In psychiatry as in all branches of medicine it is a categorical imperative that orthodoxy is questioned, scrutinised and held to account. That cannot happen if critical opinions are suppressed out of the profession.

"In Bergens Tidende v. Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 430 it was held that complaints about medical treatment were not private matters but were matters to which the community at large had an interest. Put simply this means that suppressing the dissemination of alternative views is unlawful under Art 10 as an unlawful interference with the right to free expression.

Unjust attacks on the competence and character of psychiatrists who hold views opposite to the current orthodoxy are also violations of the individual's human rights. The suggestion that the holding of differing views to the drug orientated orthodoxy represents incompetence is an unwarranted attack on the doctor’s integrity. Suggesting that doctor is a hazard to patients because they hold views at variance with the current theories about brain chemistry is an alarming breach of principalist ethics. It is well recognised that autonomy as an ethic is not restricted to patient autonomy. The medical professional's autonomy must also be respected. The relationship between a doctor a patient and the professional body is a complex interaction of medical ethics and not a one-way street. The doctor needs to respect the autonomy of the patient, the patient the doctor and above all the profession the autonomy of both. That is the basis of both the second opinion and the legal doctrine found in Bolam."

The suppression of critical views in psychiatry represents the greatest threat to the integrity of the profession and the well being of the patient in over a century and a half of psychiatric practice.

[1] For a detailed history of this see; The Creation of Psychopharmacology. David Healy 2002. Harvard University Press