Researching, Practising, and Debating Mental Health Care


Joint statement signed by Sarb Bajwa, Chief Executive and , President sets out common ground in care, research, and debate.

Mental health is a complex issue: one in which we all have a stake. Much has been learned over the past few decades regarding the causes and best treatments in this area, but there is still a great deal more that can and should be done. Research into prevention and management is much needed to develop the evidence base for what works.

The field of mental health has generated contested ideas and beliefs as well as polarisation, bitterness, and intransigence. That is why the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society have come together to affirm a common set of ideals and principles for how we, as professionals, discuss these topics. Our suggestions here are not intended to be prescriptive, nor are they the last word on the subject. How could they be? We hope, however, that they will provide much-needed common ground and the platform for us to create a future with better mental health for all.

Read the statement here.

Previous articleAre 1 in 8 Children and Young People Really ‘Mentally Disordered’?
Next articleBBC Radio 4 All in the Mind – Antidepressant Withdrawal
MITUK’s mission is to serve as a catalyst for fundamentally re-thinking theory and practice in the field of mental health in the UK, and promoting positive change. We believe that the current diagnostically-based paradigm of care has comprehensively failed, and that the future lies in non-medical alternatives which explicitly acknowledge the causal role of social and relational conflicts, abuses, adversities and injustices.


  1. I am rather puzzled why MITUK has posted this concordat between the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatry. It talks about “much needed common ground.” Much needed by whom? It refers to past “polarisation, bitterness, and intransigence.” I would have thought that with Brexit as an example, it should be understood that compromise is not easy to achieve and can be bitter. Isn’t MITUK supposed to be a platform for radical ideas and dissent? In any case, Sarb Bajwa is not a psychologist. Does he understand the issues? According to the BPS website he is an expert on “strategic repositioning” amongst other things. Good luck to him but bad news for the BPS and its members.