Five Questions for Peter Kinderman
(See also an updated postscript to a later piece on a formal complaint by Mr Kinderman and others)
1. On page 10 of A Prescription for Psychiatry (September 2014) you state ‘some American techniques for people who have been given a diagnosis of autism…were described by a recent UN report as being ‘akin to torture’. The particular techniques…involved children wearing special devices that administered electric shocks…’. Shortly after, you imply that this occurred under ‘psychiatric care’.
Why did you not make clear that the electric shocks were part of a behavioural programme designed by the psychologist Matthew Israel, who has dismissed criticism of such punitive techniques (which were previously used to ‘treat’ homosexuality) as ‘political correctness’? That Israel avoided prosecution for destroying videotape evidence by agreeing to retire? And that the ‘torture-like’ methods took place in the school which psychologist Israel founded, from which psychiatrists appear to have been excluded, rather than any form of ‘psychiatric care’? [Link to the 2013 Forbes piece here is Reference 12, on page 193 of Prescription]
2. A Prescription for Psychiatry repeatedly makes the case for the moral and scientific superiority of psychologists over psychiatrists. You had previously led the Division of Clinical Psychology in the British Psychological Society (BPS), which is the sister organisation of the American Psychological Association (APA). Why did you not mention the close involvement of APA members and other psychologists in the US ‘enhanced interrogation programme’, which included waterboarding, and is widely seen as torture? Why did you not include the Blog piece you wrote about this seventeen months earlier (April 2013) in your lengthy list of references?
3. Why have you not acknowledged that your claims to oppose ‘Neoliberalism’ are undermined by the support your Anti-Diagnosis views give to those who want to restrain, or reduce, taxpayer-funded (NHS) mental health services?
4. You are the only mental health professional to be open about being part of the ‘Mad in the UK Editorial Collective’. Why does MITUK seek to remove reasonable criticism from its comments sections, in breach of its own ‘guidelines’?
5. As a member of the ‘Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry‘ (CEPUK), why do you support selectively denigrating first-person accounts of psychiatric treatment success as ‘anecdotal evidence’, by fellow CEPUK members Dr Sami Timimi and Dr Peter Gøtzsche? You do not seriously deny that your own work and that of your Anti-Psychiatry associates contains many first-person accounts of psychiatric treatment failures and problems?