Ill be clear on the term "antipsychiatry"; I wont use it. It risks confusing a heterogenous set of ideas and approaches, most fair criticisms by those harmed, others of an agenda that seeks to destroy a profession and risks patients.

We need to listen to the criticisms and consider their value, especially when coming from patients. But we must also challenge disinformation designed to push forward other less honest agendas, which I have seen to also manipulate vulnerable groups. That is our job.

One difficulty I have encountered is how to advocate for those beliefs I agree with, when they are perpetrated as part of grander and more seditious approaches. How do you differentiate between the harmed and a malicious agent with a hidden agenda?

I have found myself approached by many who fulfil each criteria separately, but others who fulfil both. Those who seek to determine truth are often hounded and manipulated by the latter group, including I am sad to say, professionals who should know better.

When it comes to patients raising concerns, I will always listen and consider my practice going forward, but when I suspect a patient is being manipulated, I will remain guarded and will not risk other patients by endorsing such agendas by proxy. This is my job.

Separating groups

A) patients who have suffered and raise concerns
B) agencies who wish to destroy psychiatry
C) patients forming (A) who have been manipulated by (B)

So where do we start. The same way I always do. Listen to A, call out B, hope C feels heard.

A forth group (D) is formed of those professionals who see the value of A and critique practice, I would class myself as part of that group. Does that make me "antipsychiatry"? No. It makes me an advocate and a practitioner of psychiatry, always striving to improve and protect.

However there are some who would claim to do the same, who form group B, many of them persuasive and esteemed individuals, who seek to confuse and manipulate the vulnerable of A toward their own ends. I will not tolerate this.

So what when I come across someone in group C who I agree with on many levels, but not others? I try to point out the disinformation, and this is when the trolling begins against me. To fix this we all need to be vigilant.

Perhaps one way to do this is to be clear in our definitions into what is a relatively new taxonomy. Critical psychiatry is a fair transitional term, but will still be adopted by those with malicious intent under the guise of helping those harmed, but actually abusing them.

So we focus on the ideas and the evidence. When the evidence does not support the idea, we challenge professionally. When this exposes the malicious, we disengage but remember. This has been my approach, but it leads to being targeted and smeared by group B.

This turns group A and C against someone who wishes to help them. But it is my role to provide the truth and a protection for these groups, even if it means taking their place for the abuse from group B.

What are your thoughts?