Treatment, deterrence or labelling: mentally disordered offenders' perspectives on social control

Towards a sociological understanding of medical gaslighting in western health care

In recent years, the term 'medical gaslighting' and accompanying accounts of self-identified women experiencing invalidation, dismissal and inadequate care have proliferated in the media. Gaslighting has primarily been conceptualized in the field of psychology as a phenomenon within interpersonal relationships. Following the work of Paige Sweet (American Sociological Review, 84, 2019, 851), I argue that a sociological explanation is necessary. Such an explanation illustrates how medical gaslighting is not simply an interpersonal exchange, but the result of deeply embedded and largely unchallenged ideologies underpinning health-care services. Through an intersectional feminist and Foucauldian analysis, I illuminate the ideological structures of western medicine that allow for medical gaslighting to be commonplace in the lives of women, transgender, intersex, queer and racialized individuals seeking health care. Importantly, these are not mutually exclusive groups, and I use the term bio-Others to highlight and connect how those with embodied differences are treated in medicine. This article indicates the importance of opening a robust discussion about the sociology of medical gaslighting, so that we might better understand what structural barriers people of marginalized social locations face in accessing quality health care and develop creative solutions to challenge health-care inequities.

Inpatient Institutional Care: The Forced Social Environment

The landscape of mental health recovery is changing; there have been calls for a shift from the clinical expertise being the dominant voice within mental healthcare towards a more personalised and collaborative service that supports those in need of mental healthcare to define what recovery is for the individual. Within this new recovery movement, there has been a recognition of the importance of the social environment in which individuals are situated and the relationship of this to mental health and wellbeing. Included in this is the importance of an individual’s role within society and the ways in which knowledge, such as experts by experience, can hold an important value. The argument then, is that social connectedness forms part of the recovery journey and that relationships can help us develop or re-connect with who we are in powerful ways. Such a view has only been strengthened by the recent and ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic. Within the UK, discussions of the importance of our wellbeing have become commonplace within the context of restricted social contact. With this heightened awareness of how the social contributes to wellbeing, it is important to consider the environments in which those in receipt of mental healthcare are situated. One of which is institutionalised care, where it is commonplace to restrict social contact. For example, by virtue of being within a locked environment, individuals’ freedom of movement is often non-existent and thus contacts with those not residing or working within the institution is restricted. While such restrictions may be deemed necessary to protect the individual’s mental health, such environments can be unintentionally toxic. Data are presented from an ethnography that was conducted within an inpatient forensic mental health hospital in the UK to highlight the problematic social environment which some individuals experience. Key interpersonal issues are presented, such as, trust, racism, the threat of physical violence and bullying that was experienced by staff and residents at the hospital. Consideration is given to the coping strategies enacted by residents and the pathologising of such behaviour. The consequences on interpersonal wellbeing are explored.

Ordinary risks and accepted fictions: how contrasting and competing priorities work in risk assessment and mental health care planning

Background

Communication and information sharing are considered crucial to recovery‐focused mental health services. Effective mental health care planning and coordination includes assessment and management of risk and safety.

Objective

Using data from our cross‐national mixed‐method study of care planning and coordination, we examined what patients, family members and workers say about risk assessment and management and explored the contents of care plans.

Design

Thematic analysis of qualitative research interviews (n = 117) with patients, family members and workers, across four English and two Welsh National Health Service sites. Care plans were reviewed (n = 33) using a structured template.

Findings

Participants have contrasting priorities in relation to risk. Patients see benefit in discussions about risk, but cast the process as a worker priority that may lead to loss of liberty. Relationships with workers are key to family members and patients; however, worker claims of involving people in the care planning process do not extend to risk assessment and management procedures for fear of causing upset. Workers locate risk as coming from the person rather than social or environmental factors, are risk averse and appear to prioritize the procedural aspects of assessment.

Conclusions

Despite limitations, risk assessment is treated as legitimate work by professionals. Risk assessment practice operates as a type of fiction in which poor predictive ability and fear of consequences are accepted in the interests of normative certainty by all parties. As a consequence, risk adverse options are encouraged by workers and patients steered away from opportunities for ordinary risks thereby hindering the mobilization of their strengths and abilities.