Thanks Mark. They mis-quote stats too I think, in saying (without a
reference) that the rates of diagnosis of 'schizophrenia' among black people
in UK are the same as that in their 'home countries'. (section 6.3 I
think). In fact I think the evidence is that the rates in West Indies is the
same as the rates among white people in UK and so less that those among
black people. But the main objection is that the DCP excluded voices of
minority groups especially black people - either as service user or
professionals and so the report could be said to be institutionally racist.
I believe that the DCP had a Race and Culture Faulty until recently but this
was dissolved by the DCP without even consulting its members!
The editor has apologized personally ad want to speak with us (who write to
letter - http://www.sumanfernando.com/Letter%20to%20Anne%20Cooke.pdf
There is also a blog tht is worth looking at -
http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/dcpbps-report-understanding-psychosis-sc
hizophrenia-fatally-flawed/
Suman
Suman Fernando
WEBSITE: http://www.sumanfernando.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M & M Johnson
Sent: 05 December 2014 11:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Division of Clinical Psychology seems to exclude BME experience
I am ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by this report - thanks Suman et al for bringing it
to our attention.
I have been out of the country - and finding that in some respects, Italy
seems to be getting further ahead in its recognition of Diversity in health
care than UK which is swimming backwards rapidly.
Having read the report - very rapidly - I cannot quite see what its point
is? I guess it is written from the point of view of Clinical Psychology
rather than psychiatry, and maybe as much for 'users' & 'Carers' as for
professionals, although there are some bits about what 'we' should do.
There is also a VERY slight nod in the direction of culture - in that a
Maori quote is used (p13) and reference to normative / ethnic minority
cultures of explanation (p14). On p33, somewhat insultingly, I suspect, the
labels 'lunatic'/'psycho' are contrasted with racist labels used. The only
reference to the issues that concern US, seem to be on about page 45, where
the AESOP research (2006) is properly cited, and also a S Fernando (2003).
It seems amazing in view of the disproporionate labelling that they do refer
to among AfC/Black people, that they don't then proceed further along this
line. Maybe Clinical Psychology is still the white-island that I recollect
Zenobia Nadirshaw discussing many years ago at the BPS! She is still active
and must demonstrate that there should be some awareness of these issues in
the discipline - but...
Where are all the other references on the subject? Dinesh seems to be the
only other BME-focused author cited, and only briefly on the subject of
religion (which they never really get to grip with: there are actually
several faiths to consider!)
Overall, I feel this was a very weak report, and would not have passed MY
peer review scrutuny! Not that I was asked.
On the point made by Anil and others about BME exclusion from research:
well, this is a very well described and discussed issue - ever since Mahvash
Hussain-Gambles paper etc, and others since then I have tried to suggest
that any treatment trialled only on a white / selective population should
carry a health warning, but maybe we are not ready to recognise what the
majority world population is - perhaps because it isn't the market for the
majority of pharmaceuticals. hey ho
Institutional racism, as per the Macpherson definition, is very clearly
evident, but unfortunatly, not yet criminalised!
Best wishes in the struggle
Mark J.
Prof. Mark R D Johnson
Emeritus Professor of Diversity in Health & Care, MSRC / CEEHD, De Montfort
University, Hawthorn Building The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH
(Editor) Diversity & Equality in Health & Care
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rmp/dehc
|