Ten theses on the relationship between psychiatry and the public

Author: Christian Zechert

With his theses, the author undertakes a critical analysis of the attitudes of sufferers, their families, and in particular those working in the field of psychiatry about the public and public relations work.

1. Public relations work for sufferers of mental illness no longer works on the principle of sensationalism. Though the scandals of the 70s and 80s were necessary to call attention to and publicize conditions in long-term care wards of psychiatric clinics, this method has run its course for the needs of the field of psychiatry.

2. It is just as false and boring to present nothing but successful projects and developments. Permanent "fair weather psychiatry" has nothing to do with reality. The public sees through it, psychiatry loses credibility, and in the long term, the media and the public ignore the issue altogether.

3. Public preconceptions about sufferers of mental illness are irrelevant compared to our own preconceptions.

4. The actually or allegedly high proportion of negative reporting about the mentally ill and psychiatric institutions is a direct result of our careless interactions with the media. Psychiatry handles the media amateurishly.

5. Qualified interactions with the media are best achieved when sufferers, families, and professionals appear in the media together. It is not a problem that they represent differing positions – on the contrary. Differentiated reporting increases credibility. Families and sufferers are more authentic and come across in the media as being more credible than professionals. We should think about why this is so.

6. The public relations work done by the field of psychiatry is not really trying to reach the public. It is more concerned with its internal than external appearance. Its real function is self-affirmation and establishing its own position. The public is only being used and is kept at the periphery.

7. When we in the field of psychiatry conduct public relations work, we should think of the public and ask ourselves: What really interests the public? We will find that the public is much more interested in basic information about psychiatric illnesses, therapies, and support services for families than in our tenth anniversary celebration.

8. The public quickly sees through the well-meant trivialization of aggression or incidents of violence by certain patients in particular situations, and the field of psychiatry loses credibility. Only by admitting that there are problems of violence in psychiatry can we send the signal that we are at least aware of the problem.

9. In cases of conflict between the public and the field of psychiatry, the fears and needs of the public must have priority over the needs of psychiatry. The interests of sufferers of mental illness cannot be enforced against the will of the population but must be reconciled with the population.

10. Public is much more than the newspapers, TV, the internet, and radio shows. For the field of psychiatry, the public consists primarily of friends and neighbors, communal policy makers, churches, political parties, administrators, and local associations.