Launch of the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry

[Simon]

This looks quite interesting, though I have no idea how sound the people behind it are:

Launch of the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry


James Davies, Ph.D.
March 22, 2014

When I started working in the NHS in Britain I pretty much accepted the mainstream view – that psychiatric drugs work, that the categories of mental disorder have been established via solid scientific research, and that we are now on the cusp of understanding the biology of mental illness. I was wrong.

I only learnt how totally wrong I was, when I began researching and writing a book on the unhappy truth about psychiatry. This led me to interview many of the founding fathers of the profession. From them I heard many startling confessions about the flimsy and unscientific foundations upon which modern psychiatry rests. The picture that emerged was one of a profession in serious crisis; a profession that is, and as I state in the book’s title, seriously, disconcertingly, in both senses of the term, Cracked.

After its publication I had the opportunity to help set up a new critical psychiatry organization.
...

The aim of our new organization, then, is to help to fill this gap. The organization – the Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry (CEP) – was informally launched in London this week. CEP will fight to bring to the heart of the political and medical establishment evidence that clearly exposes areas where psychiatry is doing more harm than good.

The official launch of CEP will take place on 30th April 2014 in the Houses of Parliament, London. And to mark the occasion two eminent critics will address the invited audience of journalists, MPs, policy makers, practitioners and survivor advocates

full article

 

[Sasha]

That could be GREAT. Or it could go horribly wrong. But it could be GREAT.

 

[Bob]

The official launch of CEP will take place on 30th April 2014 in the Houses of Parliament, London. And to mark the occasion two eminent critics will address the invited audience of journalists, MPs, policy makers, practitioners and survivor advocates

It seems quite high profile. We'll have to look out for that. It might be placed on video.

..two eminent critics will address the invited audience of journalists..

Wouldn't it be perverse if these two 'critics' happened to be Wessely and Sharpe!
As @Sasha says, it could all go horribly wrong!

..survivor advocates..

Interesting term! We can probably all relate to that!

 

[A.B.]

Sounds interesting, but psychiatrists like to interpret reality in funny ways, so "evidence based psychiatry" could mean just about anything.

 

[Bob]

This is their website. I haven't looked closely at it yet.
It includes a list of their supporters.

Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry
http://cepuk.org/

 

[SOC]

Sounds interesting, but psychiatrists like to interpret reality in funny ways, so "evidence based psychiatry" could mean just about anything.

Yes, don't the Wessleyites claim that their CBT/GET is the only evidence-based treatment for ME/CFS? If that's what evidence-based means in psychiatry, I'm not sure the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry is a good thing.

The right people involved, however, could start to turn things around in psychiatry. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose.

 

[peggy-sue]

I'm going to have to investigate this further.

My suspicions so far are that it might just be a shift to get folk off drugs - and give them a few sessions with the great god CBT...

 

[daisybell]

I just watched one of the videos on their website - Paul's story.... It could be a story of ME.

 

[A.B.]

My suspicions so far are that it might just be a shift to get folk off drugs - and give them a few sessions with the great god CBT...

In my opinion, their assertion that psychotropic drugs are overprescribed, claimed to be more effective than they really are, and ultimately do more harm than good is correct.

My concern is the same as yours: that they can use this point as platform from which to subtly promote some other approach, whereas in my opinion the only correct answer is to admit that no good solutions exist, and that a paradigm shift is needed.

 

[SOC]

In my opinion, their assertion that psychotropic drugs are overprescribed, claimed to be more effective than they really are, and ultimately do more harm than good is correct.

While I agree that psychotropic drugs are overprescribed, there are people who definitely need them and shouldn't be forced into psychotherapy for a physiological condition (neurochemical imbalance). The problem is that the medications are not prescribed based on objective measures, so medication becomes indiscriminate.

Yes, indeed, a paradigm shift is most definitely long overdue.

 

[Bob]

Looking at this more closely they seem to be promoting the use of talking therapies instead of drugs.

 

[SOC]

Looking at this more closely they seem to be promoting the use of talking therapies instead of drugs.

So probably not our friends.

I think talk therapy has its place -- where the patient needs to restructure their thinking, say, because they were taught as children they were worthless, or if they need to learn emotional coping skills for grief or chronic illness. I don' think meds should be prescribed in those cases if there's not an organic problem the med corrects. Equally, I don't think psychology should get away with claiming their talk therapy works to cure organic disorders, including neurochemical imbalances.

 

[Sean]

Evidence-Based Psychiatry

I'll believe it when I see the evidence for it.

 

[alex3619]

So far evidence-based medicine has been very bad news for psychiatry. However they are talking about questioning the diagnoses themselves, not just the treatments. Psychiatry needs something like this, but is this it? This could be good, irrelevant or a disaster, as others have said.

I too think psychiatry needs a paradigm shift, but I am of the view the entire medical profession and its attitudes, methods, teaching and promotion need to change. Psychiatry is embedded within a bigger problem, and protected by that.

I think if they insisted on an evidence-base, and ripped out the non-evidence stuff, DSM might be reduced to the size of a slim book or thick pamphlet. Its a big task, but it has to start somewhere.

If the wrong people come to dominate this new organization it will be railroaded into ineffectiveness. I hope the critics voices are loud enough to prevent this.

 

[Ecoclimber]

I believe their low point came this summer when they introduced 'Greyhound Therapy' as one of their modalities to serve the severely mentally ill.

Nevada Sued for ‘Greyhound Therapy’ for Mentally Ill Patients

 

[Valentijn]

I believe their low point came this summer when they introduced 'Greyhound Therapy' as one of their modalities to serve the severely mentally ill.

Nevada Sued for ‘Greyhound Therapy’ for Mentally Ill Patients

A very good reason that all healthcare needs to be treated as a national issue. There should be no gain for dumping patients on someone else - in fact, there should be no "someone else" because they should all be part of the same structure.