing access to mental health services for immigrants. We suggest that a stronger focus on the upstream causes of ill-health, a deeper appreciation for the ways in which neoliberalism deflects attention away from these upstream determinants, and a greater engagement with the field of human rights and other disciplines will lead to more substantive gains in population mental health.

show abstract

Section: Global Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global health, human rights, and neoliberalism: The need for structural frameworks when addressing mental health disparities.

Herrawi¹,

Logan²,

Cheng³

et al. 2022

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tension between proponents of the CRPD and rights-based approaches on one side and entrenched psychiatric and pharmaceutical interests on the other, has also played out through public statements and in medical journals. For example, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, featured a point/counterpoint between researchers who supported the rights-based focus in mental health policy and practice, including Gill ( 2018 ) and Cosgrove and Jureidini ( 2019 ), and those who dismissed the approach as “anti-psychiatry” (see e.g., Dharmawardene and Menkes, 2018 ). In addition, when a special issue of the journal World Psychiatry (the official journal of the WPA) featured several articles calling for the CRPD to be amended, particularly to preserve forced treatment (see e.g., Appelbaum, 2019 ), six organizations of people with psychosocial disabilities issued the open letter quoted above [European Network of (Ex-) Users Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP), 2019 ].…”

Section: Co-option Of Consumer Survivor Ex-patient and Psychosocial D...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychiatrization of Resistance: The Co-option of Consumer, Survivor, and Ex-patient Movements in the Global South

Logan¹,

Karter

2022

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines contemporary examples of psychiatrization as a tool of disciplinary control and repression, focusing on new research on the co-option of consumer/survivor/ex-patient movements within the Global South. Here, we understand psychiatrization as (1) the process of imposing certain interpretive limits on states of difference and distress and (2) the conceptualization of treatment and recovery through the teleological notion of normalcy. By interpreting difference solely in psychiatric terms, psychiatrization functions as a tool of disciplinary control in both domestic and international contexts by reterritorializing efforts to resist hegemonic norms and political institutions of gendered and racialized oppression, colonialism, and imperialism. After setting out our understanding of psychiatrization as a political process in the sense that it enacts a particular “ontological politics”, one that foregrounds psychiatric interpretations of difference and dissent to the exclusion of other possible meanings, we examine the reach and complexity of psychiatrization in the suppression of political and social movements that attempt to resist oppressive norms and institutions. We then present new research within the consumer/survivor/ex-patient and psychosocial disability movements in the Global South to show how psychiatrization can thwart activist's aims of transforming how we view both the end goals of mental health treatment and the political valence of mental distress.

show abstract

“…In turn, both prior to and following the UN reports, critics of psychiatry have sought to theorise or classify arguments, which defend psychiatry, creating a further level of antagonism in the field. For example, arguments defending psychiatry have been cast as ‘strategic ignorance’ (ignoring contesting perspectives and social facts to preserve an authoritative and coherent knowledge base) (McGoey, 2012), as ‘conceptual bullshitting’ that encompasses the co‐option of skewed meanings of humanising initiatives, such as recovery or stigma, to fit political purposes (Frankfurt, 2005), as ‘circular argumentation’ (tautology) (if you are not a psychiatrist, you cannot say anything meaningful about psychiatry), as ‘martyr and the enemy’ rhetoric (positioning critics as violators and psychiatric actors as casualties) and as ‘ex‐communication’ (delegitimising, excluding, ridiculing, professionally and privately threatening and secluding professionals, academics, advocates and users who propose alternatives to psychiatry) (Cosgrove & Jureidini, 2019; Oute et al., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict and antagonism within global psychiatry: A discourse analysis of organisational responses to the UN reports on rights‐based approaches in mental health

Oute,

McPherson

2023

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 2017 and 2020, the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) Dainius Puras published three reports that called for significant changes to organisation, funding and service provision in mental health care in ways that emphasise inclusive, rights‐oriented, democratic and sustainable community health services. This article aims to examine formal organisational responses to the UN mental health reports and consider the underlying arguments that either support or delegitimise the SR stance on the need for a paradigmatic shift towards a human rights‐based approach to mental health. By combining several different search strategies to identify organisational responses across the web, a total of 13 organisational responses were included in the analysis. Given the political nature of the responses, concepts from discourse theory were used to analyse the responses. The analysis showed how the responses articulated two binary positions and contesting articulations of good mental health care, which formed a backdrop for rejecting the SR reports in defence of psychiatry. The discussion elucidates how the responses tend to resemble previous ways in which critique has been dealt with mainly by ‘biological psychiatry’, but that the counter‐critical nature of the medical and psychiatric organisational responses remains in contrast to the broader reception within the UN community.

show abstract

Why a rights-based approach is not anti-psychiatry

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Global health, human rights, and neoliberalism: The need for structural frameworks when addressing mental health disparities.

Global health, human rights, and neoliberalism: The need for structural frameworks when addressing mental health disparities.

Psychiatrization of Resistance: The Co-option of Consumer, Survivor, and Ex-patient Movements in the Global South

Conflict and antagonism within global psychiatry: A discourse analysis of organisational responses to the UN reports on rights‐based approaches in mental health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About