DAY NINE: Gilded cages

Today’s meeting brought the theme of abolition, often seen as the antithesis of reform for mental healthcare and the (interconnected) carceral system more generally. 
 
Perhaps it is a well-known idea, but for me it was the first time someone had suggested the abolition of the mental health act rather than the abolition of the institutions themselves or psychiatry/psychology. 
 
This distinction was a lightbulb moment in terms of the potential compatibility of co-production and the abolition movement, which have at times felt at odds in the context of youth mental health.
 
I had reflected previously on worries that by incorporating co-production principles or participatory methods into my research design I was on the one hand 'buying in' wholeheartedly to co-production, whilst simultaneously trying to ask "for whom and in what circumstances does co-production work in youth mental health services?". If one answer is that: in some circumstances it 'works' for the powerful, and not for the disenfranchised, then could adopting these principles into the research design pose a problem?
 
I haven't quite worked out why situating abolition as towards the legal structures might help, but perhaps it is because it is an example that provides a common goal for service users and providers/clinicians. 
 

Lots to think about.