General statement from British Psychological Society & Royal College of Psychiatrists makes it sound like they'd be on-side on PACE- expect it's BS.

Researching, practising, and debating mental health care

• Sarb Bajwa
• Niall Boyce
• Wendy Burn

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(18)30438-3/fulltext

To me this looks like more empty blather from those unwilling to speak out about bad behaviour from their colleagues other than in the most general of terms. Maybe I'm too cynical?

 

I don't think it's possible to be too cynical in regard to psychs. Yes, there are some good ones but best for them to prove they are worthy of trust rather than we extend any blind faith towards, in my opinion.

 

Looks like a standard whitewashing buzzword bingo exercise to me until proven otherwise. Just on the two points quoted in the OP:

on 2) It is easy to claim to be 'committed to eliminate stigma', but when you have people in your field doing the stigmatizing in order to get sick people off benefits then please show me you are committed by helping to get those people behind bars if possible, and at least oust them from your field and make it very clear that is not what your entire profession is about.
I assume what they actually want to do is to get people who are holding back from bringing business to them due to the attached societal stigma to just trust that it's fine to use the services that are offered.

on 4) It is again easy to explore opportunities to obfuscate content using corporate language strategies, to use their manner of speaking. 'Genuine choice and empowerment' is a meaningless phrase if it means 'you can choose between CBT or GET and have to get healthy using that no matter what you have unless you want your benefits you depend on for survival cut', or 'you can be treated for PPS, MUS, BPS, AFK, WTF and BBQ using CBT while you are empowered not to be checked for things the NHS wants to save money on'. I would also argue that it is not on individuals in severe circumstances to interpret results from clinical trials in order to decide what the risks and benefits of treatments could possibly be. That is what my Doctor has to do for me because it is an insane assumption that I could form an informed opinion in any amount of time that I have on my hands on medical stuff.

They can try to repackage their product in as many ways and words they like, when their rationale remains 'he is an expert on clinical trials because he wrote a book on it', 'talking about your problems has to cure them because we make money from it' and 'we don't want it pointed out to us why trials need to be blinded to offer evidence' they can try to have all the transparency within this framework they want. It will not solve the problems their field has. They can feel free to prove me wrong and out me as needlessly cynical, but after a century of thumbtwiddling the onus to deliver is kind of on them.

 

They really need to look at the reasons that so much trust has been lost and start with some incisive self reflection and honesty. I think it wil be impossible to regain trust without this, they need to call out colleagues and practices who and which have led to their reputation being damaged. Good faith, good intentions, conviction and transparency are fine aspirations but that is all they are until they weed out the rot.