Craddock and Mynors-Wallis's assault on thinking

Abstract

Comments on an article by Nick Craddock et al. (see record 2014-05072-003). In their recent editorial Craddock and Mynors-Wallis frame this diagnostic debate in terms of 'benefits and limitations'; possible 'disadvantages' are acknowledged but mention of potential harms is conspicuously absent. Craddock and Mynors-Wallis seem to want to be reasonable; identifying themselves, with other psychiatrists, as 'reflective and tolerant of strongly opposing views and ideologies'. First, however, they resort to an unsubstantiated moral and emotive appeal to their position: ‘This can be to our patients' disadvantage if we allow these views [i.e. critical of standard diagnostic practices] to be unopposed by suggesting that our patients are somehow less deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis than a physical diagnosis'. Then, just in case we are still equivocating, using the College's Good Psychiatric Practice to bring us into line (as if this too was some ahistorical and acultural document), they pronounce: 'This [use of standardized diagnosis] is not an issue of personal choice for a practitioner. It is a professional responsibility to the patient'. Their penultimate reference betrays their own ideological foray. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)