Truth and reconciliation in psychiatry: a response to Spandler and McKeown

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to critique Spandler and McKeown’s recent advocacy of a truth and reconciliation (T&R) process in psychiatry.

Design/methodology/approach

A critique of a recent paper in Mental Health Review Journal.

Findings

That Spandler and McKeown’s advocacy of a T&R process in psychiatry can be criticised from a number of inter-related practical, political and ethical perspectives.

Originality/value

The present critique contributes to the ongoing debate about the desirability of a T&R process in psychiatry.

Citation

Cresswell, M. (2017), "Truth and reconciliation in psychiatry: a response to Spandler and McKeown", Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 324-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-09-2017-0041