#RCPsychIC hosting a panel on patient engagement with Rob Howard, Mental Elf and Simon Wessely

[rvallee]

Likely followed by a talk on vaccine safety by Andrew Wakefield and a panel on the scientific method sponsored by Goop.com and NaturalNews.

The talk is the pros and cons so I guess it's worthwhile debate to involve people smearing, bullying and insulting patients trying to engage with health care systems.

Frankly this is extremely insulting. This is an important topic and it would have been hard to find worse ambassadors for it. Or from a different perspective, it explains a lot about why patient engagement remains fluff aspirations with zero interest from medical systems if those are the people discussing its pros and cons.

I think this needs responses but my thoughts on this are too angry for now so if anyone else wants to give it a go. I think it warrants making a complaint to the RCP. They seriously have chosen some of the worst possible lecturers on this topic and it reflects very badly with how they view patient engagement: as a joke.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as research per se but it's definitely inspired from their psychosocial research so this forum seems the best fit.

 

[rvallee]

Irony taken all the way to 11. He is describing himself exactly, with painful precision, and somehow thinks he is describing his critics. I don't know if it's delusion or projection, or likely both. He is the very problem he is describing, a perfect avatar of Dunning-Kruger and Peter principle.

Submitting just for the quote, better not to engage with someone who doesn't understand what this quote represents coming from him.

 

[Joh]

From the Tweets of the Royal College of Psychiatrists


About Wessely's talk:

It is easy to engage with patients and colleagues but not with those who disagree. I feel it is important to engage with these people and to do it early - even if the evidence is on your side, that isn’t always enough.

Then Prof. Howard is speaking about "confessions of a dementia doubter" and refers to "dementia activists".

It turns out @ProfRobHoward is not a dementia doubter - he just questions whether certain campaigners have dementia. #rcpsychic

Sounds familiar.

 

[Hoopoe]

Sounds like the real purpose of this event is to prevent meaningful patient engagement and ensure control remains in the hands of a few "experts".

 

[Andy]

Does anybody else find the hash tag #RCpsychIC adds another layer of irony to the whole thing? Perhaps they've got Mystic Meg appearing, connecting Sir Simon with lost souls who, despite being in the afterlife, still want their appreciation of his 'work' to be heard..

 

[rvallee]

From the Tweets

About Wessely's talk:



Then Prof. Howard is speaking about "confessions of a dementia doubter" and refers to "dementia activists".
Sounds familiar.

Oh, no. Can you imagine being told you're wrong? The gall. Bad patient, bad.

 

[chrisb]

Does anybody else find the hash tag #RCpsychIC adds another layer of irony to the whole thing? Perhaps they've got Mystic Meg appearing, connecting Sir Simon with lost souls who, despite being in the afterlife, still want their appreciation of his 'work' to be heard..

It is strange that someone, somewhere, must have considered that to be a clever idea. Clearly no one had the heart, or the balls, to advise them to the contrary. It should be a matter of concern that people so committed to matters of perception seem so lacking in insight as to how there writings may be perceived. .

 

[Mithriel]

Does anybody else find the hash tag #RCpsychIC adds another layer of irony to the whole thing? Perhaps they've got Mystic Meg appearing, connecting Sir Simon with lost souls who, despite being in the afterlife, still want their appreciation of his 'work' to be heard..

Maybe they will show that death is just a belief, a belief that you have died.

 

[Andy]

Maybe they will show that death is just a belief, a belief that you have died.

CBT for corpses. At least the patients won't complain...

 

[Barry]

It is easy to engage with patients and colleagues but not with those who disagree. I feel it is important to engage with these people and to do it early - even if the evidence is on your side, that isn’t always enough.

Dogma is not engagement.

 

[Mithriel]

I have been thinking about what I said on another thread, that finding a cure or a treatment would lead to more activity.

That is the tragedy of the way we have been treated. If dear old Simon had engaged with a patient (even one!) he would have known that we all want to be up and doing. He made the assumption that we gave up voluntarily moving and has spent his career finding ways of changing this.

That is the basis of the psychological/ physical argument. It is self evident that we want to do things, no one would believe otherwise, so they say that it is our "subconscious" that is doing it.

Either it is the psychological entity of the subconscious or it is a physical deficit which keeps us inactive.

The fact that so many people have made themselves severely ill by doing too much as soon as they saw an improvement proves that it is a physical problem within the body.

 

[dangermouse]

If dear old Simon had engaged with a patient (even one!) he would have known that we all want to be up and doing.

Exactly.

 

[rvallee]

Dogma is not engagement.

Like saying you had a great discussion with someone who listened to everything you said and had nothing to say in return. That's not a discussion, that's either a lecture or a monologue.

Above all it really shows what they really think of patient engagement: do as I say and don't talk back. They fundamentally reject the very idea of patient input as being of any use whatsoever and find nothing wrong with wholly dismissing hundreds of thousands of legitimate complaints and do exactly the opposite of what patients need and demand.

"La médecine, c'est moi"