HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH British Journal of Psychiatry Psychiatric Bulletin All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Electronic Letters to:

Articles: Frank Holloway Is there a science of recovery and does it matter?: INVITED COMMENTARY ON... RECOVERY AND THE MEDICAL MODEL Adv Psychiatr Treat 2008; 14: 245-247 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

Recovery and Medical Model – yes, science does matter.

Deborah A Mountain, Premal Shah   (23 July 2008)

Recovery and Medical Model – yes, science does matter. 23 July 2008
Deborah A Mountain, Psychiatrist NHS, Premal Shah Send letter to journal: Re: Recovery and Medical Model – yes, science does matter. Debbie.mountain{at}nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk Deborah A Mountain, et al.	We welcome Holloway’s comments on “Recovery and the Medical Model” (Mountain, Shah, 2008) and agree that the article raises further questions. We would however, like to clarify that the medical model described relates to evidenced interventions practiced by a range of professionals including doctors. Doctors are certainly not the only professional group to use evidenced based interventions. We agree that the task of answering the question “does recovery work?” is complex and Holloway helpfully describes some of the methodologies that may require to be deployed. We acknowledge that by using the 4 elements of Resnick’s work other important themes such as meaning and self-management were not explored. However, should Resnick’s work be considered less relevant than other work? Of course the user perspective is central to the recovery agenda but this raises the issue of professional involvement in this agenda. In the same way that users advocate to be active participants in their care professionals and their work should also be actively included as equal partners to progress and mainstream recovery practice. If this is not encouraged, the view of psychiatrists as authoritarian and professional care as “something to get away from” could be needlessly promulgated, to the detriment of both parties and to developing recovery orientated services. The relationship is complex, given the drive for self-determination additionally influenced by peoples' experience of professional care, particularly where there may be power differentials between users and professionals when people seek help, often in vulnerable states. However, we must not let that dynamic persist in working together to understand and develop recovery-based practice. It is in developing humanistic skills whilst not forgoing our other professional skills that we find more in common with our patients than what separates us. This could be the common ground allowing all parties to use their unique set of skills and capacities. Mountain D & Shah P (2008) Recovery and Medical Model. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment,14,241-244