Dozens of leading professionals just slammed Theresa May’s controversial new mental health ‘guru’

Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Over 60 medical professionals, campaigners and organisations have written to Theresa May, urging her to reconsider the appointment of a well-known professor to lead a review into the Mental Health Act 1983.
Click to expand...

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to urge a reconsideration of the decision to appoint Professor Simon Wessely to lead the independent review of the Mental Health Act as announced at the Conservative Party [conference] on 4 October 2017.

A review is needed to address mental health injustice, yet Wessely’s body of work on ME [myalgic encephalomyelitis] (or ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’) demonstrates his lack of honesty, care and compassion for patients. His unsubstantiated claim that ME is driven by ‘false illness beliefs’ has led to patients being labelled as hypochondriacs, treated with contempt by some in the medical profession and stigmatised by society. His recommended treatment regime of Graded Exercise Therapy caused deterioration in function for nearly 50% of ME patients surveyed, yet he dismisses their evidence as unreliable and labels all critics of this work as irrational and extremist.
Click to expand...

I don't know any of the signatories.

https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/...-controversial-new-mental-health-guru-letter/


PS/ I'll ask to put this thread in the psychosocial news when it's open.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
It is heartening to think that the impact of poor science and policy is appreciated on a wider scale.
Click to expand...

It's also heartening to think that so many people outside the world of ME advocacy hold Sir Simon in such low regard.

JCB said:
I felt it was odd that I didn't see any ME organisations.
Click to expand...

I would guess they deliberately didn't approach any ME organisations, so that Wessely couldn't resort to his usual 'militant patients' defence.
 
As far as I'm aware it's pretty exceptional. It will help that the Tories are seen as quite weak at the moment, so that would encourage people to complain about him, thinking that there is a greater chance of it having an effect.

I don't expect him to be replaced, he fits right in with the Tories war on the sick and disabled, but it's nice to see that there are people outside the ME world who see him for what he is and are prepared to go public with it.
 
Andy said:
As far as I'm aware it's pretty exceptional. It will help that the Tories are seen as quite weak at the moment, so that would encourage people to complain about him, thinking that there is a greater chance of it having an effect.

I don't expect him to be replaced, he fits right in with the Tories war on the sick and disabled, but it's nice to see that there are people outside the ME world who see him for what he is and are prepared to go public with it.
Click to expand...

And maybe the key target is whoever is prime minister next, who will have the option to replace people associated with May's failings. If it is Mr Corbyn then to have been tipped the wink that all is not as it seems in the psychiatry world may be important.
 
Best hope for UK patients is to get Corbyn Labour onside, or at least neutral and open minded.

No guarantee. But if the Tories stay in power, then it is guaranteed that we will just get more of the same from them and Sir Svengali.

Like all successful reform movements, we need politically powerful allies.
 
Cheshire said:
Is it a usual thing to get that type of letter in the UK against the nomination of someone, or is it exceptional?
Click to expand...

A quick shrug of my shoulders. I would not have seen this if you had not pointed it out. I have no idea how many others I have missed. Some days I see letters with multiple signatories on The Times letter page, if I get to look at it. Usually I just scan the headings there and mostly read letters on subjects that already interest me.
 
Cheshire said:
I don't know any of the signatories.

https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/...-controversial-new-mental-health-guru-letter/


PS/ I'll ask to put this thread in the psychosocial news when it's open.
Click to expand...

Interesting as I guess to have gone to the effort to sign this these people must have pretty strong reasons to object to SW. Some of these people are potential allies I guess, or allies already though I do not know most of them.

I think SW's response is interesting. He says he supports the current NICE guidelines. Regarding the review he says that he will "take due note" if they change. Not quite the same thing is it.
 
Joel said:
Interesting as I guess to have gone to the effort to sign this these people must have pretty strong reasons to object to SW. Some of these people are potential allies I guess, or allies already though I do not know most of them.

I think SW's response is interesting. He says he supports the current NICE guidelines. Regarding the review he says that he will "take due note" if they change. Not quite the same thing is it.
Click to expand...
He's basically an oily bar steward, highly practised at avoiding being pinned down by anything so demeaning as good science, ethics, or any real regard for people other than himself. I think however he is slowly painting himself into a corner. Someone like him must rub an awful lot of people up the wrong way, as he treads all over them on his climb to the top. Some of them just may be feeling a bit more enabled now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom