Talk:Psychiatric survivors movement

Notes on this page

I've recently expanded this article. It overlaps with the Psychiatric survivors movement page. 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 going to move this page to Consumer/Survivor/Ex-patient Movement, and merge the content of psychiatric survivors movement in to it. EverSince 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Below are some passages and links extracted from the psychiatric survivors page, which is due to be deleted. Just putting them here to potentially inform this article, or be inserted into it.

I'll remove the merge tag from this page. After a while, if still no objections, I will retitle this page Consumer/Survivor/Expatient Movement. EverSince 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The Psychiatric survivors movement is a loose coalition of people who, united in the belief that they have been harmed or betrayed by psychiatry, advocate in favor of improved civil rights and mental health treatment alternatives for those diagnosed with (or simply accused of being afflicted by) mental illnesses. It is also called the consumer survivors movement.

The beginning of a formal movement is often attributed to Howard Gelding, or Howie the Harp, and the formation of the Insane Liberation Front in Portland, Oregon, in 1969.

A coalition of such programs meets annually at the Alternatives conference

The psychiatric survivors movement grew out of these experiences, though there are perhaps earlier inspirations for the movement (e.g., anti-psychiatry and the opposition of surrealism to psychiatry). Other influences include the civil rights movement.

• Biological psychiatry
• Care in the Community
• Chemical imbalance theory
• Consumer/Survivor Movement
• History of mental illness
• International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology
• Involuntary commitment
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
• Outpatient commitment
• Psychiatric hospital
• Psychosurgery
• TeenScreen
• Texas Medication Algorithm Project

• MHSelfHelp.org - National Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse

WordPress.com - 'Writhe Safely: Confronting society, stabbing psychiatry, with loads of lovely love.'

---

Formatting of title

The way it is at the mo, it seems to be case sensitive in wikilinks, not really sure why, maybe the slashes...? Would it be better maybe to just have spaces between each part? And not sure if the p in ex-patient should be capitalized, and whether movement should be, anyone know? EverSince (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

So, I deleted this line because I believe it to be editorial

There is great need for further development of the recovery model whose outcome is to support people in regaining their wellness instead of a life sentence of psychiatry which has been found to cause early death. His accusations have been described as inflammatory and completely unsubstantiated, however, and issues of self-determination and self-identity said to be more complex than that.

and this line because it's extraneous and biased

"Patients rights groups have been speaking out against psychiatric abuses for decades but have been censored and denied by the psychiatric establishment. Reading about the experiences they suffered through has been described as comparable to reading the stories of Holocaust survivors.[7] Recipients of mental health services demanded control over their own treatment and began to have an influence on the public mental health system. They often promoted a recovery model. Whether they considered themselves consumers or survivors, activists demanded a voice and a choice"

is this okay? Thanks. AJPlotnik (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the above. If you weren't happy with it sounding like editorialising, I believe rewording would have been the better option since it is actually based on reliable sources (which I recall I added). Am going to try reinserting now but with maybe different wording. I see someone has also tagged a statement as needing a source when actually one of those sources covered it.... EverSince (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

References

title

The article title is meaningless. Consumer/survivor /ex-patient of what? of psychiatry, from the contents, but the title does not indicate it in the least. I invite suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Probably "Psychiatric consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement". There's a [book with that in the title. Perhaps the article is editorially related to the author's work. Jojalozzo 03:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Jojalozzo has proposed that this article be merged with Psychiatric survivors movement...

• Support. Substantial overlap. Final article should be called Psychiatric survivors movement as the title here is too cumbersome... Johnfos (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This will also mean considerable and long-due clean up in referring articles. Jojalozzo 04:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pages now merged. Johnfos (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who wrote most of the article when I was active, I agree they should have been merged & I had argued it previously, but I think it's a questionably overly-narrow choice of title, though I realise the previous one was cumbersome. Anyway I've re-added the broader umbrella title in to the intro to at least indicate this. EverSince (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC) And have added the book noted in the section above as a ref for the broader title, nice find. EverSince (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there could probably be a psychiatric survivors article just highlighting that aspect, e.g. survivors of forced confinement and interventions, as well as one covering the whole range of views as is here now... Eversync (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Opening Lacks Neutrality

According to this article, actions by psychiatrists are never actually unhelpful, abusive, harmful, or illegal. That is only how consumers "consider" them. Real harms, real suffering, and real crimes are conflated with opinion.

The psychiatry page does not say that "Psychiatrists consider their work to be different from the discredited balance of humors theory." It does not say "Psychiatrists consider 'mental illness' to be a scientific (and not cultural) phenomenon." It does not say "Psychiatrists consider involuntary psychiatry to be distinct from medical rape." It simply says "Psychiatry is..." "Mental illness is..."

I submit that the opening of this article was written from the perspective of the abusers, while Wikipedia should strive for neutrality and a factual basis. Chomps123 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)