European Psychiatry - Volume 41 - April 2017

5 / 916

Available online at
ScienceDirect
25th European Congress of Psychiatry
Plenary
Plenary session: Psychiatry 2017: Acknowledging
complexity while avoiding defeatism
PL01
Psychiatry 2017: Acknowledging
complexity while avoiding defeatism
M. Maj
Department of Psychiatry, University of Largo Madonna delle Grazie,
80138 Naples, Italy
In the past few years, it has become a sort of cliché to state that
psychiatry is in a crisis. In particular, it has been repeatedly argued
that: (a) psychiatric diagnoses are invalid; (b) psychiatric research
has not progressed significantly (in particular, it has not been able
to identify “the cause” of schizophrenia, depression or bipolar dis-
order); (c) psychiatric treatments are of limited value, and their
widespread use has not been able to reduce the incidence of men-
tal disorders. This perception of crisis has been at least in part
generated by an identification of mainstream psychiatry with the
neo-kraepelinian paradigm, so that the crisis of confidence in that
paradigmhas expanded into a crisis of confidence in the psychiatric
discipline. According to Kuhn, the crisis of confidence in a paradigm
is accompanied by a period of “extraordinary science”, marked by
a proliferation of competing methodologies, the proposition of a
variety of divergent solutions for the problem defining the crisis,
and the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals
of the discipline. The crisis of confidence in the neo-kraepelinian
paradigm has generated such a period, in which we are all now
immersed. In this presentation, I will summarize the main compo-
nents of the neo-kraepelinian paradigm; I will illustrate why that
paradigmhas failed, or at least has lost people’s confidence; andwill
summarize the main elements which are emerging in the current
period of “extraordinary science”.
Disclosure of interest The author has not supplied his declaration
of competing interest.
Plenary session: Public mental health and clinical
psychiatry: Are they two separate worlds?
PL02
Public mental health and clinical
psychiatry: Are they really two
separate worlds?
S. Priebe
Queen Mary, University of London, United Kingdom
Public mental health and clinical psychiatry: Are they two separate
worlds?
Stefan Priebe, unit for social and community psychiatry, Queen
Mary University of London.
Public mental health focuses on health indicators and inter-
ventions on population level with an emphasis – although not
exclusively–on prevention. In contrast, clinical psychiatry involves
treatment of individuals in the setting of a health service and deals
with people who usually already have a mental disorder. The the-
oretical background, the underpinning evidence and the practical
approach of publicmental health and clinical psychiatry differ from
each other and concepts of one of the two cannot easily be trans-
ferred to the other.
Nevertheless, the presentation will argue that there are also links
between the two. These links may be based on overall applicable
values, a common understanding of mental disorders, and social
models of overcoming mental distress. These links can have impli-
cations for how clinical psychiatrists are engaged in political and
societal activities, get involved with local communities, and work
in daily practice with their patients.
The public mental health perspective, used in a wide sense of the
term, has played a substantial role in the historical development
of psychiatry, including its major reforms, and might also open up
how clinical psychiatry might be attractive as a career option and
relevant as a profession in the future.
Disclosure of interest The author has not supplied his declaration
of competing interest.
0924-9338/