Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The voice of each individual is a unique and self-defining characteristic, a way of freely expressing the essence of our very being and a basic human right protected under international law. However, for so-called psychiatric voice hearers (PVHs; The term ‘PVH’ as used in the present context, is not meant to demean or denigrate the experience but to distinguish between those who hear voices and those whose voice hearing experience is synonymous with being labelled mentally ill.) whose voice hearing experiences are synonymous with a diagnosis of mental illness this principle has added and far reaching consequences. This collaborative paper draws on and integrates the dual and respective inside out and outside in perspectives and subjectivities of a PVH and a mental health practitioner arguing that while recovery is very much in vogue if it is defined predominantly by psychiatric contexts, illness saturated environments founded on professional disciplinary power, it misses the point. Rather recovery is considered as an essentially contested concept which must be self-defined and self-directed by the ideographic narratives of those who own and are living with the experience. In what has become an increasingly risk adverse culture of the care management system, the mental health social worker as a transitional participant is strategically placed to bridge and integrate the disparate but interrelated internal and external worlds of the psychiatric client living in the community. Managing and validating the totality of their experience to establish a radical, collaborative and life sustaining relationship which promotes real and meaningful recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cameron et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: