Blockchain Papers

Juan Camilo Pazos-Alfonso, Ana Luisa Mendoza-Barrera

This argumentative essay explores the psychological and clinical implications of using non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as symbolic tools in real-world psychological therapy. Adopting a constructive and pro-NFT perspective, the text argues that NFTs—unique digital assets recorded on a blockchain—offer novel opportunities to represent therapeutic milestones, identity processes, and meaningful personal experiences. The essay examines how NFTs can enhance patient motivation, promote self-reflection, support engagement, and reinforce a sense of autonomy throughout the therapeutic process. Drawing from concepts such as token economies, gamification, and narrative psychology, NFTs are proposed as symbolic reinforcers that validate personal growth, improve adherence to treatment, and help patients actively shape their therapeutic journey. The discussion highlights potential use cases, such as NFT-based achievements, digital identity representations, and collectible artifacts created during therapy. Technical and ethical considerations—such as accessibility, privacy, and informed consent—are addressed to ensure responsible implementation. Grounded in recent peer-reviewed research, the essay concludes that NFTs have the potential to enrich mental health interventions, especially in digital and immersive therapy environments. It recommends future empirical studies to assess the effectiveness of NFT-based systems in clinical practice. Ultimately, NFTs could serve as a bridge between emerging technologies and psychology, providing patients with symbolic tools to represent, commemorate, and take ownership of their therapeutic progress.

Courtney Buckler

I play the game a lot. I regularly translate my mental health work into language and structures that are recognisable and friendly to the ‘powers that be’. I do it to get access, leverage, legitimacy, and funding. Often it works, but I am beginning to wonder about the costs of this translation work. I regularly find the words, action and work of the user-led movement somehow co-opted, adopted, misinterpreted and otherwise used for purposes that seem to bolster rather than challenge the status quo. I think, for example, of tokenistic co-production initiatives or sanitised and professionalised peer-support roles that have popped up over recent years. These and other similar programs seem to emanate from the demands of the user-led movement, but implement them in a way that maintains power and resources in the places they have always been. They do nothing to challenge the structures that cause mental distress in the first place. It feels similar to pink-washing or green-washing, albeit in the mental health space. I talk about it with others in the movement. I’m not sure what to call it, but I don’t want to be part of it. Sometimes, in my playing the game, I worry I might be. The aim here is to think this through, experimenting with a piece of language from my academic work. The concept I draw on is called intentional institutional capture (Eastwood, 2006). The idea comes from a feminist research methodology called institutional ethnography (IE) (Smith, 2005), which is concerned with bureaucracy and power in contemporary corporate capitalism. Briefly, institutional capture describes the subtle trickery of dominant systems and their bureaucratic processes, in which our experiences, work or just our existence are co-opted and ‘captured’ by ‘the system’ in service of its own interests. As implied by the name, intentional institutional capture is similar (Eastwood, 2006), albeit describing our deliberate participation in that ‘capture’ for our own ends—this is what I mean by ‘playing the game’. These concepts have helped me to think about the broader implications of my organising and to think about how I can ‘system proof’ my work. My reflections are rooted in my multiple positionings in relation to lived-experience work. I am a survivor researcher in the midst of their PhD, in which I use a mad and disability justice lens to explore mental health policy in the UK. I am also co-founder and executive director of Make Space (2022), a user-led collective exploring liberatory and decarceral approaches to self-harm. As the title ‘lived-experience’ implies, all my work is based on and informed by ongoing experiences of mental distress and crisis—both my own and those of others I care/have cared for. I believe in a system of mental health care rooted in autonomy, liberation and justice. I am concerned about ‘white, western cultural beliefs and frameworks’ that have ‘discouraged [us] from viewing our distress through a holistic and non-medicalised lens’ (Kaufman-Mthimkhulum, 2022). I believe in grassroots, community-led responses to distress and crisis that have the spaciousness to be creative, bold and brave outside of the demands, interests and constraints of the institution. Nevertheless, whether as a researcher, organiser or survivor, I find myself regularly interacting with ‘the system’ and organisations that do not necessarily hold the same views as me (and sometimes—oftentimes—do work that undermines them). I interact with mainstream mental health provision for two main reasons. First, because I often find there people with good intentions and a desire to do good work, who are stuck within bureaucratic processes that require them to do acts and invoke ideas I see to be harmful. Secondly, because it is behind and through ‘the mainstream’ that leverage, resources and funding are held—it is often because I am beholden to it that I must continue to participate. My participation includes work with funders, local authorities, NHS trusts, universities or even my GP. Doing so includes adopting ways of talking, acting and relating that are familiar enough to the status quo that I can access the legitimacy and intelligibility in order to get the access or resource that I need. Professionally, I often frame my user-led work to funders and institutional partners as something about safety or prevention—despite the fact that a core part of my work is challenging the utility of ‘prevention’ as a goal and dominant notions of ‘safety’ that often cause more harm than good (see: #StopSim (2022)). I also turn up to spaces I am invited to as an ‘expert-by-experience’, knowing full well that this is likely to be a tick-box exercise, still with enough (perhaps naive) enthusiasm to believe that my being there could (and sometimes does, in little ways) make changes. Tokenism, ableism, lack of power exchange and unpaid labour are well-known issues when it comes to co-production and ‘user-involvement’ in the mental health sector (e.g. Brown and Ormerod, 2020; Heney and Poleykett, 2021; Waddingham, 2021; Batty et al., 2022). Nonetheless, I turn up and often advocate for there to be more involvement opportunities—even though I know, from personal experience, that they can be harmful. I also ‘play the game’ in my own healing. I use my diagnoses to access resources, despite having a general ambivalence toward my own psychiatric diagnoses and broader concerns about how psychiatric labels are used systemically to justify harm and mistreatment of others. Not everyone gets the privilege of choosing to bring up their psychiatric diagnoses—some people, despite their best efforts, cannot shake them, often with violent and catastrophic consequences. I am lucky in this case, that among my diagnoses is not a personality disorder, which I have seen in so many instances lead to removal and refusal of care (Baker and Beazley, 2022). Moreover, not can everyone be sure that seeking help will result in any help, or that which is actually helpful, at all (Heney and Sommer, 2021). I wonder whether ‘playing the game’ is worth it. I often make small wins and meet short-term goals that I genuinely believe are helpful. I meet a lot of people working within ‘the system’ who do good work, have good intentions and are genuinely receptive to the central tenets of user-led/survivor movement. I also believe in the value of top-down as well as bottom-up change. But at the same time, it can feel as though in my playing the game, or participation in ‘the system’, I am tacitly endorsing structures, concepts and ways of working that I actively oppose. Then again, I’m not sure if it’s that straightforward. Doing this work as someone with ‘lived-experience’ work makes it feel even more complicated. Having my work bound up in my identity makes it difficult to speak, to strategize and to decide which parts of my experience to bring forward and which to leave behind (Gupta, 2022). It is also makes doing the work seem more urgent and like there is more at stake. It is what has made writing this piece far harder to write than I anticipated. When your work and activism are connected to the most vulnerable parts of yourself, ‘getting it wrong’ is more than just a bad day in the office. I began joining up my experiences of ‘playing the game’ through reflections I was having as part of my PhD, which focuses on the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) on mental health policymaking. Specifically, my work explores the long and controversial update process to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) Guideline on Depression in Adults—which began in 2015 and was published in its final form in June 2022. As a document that has coordinated so much of my own care, I felt/feel invested in knowing what people have to say about it. I observed how those who tried to change the depression guideline were bringing important challenges to how depression care is ordered. I also saw how these groups seemed to be being tactical in their doing so. Seeing that NICE was concerned with being ‘evidence-based’, the guidelines’ detractors framed their arguments in those terms (Rost and McPherson, 2021). They published multiple public-facing position statements, lobbied MPs and garnered support across the mental health professions—all coordinated and framed as a critique of how NICE had used, analysed or dealt with ‘evidence’. In some ways, the tactic worked. Through their concerted efforts NICE were forced to hold multiple unprecedented consultations on the guideline, creating opportunities for hundreds of organisations to comment on its content. The campaign got issues around depression into parliament and in the press. The final guideline recommended a wider range of treatments than ever before, emphasised patient choice, and acknowledged for the first-time issues that had long been a source of concern in the survivor movement such as withdrawal effects of anti-depressants and their link to suicidality (NICE, 2022). The group made important and necessary wins. At the same time, the campaign did little to challenge underlying ideological issues the mental health care—unfair distributions power, tokenistic co-production, marketisation and privatisation in health care, or limited understandings of what gets to count as ‘evidence’. On the latter point, fact, it could be argued that some of the key issues raised by the coalition exist not in spite of NICE’s use of EBM but because of it. EBM is widely critiqued both in general terms (Greenhalgh et al., 2014; Boswell, 2018; Hanemaayer, 2019) and specifically in its application to psychiatry (Gupta, 2014; Court et al., 2017). The issues raised by the guideline’s detractors included NICE’s overreliance on results from large scale trials over other methodologies, increased anti-depressant prescription, linear models of recovery and emphasis on cheap and manualised treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Each of these issues have been attributed elsewhere to (at least in part) the application of evidence-based medicine to psychiatry (Dumit, 2012; Dalal, 2018; Hovda, 2019; McPherson et al., 2020). It’s a shame, because the whole process seemed to me not only a controversy around the specifics but also a struggle over broader ideas of what it means to live well, whose knowledge gets to count, and what good mental health care should or could be. These broader ideological concerns, necessary now more than ever, were in and among the coalition’s work—but hidden behind their emphasis on methods and evidence. The coalition’s tactic to frame their arguments in relatively non-controversial terms, to translate them into the institutionally friendly and recognisable language of ‘methodology’ and ‘evidence’ meant that the bigger, broader and perhaps more pressing conversations, did not happen. NICE were able to selectively attend to the issues of evidence and ignore the broader ideological and political challenges the group was bringing. EBM—the underlying structure that caused (or is at least contributory to) many of the problems outlined by the coalitionary group—remains intact and unchallenged. Perhaps, EBM is even reified by the process (McGoey, 2010). Power remains in the same place. Business as usual. In my academic work, I have been using the idea of (intentional) institutional capture (Eastwood, 2006) to think through the tactical use of ‘methods’ and ‘evidence’ as a narrative structure by those who opposed the NICE depression guideline. Increasingly, I’ve been wondering whether the concept could be helpful for my own organising. The term comes from a method called institutional ethnography (IE) (for a clear overview of IE see Murray (2022)). IE is a method that calls researchers to bring their politics to work, take sides (Cupit et al., 2021), to avoid making grand theories and instead look at people’s everyday lives and the struggles they face (Smith, 2008). In my organising I hear a lot of people talk about ‘the system’—of sanism, ableism, racism, classism and queerphobia as both systemic and structural. These -isms reside both in the thoughts and acts of ill-willed individuals but are also somehow beyond them—embedded in and joined up by the fabric of our society. The question, however, is where? Where is this system? Where do we touch it, see it, change it? Institutional ethnography suggests that ‘the system’ can be found in the invisible bureaucratic architecture of our everyday lives. It is a seemingly neutral, authorless, impenetrable, unconnected and boring deluge of paperwork, forms, manuals and guidelines that join up and coordinate the actions of numerous individuals and organisations across time and space (Smith, 2005; Murray, 2022). It is these texts that act as a kind of orchestral conductor of the social ‘system’, making sure that no matter where or who we are, we all sing from the same hymn sheet—whether we like it or not. Bureaucracy reduces the messiness and meaning of our everyday lives to a limited set of tick boxes, categories and processes. Too often, people’s personhood and protection is determined by their (in)ability to fill out forms, to meet a threshold or to qualify as this and not that—I think for example of migration status, benefit eligibility or employment rights. Often, the course of a person’s life hinge on whether they filled out a form correctly, got it into a post-box on time or remembered to check their junk folder (see: Deaths by Welfare, 2023). Psychiatry is no different. Diagnostic manuals, care plans, mental capacity, sick notes, GP letters, rating scales, codes of conduct, funding applications, impact reports, clinical trials, academic research. It’s all texts—a limited collection of thresholds, forms, categories and vocabularies that we either meet or do not meet, fall into or do not fall into, can speak or can’t. Our lives are forced into the rigid and unimaginative categories these bureaucratic structures offer us. In IE, this process is called ‘institutional capture’ (Smith, 2005, p. 119). It is what is happening when I have to squeeze my work into the boxes offered to me by a funding application, or when I have to explain my need for solitude and rest as a depression, contorted into the weirdness and inapplicability a PHQ-9. Suddenly, my life and work become translated into uncontroversial categories and cogs in a system I disagree with. But I am not always passively ‘captured’ by ‘the system’. Sometimes, I allow or work to make it to happen. We tick the right boxes, talk the talk or playing the game because we know what the system wants us to do. We do it to get resources or to get leverage. This is what I mean when I talk about ‘playing the game’. It is what I am doing when I strategically invoke my diagnoses or word my work as ‘prevention’, and it is what the detractors of the depression guideline are doing when they frame their critique of NICE’s work as one to do with evidence. This process is called intentional institutional capture (Eastwood, 2006)—when we deliberately and tactically allow ourselves to be subsumed into a system or a worldview for the purpose of playing it at its own game. But there are costs to playing the game and allowing ourselves to be captured. While we (hopefully) get short-term wins, playing the game implicitly endorses its underlying tenets—requiring us to forego the broader ideological struggle in favour of the immediate needs of any given situation. I wonder whether that’s why doing so leaves me with a funny taste in my mouth. Then again, if we refuse to play along, we lose those short-term wins—like changing a guideline, accessing mental health care or getting funding to do oppositional work. Sometimes, especially when I’m working in ‘high-risk’ situations, the short-term needs have to take precedence. This double-edge sword is the violence of bureaucracy. You lose if you play and you lose if you don’t. There has to be a way out. I don’t know how, but I wonder whether thinking about institutional capture could help. I am lucky enough to spend a lot of time around people who are doing exciting and liberatory mental health work—despite and in spite of ‘the system’. I see the permissiveness, creativity and boldness of user-led work and am consistently humbled by watching what happens when people have access to care that is truly consensual, collaborative and self-determined. As the edifice of mainstream mental health care begins to crumble (Rose et al., 2020; Moncrieff et al., 2022), it is my hope that user-led work is what takes its place. But I often wonder how we do that—how we make this kind of care ‘mainstream’ without it being co-opted, watered-down or otherwise manipulated by the system in service of maintaining the status quo. It will take deliberate organising and strategy to identify, name and get out from under the subtle trickery of a system designed for business as usual—including thinking carefully about what we win and what we lose when we decide to ‘play the game’. I wonder if the language of institutional capture—intentional or otherwise—might be helpful (Smith, 2005; Eastwood, 2006). It has helped me at least, to join up seemingly unrelated incidents and try to begin to explore how I can take wiser action in the world. The answer might not be ‘institutional capture’, but I do believe it is important to be intentional about our interactions with ‘the system’. It matters because the more time we spend translating our work into institutional language, the less time we spend developing the vocabulary required for a just future—one not about safeguarding, cost-efficiency or evidence-bases, but about justice, autonomy and liberation for all. Courtney Buckler (she/they) is a white, able-bodied, working-class, queer person. Courtney was born and raised in the south of England.

Marianna Fotaki, Hamid Foroughi

This article interrogates the idea of leadership in a decentralized organization, using Extinction Rebellion (XR) as a case study. Through close observation of this environmental movement, we problematize the notion of leaderless organizations and question whether the idea of a hierarchy- and power-free ‘decentralized organization’ is a fantasmatic endeavour. Psychoanalytic analysis of discussions between XR members following two disruptive actions during XR’s International Rebellion in October 2019 reveals that these actions temporarily provoked members to question the attainability and effectiveness of XR’s so-called ‘leaderless autonomous organization’. This article contributes to psychoanalytic studies of leadership and to the social movements literature and argues that the power relations present in any form of organized endeavour must be recognized in order to develop effective and democratic activism.

M Thirunavukarasu

INTRODUCTION We, the generation living in the early years of the 21st century, occupy a special position in human history, in that we have witnessed unprecedented and unparalleled growth in the understanding and knowledge about the world around us and life on this planet. While we bask in that glory, let us not forget that there are some important and large questions that remain embarrassingly unanswered. The most conspicuous of those questions is one that is central to the field of psychiatry - “What is the mind?” Nevertheless, psychiatrists have brazenly avoided or ignored this question due to a learned lack of enthusiasm, given the historical inability to achieve a consensus about anything pertaining to the mind. Not to mention the inevitable criticism and/or possible ostracism that relentlessly pursues anyone who takes a stand on this controversial issue. Psychiatrists did not just want to open that can of worms! We simply hoped that if we managed to keep the can closed, the worms would suffocate and die and we would never have to face that uncomfortable question again. We believed that just like we managed to evade the exact definition of mental illness, we would be similarly successful in evading the definition of the mind. However, in the last several decades, human life has transformed so much that we are now faced with a relatively new concept - mental health, which too remains to be defined. The list keeps growing and our silence has been deafening. While our understanding of the human brain, human behaviour, and neurosciences has grown exponentially, the task of describing or defining the mind has also become increasingly difficult. Our wilful indifference or tactical retreat from confronting these tough questions is not helping us, one bit. Increasingly, we are educating ourselves with an explanation that any definition of mind or mental health is not even a possibility, let alone plausibility. Let me highlight the importance of this issue by discussing the well-known, controversial, yet insightful Rosenhan experiment. THE ROSENHAN EXPERIMENT In 1973, American psychologist David L. Rosenhan published the findings of his controversial study, ‘On being sane in insane places’ in the journal Science, stirring up a lot of reactions and criticisms among the psychiatric community.[1] It was a two-part experiment exploring the consistency and validity of traditional methods of psychiatric diagnoses. For the first experiment, Rosenhan arranged a group of 8 normal individuals called ‘pseudopatients’ who were known to have no psychological or psychiatric pathology. They included a psychology graduate student, 3 psychologists, a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife. Three of them were women and five of them men. Rosenhan was one among them. These pseudopatients appeared at 12 different psychiatric hospitals (11 university or state hospitals and 1 private hospital), reporting a false complaint of repeatedly hearing something such as “thud”, or “hollow” or “empty” and gaining secret admission. They used pseudonyms (false names) to feign their real identity. However, other than this fabricated complaint of auditory hallucination, no other and as would Rosenhan this experiment to if psychiatrists the pseudopatients with one fabricated as these were with the one who appeared at the private who was with of them were with and and at and to the study, these pseudopatients of the complaint admission. They the and the psychiatric hospitals and their was and as that no one was They were and and were also in the as being of them were as sane the They were which the knowledge of the They were with a of in to being insane of the of experiment to be known to the of a psychiatric which that such would not at their the the of the experiment. Rosenhan an with this them that would one or pseudopatients sane to their in the to secret admission. and were to on their of being a and the the were and of were as pseudopatients by at one were as pseudopatients by at one were by one and one other The of this of the experiment were than the first Rosenhan that no pseudopatients to this that these can be that traditional methods of of mental were of at and even one and one from and from In the first experiment, psychiatrists a false of a sane as would a is to the psychiatrists on the of by in a than a such as is given the of in a to the of and is to be than a of a In the of the experiment, the were of the of to false 1 to a of 1 and the mental was Rosenhan Rosenhan this in Science, with an open and we been than years this was we have an mental is by a of or of to from from the of the and the not to mention the and even the are by a of or consensus by a group of of mental are most by some of on a list of The lack of these mental is to be mental health, by of the of mental health to be from of mental on the other is as a or of a of psychological such as In as a and the last have these of mind and mental health in educating psychiatry and mental health and These are too and educating mental health who are any definition of mind or mental health them to psychiatric and them in a They are also to the and them of also to the The too much and of to of the field by Psychiatrists are also to to and the in about mind or mental health the is that psychiatrists and even the to that psychiatrists not any than the about the mind. are to the in also in the to mental health In our in defining the of our - the mind or the has not been We have to and experiment has us with a in the as psychiatrists to from were not to not to the of that and are a in our to mental not that experiment that can in be from one Rosenhan that the inability of the to the pseudopatients not have been the pseudopatients did not this the first were of a of on the their some not a or a to the up on the While most of the were by the that been in was some to that the was sane his The that the did not important the other in the psychiatric were to these pseudopatients as being While of insane a sane of sane psychiatrists not In experiment that insane than sane who were in the field of While by the pseudopatients other to psychiatric as Rosenhan that this was a was with a psychiatric is with that any of even if would like to on also to on the of this is that the psychiatrist, a any that was this or this The complaint of auditory by the pseudopatients the to the at a of mental if the psychiatrists been this or hearing this not would have to that complaint or at become of at some the if not the or at at the of the of was in mental illness, not mental is important that and and in psychiatry with mental health to mental and not the other to mental health, we would first have to which has been a concept of let us a at the and of the concept of the mind and has the understanding of the THE of the concept of the an and of the historical to the mind. years his of the by the and believed them to be which in to be known as of a of and the to among in this as the which believed was in the However, of The first was a of a which in was by and The was as the of the and of such as of the and on the other was to an that is in was to be in the and is the the The of was an of was called as the a that is and the of several to the mind. It is to that was of psychological such as them to an the this was believed that the in a called the the of a to become the by now one called the was now of the the and the The was to the of and was believed to be in the The was the with and was this that called the believed that the the in the The called the was to of and and was believed to be in the It is to that the psychological of that now to the which was the in However, that the and the were of a or the the mind which was with was and even the of the to mind was the of the that was the to was to the and to be with the as as has up to this of of the being of a and an mind was and which that the of the the and in the to and was and to or the a of the was the was in to be with his concept of and his to a of an with a the of would the which is It is important to that this the was to be of as an or to the or or However, up with a from his that there were different of a a with and a with and and a with and In a this was to the of the of in the that of these were or or of the that the mind not be the and was simply an of the and the as a of the of the mind with the the a In of the mind with the is as as the of a would with the of the or as the of the would with the was of his and in that is of us as this is not in the of which is the by and by as However, the central of a with an the life of a by In the century, a in the of the by that and the the were of the and not of the In and the from the and to the the the or to be the of the the that this is and believed that by was the of in the of an with a to the of a with an one that the by with It is important to that is with that which was with to be with the or also the concept of of to the up and and the them. The of and are in the the by a of such as is as one that with called the mind by psychological such as The mind is not as a of a like the or an that with the and the of there have been several in that not to the in For in the century, that is as a was an the of a in the that the that in were to in the central the that the called of the a of was with in the brain, that was be to pathology. these which that a in state a in the mental the this simply the of the the that the of was to be a psychological was to be with the of and in the was the first that a mental was to be with a pathology. The the by the of from the of psychiatry to the central issue of the - if in are to be in the mental psychiatry is no different than The to psychiatry and as as that mind and are different yet in his as the as The of this as can be with of a in which the the of of these the is to be in which no to the The traditional mental which are from the The also mental these to be with However, this of the by findings that mental has a in and was to the of psychiatric at the psychiatric from illness, Nevertheless, the of to the mind and is among the and the It is important to to the that the and the of the of is with the is simply an of the of which we have to by is not me to if to the and an of the to the in the The world of the are there have been The is called the in in a is a of that a called the which with an called the called the is to the of the However, the world the of that is simply the of the such as the and with and be from other to a much of than the in these not the with psychological such as the The of to in the the of the to the explanation of mental illness, mental as a to the of in the However, is the and of is in than THE has been so to the has there been no consensus with any is this issue so are several there are no the human mind or mental about the human mind has several human and the of the human mind is by human and an of findings is important too - any concept of the mind has not just in also can be by the of mental has been and by and human such as mental has been to and such to his have in of such were to be an issue of and was with by and which have to In due such were also to be an issue of and with and and have also to pertaining to these of was to human have been in these human to that of the that was the such and that to the of the of the last has become by We in the of and are relentlessly by of also to the of to there is a to to such which is the of psychiatry and in this field are and by and of and the of the mind. and are in the of and any definition of the mind by of is to a is important to that the concept of mind is to be a of to be the of and in the field of in we are in the mind the of human just like any other Our is not to or in a by any of the or to the of in the field of as these from those which we would like to ourselves such as of and we are to in a the or are or would like to the or to Let me - not to the mind or the as the world has known to that of the human that is the of in the by human the of to human is to have by the which is being by a health would by a in in to any or to has been the and to any about to the this would to the not the mind or the so as to from the on an that has been in different even being defined. In other is that of the mind or that we are about as and THE In the last decades, there have been in the of and are new psychological and that are being most of which are being in The concept of the is not to in these pertaining to would the in the a Let me by has the in the of knowledge by The is the which of which are no the They are that are to be For the that the is a the that is at the of the and of are some of the in It is possible that be in the the of that is The is the which of and new The is by new which to be and in the are which are the The of which is from the is called the which is by that the uncomfortable about lot of is called such as the that such as the are to be lot would be are would like to to our of the - the of the human that is the of to the by human and would to those that have been by the psychiatric as the concept is open to be by the of new in the knowledge and - The with from THE The of the is to a concept to psychiatry and of to them to mental and mental health in a and so that can the health and those psychiatric would mental health to the or The other is to the to the of mental health and which would a in and and in the to mental and the of psychiatric is to to a - of has been would like to the concept of the as human being has and one is not a or of any is an or is a an a of the is an or of the just as the is an or of the is a concept is a is as as the to if the to or is not has at one that is and can be by is about the or with anything that is is not in to the the or the have any has no on anything other than the of which a can have a on the the of which a can in a state of health or is that of the that is in mental is that is in mental health is as the of and and in a is no that has one or of these in any one of these in the The the and the is a of called there is no the is not the is no psychiatric let me the in is a that is that can is not as of the as the can the However, the the is an of the and a concept of the is the In the of the can the can the if the is not The and the the the to in or to even if the is the of a or The such as or is an of the which a is a However, the can the The can several like a or a a like The and are as as the is For the to on the is by the not the the - that the to on the the of the the to the and at this an of now a is the of that as the the and the is not the and is not the is that to a the that this the of a has a and anything that can the It is important that this concept of the is not to be to be the as the concept of the called The mental to have a in by the concept from in concept to to the mind which have not by of a of a task the is a of the or the of a have that has at one that is that can be by such as and In the can be by the of such as However, this is a explanation the and not For can be by the of not that of simply that of is such as the of a are mental illness, and not be the of mental we that is in the in the which in mental The is not the that has at one that is is not to be that there is or It simply that the in be the other the other the if any is an such explanation has become in the to of the and not the we the and of as pertaining to the simply that has a In the the is that is as in psychiatric It The is that It The is that or The not to is called of the from the and from the that and is For if an that is in of or like or or from is in a and in of is in a and can be to the In this concept of is important to that there are of them can alone and never and in any is no that has one or of these They are in the not is a - a of that is and to or different these be from the the of these be any given there is a and a - and these a in one by an or a in the For if a such as a have such as a or a and can the to those and the other if a such as the of a have such as of being with the and life would be them and also would have to and and a are and and and - which is have used the this or were to be the has become not be in any of