A competition between the UK Government, the Medical Model via psychiatrists & the Mormons for the correct definition of the science of mental health

by Julia Evans on April 18, 2013

This is the tale of how this battle came to my attention:

Sitting drinking my customary morning jug of coffee, my customary distraction was unavailable as it was updating itself. Thus, I started to read my local newspaper: the Richmond & Twickenham Times.  Adjacent to an interesting picture of an old tree in Bushey Park, I read the following:


Letters, rttimes.co.uk,   Friday April 12 2013, Richmond & Twickenham Times, page 27

Psychiatry not evolved.

Sir – I write regarding the plight of primary care doctors or GPs, those driven by a high and caring purpose in the best Hippocratic tradition, who want to be left to get on with the job of caring for people’s health to the best of their ability.

Recent media coverage has suggested doctors are not getting enough time to assess mental health patients thoroughly enough.

Today, however, primary care doctors, specialists, or otherwise, can be criticised, bullied or treated like a fringe-dweller for practising traditional workable, diagnostic medicine instead of bowing to pressures and prescribing psychiatric drugs for various mental problems.

Many GPs have acknowledged there are numerous physical conditions that can cause emotional and behavioural problems, and the vital need to check for them first. It follows then that relying on psychiatric drugs to suppress emotional symptoms, without first looking for and correcting a possible underlying physical illness, could simply be giving patients a chemical fix.

It has also been suggested in the media that the health service is “designed around hospitals and medicines rather than identifying and treating psychological disorders”.

This highlights a pervasiveness about the mental health thinking that appears in primary care medicine today.

It is largely due to the “success” of psychiatry’s diagnostic systems, the Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the mental diseases section of the International Classification of diseases. These have been heavily promoted as vitally necessary, mental disorder standards for non-psychiatric doctors.

In fact, in 1998, The World Psychiatric Association produced a Mental Disorders in Primary Care kit to induce GPs to diagnose mental illness.

It was a kit primarily designed to garner more business for the mental health industry. What psychiatry traditionally lacked in science was being compensated for through the use of marketing.

Beyond the many valid medical reasons for non-psychiatric doctors to resist the mental health vision of psychiatrists, there is also the matter of preserving their professional integrity and reputation.

Medicine has advanced, but psychiatry has never evolved scientifically and is no closer to understanding or curing mental problems.

Brian Daniels

Citizens Commission on Human Rights


I was startled to find this in a local paper as, on the surface, I agree with many of the arguments.

I looked up ‘Citizens Commission on Human Rights’ and the following appeared:

Citizens Commission on Human Rights – Wikipedia, the free 

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is a Scientology front group which campaigns against psychiatry and psychiatrists. It was established in

Views of psychiatry – Efforts for psychiatric reform – Relationship with Scientology

Citizens Commission on Human Rights UK

5 days ago – Citizens Commission on Human Rights UK. Watchdog Investigating and Exposing Psychiatric Human Rights Violations. Search


Further I failed to locate the letter in electronic version at www.rttimes.co.uk which at the time I viewed suspiciously.

So, if I agree with the points they are making, does it matter that they are Scientologists?  I think it does.  The position Scientologists take within absolute knowledge, is far from offering a relationship of trust from a position of equality.

Brian Daniels, on behalf of the Scientologists, seems to be arguing within an umbrella where, if the correct science, based on absolute knowledge, is used, it is possible to evolve psychiatry and come to a ‘closer understanding’ of and the ‘cure of mental problems’.

This is the position of mastery and control from which the Government, (see posts on the July 2010 White Paper, etc) governs.  It is possible to define central standards for the cure of mental problems which then become outcome measurements during contracting processes.  This position annihilates individual difference, unique subjectivity and much else. Conversely, it leads to the treatment of human beings as objects to be operated on by those in control, authorised via Government-invented organisations to give completely risk-free treatments and to safeguard the subject’s wellbeing and health (see Health Professions Order 2001).  The Government asserts this is a scientific position as the framework is THE truth, driven top-down and being cost-effective is the main ‘scientific’ criterion for success.

The psychiatrists, well most of them – see the Critical Psychiatry site -, assert that the medical model of symptoms of dysfunction, are caused by bodily disarray, which is reversed in the cure. Further, that this works for symptoms of human distress which do not have a direct correlation to a measureable bodily malfunction.  So the psychiatrists work from a position of control and mastery based within their professional knowledge of what is normal human functioning and how abnormal behaviours or moods can be cured with cbt, or drugs, or electric shock therapy, or internet chat rooms, or….  They are also under Government orders not to allow any human being through who may harm themselves or others.  So they sit in judgment, from within their superior professional knowledge of human behaviour, on their fellow distressed human beings.  They are in process of agreeing how to classify these dysfunctions via DSM IV.

What I believe is at stake is the nature of human beings and in what sort of power structure should one human being treat another one, away from this form of science, and in with relationships of trust from one human being to the next equal human being.  This is a long way from the absolute science as practiced by the Scientologists, the Government and the Psychiatric establishment.

It does matter from what position direct the treatment – one of absolute knowledge, standards, etc or from within an equal relationship of trust.