The psychiatric profession: an expertise under siege?

Psychiatry along with other medical disciplines has been under siege in the UK and the USA for a number of years and for a number of reasons. These have varied from various medical scandals and funding changes to political imperatives and public expectations. Changes in the knowledge base have added yet another dimension to this debate.

The subject is explored using historical figures and their writings and an overview of historic views on the psychiatry profession.

The demise of the psychiatrist as an expert and the profession of psychiatry as an expertise can be related to both real and perceived factors. Unlike, for instance, the language used by cardio-thoracic surgeons, the language used in and for professional communications in psychiatry has become very similar to that used in lay discourses on psychological and relationship matters in the general population--partly as a result of the Freudian project successfully insinuating itself into 'common knowledge' and partly as the influence of media grows across the globe. This language has been misappropriated by a wide variety of non-experts, who then speak and interpret it as if they are specialists and any challenge from professionals is seen as self-protection and heresy. As psychiatrists, we do not use technology in a persuasive way as other branches of medicine tend to and this takes away a powerful symbolic conveying 'expertise'. Increased consumerism adds yet another dimension to this discourse.

The patient is definitely the expert on how their illness affects their life, but it is the psychiatrist who is the expert on the illness rather than simply focusing on disease. It is time for the profession loudly to proclaim itself for what it is and what it can and cannot do.