the such as or there be in the become For of psychiatric and pertaining to our field can be by this concept of and psychological or has some or in have to one which can be For is an a of the However, is with a and at some such as or are are with at some Three of the and is a which that the can be in one of - health or important to a mental health from a health is a relatively new concept in of It has in the last and importance has not yet been in mental health has been a concept in In than years there is mention of the which In the which that mental health is the a world and It is anything to that the importance of mental health has been a of health of the to on mental health, than mental with any of is than and be the first in the of to mental health, one first mental health even that mental health, a normal his is was and was in an in health can be an as health by is an or the called was is that as by is to a lot of at several - or The that of mental health be the is this is one there is a consensus about mental health - that no consensus is to we are in understanding that there are a lot of in mental we are too to that such be a The world is increasingly and is in one or the that are not are and living in the of have learned to with other the most have to their mental and to we as a that and we can the most to this in mental of mental health is as the of any of the mental in the and of or any that is the is health be a of such a concept the of The is to mental health not mental is to the to health is from the to For the to health and is different from the to or health be as an of Let us one - The of mental the of mental health, the of mental not the of mental is in the Rosenhan experiment the pseudopatients were as as the of and were with the on the concept of the would like to a concept of mental health as The of health in mental health is the by the health is a and concept The health of the is a The first is a of the of the health of the on the The is a of the of the health of the on The of the be mental health not is a mental health that a in the with the in can be by the of of the of to with of are or at not to and not is a mental health that a by to in the first and to in the is to not individuals due to the of the are relatively is a mental health that a by in the first to in the is to individuals to due to the of the the or not is a mental health that a by or most in the first with a in the on the such as to to and of mental illness, the The mental health concept is in the of at is not in the and not any group of by a as of mental of mental me on the of let me that the of health in the mental health concept is not the mind or as the world has known It is the as health is as a as a would that there is a mental health and mental and For a of a a or as mental such as in a of However, if mental health is to be a be that is simply a in the from to that and can be as It is to such from the concept that the mental health is as being the are on the a to the the from the a the is on to is with The has no of the there is a that to the to is or are the this would be such as and the other the has a the there is to the In such to their their to their which or not the is relatively to the than to to be the with not and and like health is a - which that the exact the mental health be is in such It is important to that a in one or mental health The would be are some in which the in to such as and The no or to be from other in which there is no or to such as However, the not and from their to the and the and the not the the to would be from the to The is just one of a group of be in a The the of mental health is to that the to mental health to the mental health of the The to the would be as the mental health the mental health is if the is by the as the are the to a would be to the these are not the is The now - the would be to if the is or not or the the is the is with the to mental the is not the would be to his or with the to mental if the is the would be to first the to with an to mental this concept of mental health is to in the It is not to by any For this concept of mental health be used to if were or or if of a or are than an is as mental health to the of not have a has been the a the of and even The has which is the which an not be are to is as mental health we have not the of the of psychiatric We have also not the state of that - something that other has been to we the of our and psychiatrists to be called and to In to that of our we to to the psychiatrists are of and of methods of be to can such methods be if we have not the of our and the state of that a first have an to the as the - a concept that is different from other of the mind of these of the mind is the not not not the mind about that of the that and about from or not have used a different in psychiatric be is about the or that not have an by the of there is no with the or in that can be of a has a psychiatric or in the can be mental health and health to mental health can be also us to mental health just mental from an which is important our of mental around psychiatry are we have one at from the of the that is - a that has the in of is the the in psychiatry and Rosenhan has mental health this one is that and is For there is no and be given the is also no and are given the It is important to not just mental health, the of by the of in of psychiatry not be mental or not the of to the are and to be These are open to given the would in the and and/or of to mental health of the important would be to of the mental health and their can be as a concept by and which are and and in They in health can be as the of the about to with human and his or and are to as as at not to as as the of of in the and the