http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates.xml Audio feeds from the Institute of Psychiatry. Public lectures, debates, conferences on mental health, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology 3/17/2010 11:47:20 AM en-gb © Institute of Psychiatry 2006 7200 Audio feeds from the Institute of Psychiatry. Public lectures, debates, conferences on mental health, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology Institute of Psychiatry,Maudsley Debates Institute of Psychiatry Institute of Psychiatry No rss feed http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-38_There_would_be_no_genius_without_madness.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-38_There_would_be_no_genius_without_madness.mp3 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 1:23:56 1:23:56 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychuatry-37_They_ll_sell_it_lose_it_or_abuse_it.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychuatry-37_They_ll_sell_it_lose_it_or_abuse_it.mp3 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg They’ll sell it, lose it or abuse it: Can you trust researchers with your confidential data? This house believes that clinical research has too few safeguards for consent and confidentiality. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates They’ll sell it, lose it or abuse it: Can you trust researchers with your confidential data? This house believes that clinical research has too few safeguards for consent and confidentiality. 1:26:54 1:26:54 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-36_The_Drugs_Dont_Work.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-36_The_Drugs_Dont_Work.mp3 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg The 36th Maudsley Debate. This House Believes Antidepressants are no Better than Placebo. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates The 36th Maudsley Debate. This House Believes Antidepressants are no Better than Placebo. 1:32:54 1:32:54 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Happily_ever_after.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Happily_ever_after.mp3 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg Is happiness overrated? How to define happiness? Is depression its polar opposite? And just who gains from re-translating and individualising collective, public issues? Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates Is happiness overrated? How to define happiness? Is depression its polar opposite? And just who gains from re-translating and individualising collective, public issues? 1:32:53 1:32:53 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Swallowing_it_whole.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Swallowing_it_whole.mp3 Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:30:00 GMT audio/mpeg 34th Maudsley Debate Swallowing it whole: This house believes that psychiatrists are unable to resist the seductive messages on the pharmaceutical industry Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 34th Maudsley Debate Swallowing it whole: This house believes that psychiatrists are unable to resist the seductive messages on the pharmaceutical industry 1:39:09 1:39:09 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-33_Just_or_Unjust.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-33_Just_or_Unjust.mp3 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 33rd Maudsley Debate This House believes that the Mental Health Bill 2006 will improve mental health care in England and Wales Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 33rd Maudsley Debate This House believes that the Mental Health Bill 2006 will improve mental health care in England and Wales 1:36:40 1:36:40 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-The_Race_Blame_Game.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-The_Race_Blame_Game.mp3 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 32nd Maudsley Debate This house believes that charges of institutional racism in psychiatry damage patient care Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 32nd Maudsley Debate This house believes that charges of institutional racism in psychiatry damage patient care 1:54:51 1:54:51 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-31_Genes_are_a_patient_s_best_friend.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-31_Genes_are_a_patient_s_best_friend.mp3 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 31st Maudsley Debate This house believes patients and their psychiatrists should place their faith in genetics. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 31st Maudsley Debate This house believes patients and their psychiatrists should place their faith in genetics. 1:33:12 1:33:12 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-30_Is_Childabuse_a_cause_of_Schitzophrenia.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-30_Is_Childabuse_a_cause_of_Schitzophrenia.mp3 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 30th Maudsley Debate This house believes child abuse is a cause of schizophrenia. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 30th Maudsley Debate This house believes child abuse is a cause of schizophrenia. 1:28:20 1:28:20 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Antipsychiatry_is_dead_long_live_psychiatry.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Antipsychiatry_is_dead_long_live_psychiatry.mp3 Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 29th Maudsley Debate Antipsychiatry is dead: long live psychiatry. This house believes that the legacy of RD Laing was detrimental for patient care. Supporting the motion will be: Adrianne Revely, Consultant Psychiatrist and Mike Launer, Consultant Psychiatrist at the Lamont Clinic, Burnley. Opposing the motion will be: Adrian Laing, Solicitor in London and Tony David, Consultant Psychiatrist in SLAM and Professor of Cognitive Neuropsychiatry at the IOP Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 29th Maudsley Debate Antipsychiatry is dead: long live psychiatry. This house believes that the legacy of RD Laing was detrimental for patient care. Supporting the motion will be: Adrianne Revely, Consultant Psychiatrist and Mike Launer, Consultant Psychiatrist at the Lamont Clinic, Burnley. Opposing the motion will be: Adrian Laing, Solicitor in London and Tony David, Consultant Psychiatrist in SLAM and Professor of Cognitive Neuropsychiatry at the IOP 1:01:39 1:01:39 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Love_is_a_delusion.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Love_is_a_delusion.mp3 Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg The speakers for the motion are Dr. Harvey Gordon and Dr. Frank Tallis. Dr. Gordon is a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Littlemore Mental Health Centre in Oxford. Dr. Frank Tallis is a writer and a Clinical Psychologist. In addition to his numerous academic publications he is the author of several novels including “Killing Time” and the recent bestseller “Lovesick”. Speaking against the motion are Dr. Glenn Wilson and Ms. Cherry Potter. Dr. Wilson is a Reader in Personality at the Institute of Psychiatry. He is a pioneer in the field of evolutionary theories of sex differences, attraction and love and he is ranked within the 10 most cited British psychologists. Ms. Cherry Potter is a Journalist and Psychotherapist. She was head of screenwriting at the National Film and Television School and is well known for her articles in the Guardian and The Times as well as her latest novel “I Love you but... Seven decades of romantic comedy”. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates The speakers for the motion are Dr. Harvey Gordon and Dr. Frank Tallis. Dr. Gordon is a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Littlemore Mental Health Centre in Oxford. Dr. Frank Tallis is a writer and a Clinical Psychologist. In addition to his numerous academic publications he is the author of several novels including “Killing Time” and the recent bestseller “Lovesick”. Speaking against the motion are Dr. Glenn Wilson and Ms. Cherry Potter. Dr. Wilson is a Reader in Personality at the Institute of Psychiatry. He is a pioneer in the field of evolutionary theories of sex differences, attraction and love and he is ranked within the 10 most cited British psychologists. Ms. Cherry Potter is a Journalist and Psychotherapist. She was head of screenwriting at the National Film and Television School and is well known for her articles in the Guardian and The Times as well as her latest novel “I Love you but... Seven decades of romantic comedy”. 48:13 48:13 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-A_Born_Again_Brain.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-A_Born_Again_Brain.mp3 Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg A Born-Again Brain?– this house believes that modern science has demonstrated the implausibility of an afterlife. Speakers for the motion are Professor Lewis Wolpert and Professor Peter Atkins. Lewis Wolpert is professor of biology at University College London and is recognised as one of the pioneering thinkers of embryology. He is a former chairman of the Committee for the Public Understanding of Science and has presented science in books, on radio and on TV. He also writes a column for The Independent. Peter Atkins is professor of physical chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford, and is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. His research interests are in the field of theoretical chemistry, particularly magnetic resonance and the electromagnetic properties of molecules. He is the author of several world-famous chemistry textbooks and now spends virtually all his time writing, including books for more general audiences. Speakers against the motion are the Rev Dr John Polkinghorne and Dr Sean Spence. John Polkinghorne is a mathematical physicist and Anglican priest. He resigned as professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge in 1979 to pursue theological studies, becoming a priest in 1982. Since then, his writings and lectures have applied scientific habits to Christianity, resulting in a ‘modern, new exploration of the faith.’ Sean Spence is reader in adult psychiatry at the University of Sheffield and honorary consultant psychiatrist to the homeless at Sheffield Care Trust. His research interests include the investigation of the cognitive neurobiology of higher executive function in humans in health and disease. The debate will be chaired by the IoP’s Professor Robin Murray. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates A Born-Again Brain?– this house believes that modern science has demonstrated the implausibility of an afterlife. Speakers for the motion are Professor Lewis Wolpert and Professor Peter Atkins. Lewis Wolpert is professor of biology at University College London and is recognised as one of the pioneering thinkers of embryology. He is a former chairman of the Committee for the Public Understanding of Science and has presented science in books, on radio and on TV. He also writes a column for The Independent. Peter Atkins is professor of physical chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford, and is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. His research interests are in the field of theoretical chemistry, particularly magnetic resonance and the electromagnetic properties of molecules. He is the author of several world-famous chemistry textbooks and now spends virtually all his time writing, including books for more general audiences. Speakers against the motion are the Rev Dr John Polkinghorne and Dr Sean Spence. John Polkinghorne is a mathematical physicist and Anglican priest. He resigned as professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge in 1979 to pursue theological studies, becoming a priest in 1982. Since then, his writings and lectures have applied scientific habits to Christianity, resulting in a ‘modern, new exploration of the faith.’ Sean Spence is reader in adult psychiatry at the University of Sheffield and honorary consultant psychiatrist to the homeless at Sheffield Care Trust. His research interests include the investigation of the cognitive neurobiology of higher executive function in humans in health and disease. The debate will be chaired by the IoP’s Professor Robin Murray. 1:28:59 1:28:59 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Going_down_the_tube_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Going_down_the_tube_.mp3 Wed, 26 May 2004 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 25th Maudsley Debate Going down the tube? This House believes London's mental health services are in a state of permanent crisis. Supporting the motion: Angela Greatley, Director of Policy, The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and co-author of the King's Fund mental health report 2003 & Cliff Prior, Chief Executive, Rethink (formerly the National Schizophrenia Fellowship) - - Opposing the motion: Alan Cohen, Chair, London Development Centre for Mental Health & Stuart Bell, Chief Executive SLAM NHS Trust - - Chair: Professor Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatry, IoP Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 25th Maudsley Debate Going down the tube? This House believes London's mental health services are in a state of permanent crisis. Supporting the motion: Angela Greatley, Director of Policy, The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and co-author of the King's Fund mental health report 2003 & Cliff Prior, Chief Executive, Rethink (formerly the National Schizophrenia Fellowship) - - Opposing the motion: Alan Cohen, Chair, London Development Centre for Mental Health & Stuart Bell, Chief Executive SLAM NHS Trust - - Chair: Professor Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatry, IoP 1:27:22 1:27:22 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Drugs_high_time_for_a_change.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Drugs_high_time_for_a_change.mp3 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 24th Maudsley Debate Speaking in favour of the motion: Mr. Roger Warren-Evans (Barrister, Liberty member and secretary of the Angel Declaration calling for changes in drug laws), and Dr. John Marsden (Senior Lecturer, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry; replacing Eliot Albert, writer and activist from the Methadone Alliance) Speaking against the motion: Professor Griffith Edwards (National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry), and Dr. Andrew Johns (Senior Lecturer and Consultant Psychiatrist in Forensic Psychiatry). Dr. Johns replaced Julian Brazier, who we lost in the Tory reshuffle. Chaired by Dr Michael Farrell, Consultant, Maudsley hospital Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 24th Maudsley Debate Speaking in favour of the motion: Mr. Roger Warren-Evans (Barrister, Liberty member and secretary of the Angel Declaration calling for changes in drug laws), and Dr. John Marsden (Senior Lecturer, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry; replacing Eliot Albert, writer and activist from the Methadone Alliance) Speaking against the motion: Professor Griffith Edwards (National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry), and Dr. Andrew Johns (Senior Lecturer and Consultant Psychiatrist in Forensic Psychiatry). Dr. Johns replaced Julian Brazier, who we lost in the Tory reshuffle. Chaired by Dr Michael Farrell, Consultant, Maudsley hospital 1:22:16 1:22:16 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Are_men_bad_for_women_s_mental_health.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Are_men_bad_for_women_s_mental_health.mp3 Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg Feelings ran high at this debate touching on gender issues within psychiatric services. The audience started the evening strongly behind the motion supporting gender-segregated in-patient services but with a number of voters waiting to be persuaded. The proposers of the motion centred their arguments on issues of women’s safety and were opposed by a counter-attack emphasising the importance of patient choice. We heard several women service users give heartfelt testimony to their experience of the vulnerability of women within mixed acute wards, in particular to sexual exploitation and violence. Although nobody denied that women had the right to safety as in-patients, it was argued that maybe a better solution lay in improving the general quality of in-patient care and giving careful consideration to ward architecture and staffing levels to allow safety for all. Would sex-segregation not be a move to benefit women and disadvantage men? Lynne Clayton spiritedly attacked this notion on the grounds that it was unreasonable to put women at risk so that they could act as ‘civilising’ influences for men. Interestingly, Dr Eleanor Cole’s overview of the literature showed that research into the proposed benefits of gender-separated services was equivocal. Should we not, therefore, take more time to reflect and research the issue before committing to change? Otherwise we might fail to learn from the past experience of segregated wards that was illustrated by Professor Peter Tyrer. At the end of it all, there were fewer people on the fence but the percentages barely changed. In terms of acute in-patient psychiatric wards at least, the feeling seemed to be that men were bad for women’s mental health and that these services ought therefore to be sex-segregated. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates Feelings ran high at this debate touching on gender issues within psychiatric services. The audience started the evening strongly behind the motion supporting gender-segregated in-patient services but with a number of voters waiting to be persuaded. The proposers of the motion centred their arguments on issues of women’s safety and were opposed by a counter-attack emphasising the importance of patient choice. We heard several women service users give heartfelt testimony to their experience of the vulnerability of women within mixed acute wards, in particular to sexual exploitation and violence. Although nobody denied that women had the right to safety as in-patients, it was argued that maybe a better solution lay in improving the general quality of in-patient care and giving careful consideration to ward architecture and staffing levels to allow safety for all. Would sex-segregation not be a move to benefit women and disadvantage men? Lynne Clayton spiritedly attacked this notion on the grounds that it was unreasonable to put women at risk so that they could act as ‘civilising’ influences for men. Interestingly, Dr Eleanor Cole’s overview of the literature showed that research into the proposed benefits of gender-separated services was equivocal. Should we not, therefore, take more time to reflect and research the issue before committing to change? Otherwise we might fail to learn from the past experience of segregated wards that was illustrated by Professor Peter Tyrer. At the end of it all, there were fewer people on the fence but the percentages barely changed. In terms of acute in-patient psychiatric wards at least, the feeling seemed to be that men were bad for women’s mental health and that these services ought therefore to be sex-segregated. 1:23:55 1:23:55 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-The_Choice_depressed_or_dependent.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-The_Choice_depressed_or_dependent.mp3 Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:30:00 GMT audio/mpeg 22th Maudsley Debate Supporting the motion: Dr David Healy and Mr Charles Medawar Opposing the motion: Dr Veronica O'Keane and Professor Lewis Wolpert Chair: Professor Robin M Murray Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 22th Maudsley Debate Supporting the motion: Dr David Healy and Mr Charles Medawar Opposing the motion: Dr Veronica O'Keane and Professor Lewis Wolpert Chair: Professor Robin M Murray 1:33:14 1:33:14 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-21_Boys_will_be_boys.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-21_Boys_will_be_boys.mp3 Wed, 21 May 2003 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 21st Maudsley Debate Boys will be boys: War is an expression of the psychopathology of the male brain. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 21st Maudsley Debate Boys will be boys: War is an expression of the psychopathology of the male brain. 1:40:15 1:40:15 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Crime_and_illness_the_thin_blue_line.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Crime_and_illness_the_thin_blue_line.mp3 Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 20th Maudsley Debate Crime and illness: the thin blue line? This house believes that criminals need treatment not punishment Proposing the motion:Prof. John Gunn, Forensic Psychiatry, IOP and Prof. Christopher Cordess, Forensic Psychiatry, University of Sheffield. Opposing the motion: BRENDAN O'NEILL - Assistant Editor, SPIKED PHILIP BEAN - Director, Midlands Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 20th Maudsley Debate Crime and illness: the thin blue line? This house believes that criminals need treatment not punishment Proposing the motion:Prof. John Gunn, Forensic Psychiatry, IOP and Prof. Christopher Cordess, Forensic Psychiatry, University of Sheffield. Opposing the motion: BRENDAN O'NEILL - Assistant Editor, SPIKED PHILIP BEAN - Director, Midlands Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice 1:26:42 1:26:42 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-19_Are_we_all_mentally_ill_now.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-19_Are_we_all_mentally_ill_now.mp3 Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 19th Maudsley Debate This house believes that the problems of everyday life are being over-medicalised. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 19th Maudsley Debate This house believes that the problems of everyday life are being over-medicalised. 1:21:12 1:21:12 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Schizophrenia_the_ultimate_delusion.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Schizophrenia_the_ultimate_delusion.mp3 Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 18th Maudsley Debate Supporting the motion that schizophrenia does not exist will be Professor Jim Van Os and Richard Bentall. Opposing the motion will be Dr. Peter McKenna & Professor Anthony David. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 18th Maudsley Debate Supporting the motion that schizophrenia does not exist will be Professor Jim Van Os and Richard Bentall. Opposing the motion will be Dr. Peter McKenna & Professor Anthony David. 1:30:46 1:30:46 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-17_They_all_want_to_be_doctors.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-17_They_all_want_to_be_doctors.mp3 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 17th Maudsley Debates 'They all want to be doctors.'This house believes that nurses and psychologists should be allowed to prescribe. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 17th Maudsley Debates 'They all want to be doctors.'This house believes that nurses and psychologists should be allowed to prescribe. 1:11:02 1:11:02 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Post_Traumatic_Stress_Disorder.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Post_Traumatic_Stress_Disorder.mp3 Tue, 28 May 2002 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg For Mr Ben Shephard - Noted historian, journalist and commentator. Author of 'War of Nerves', the much praised history of the effect of war on the mind, and the often ineffective ways in which military psychiatry seeks to prevent this. Dr Derek Summerfield - Consultant Psychiatrist, SLAM Honorary Senior Lecturer, Institute of Psychiatry. Consultant to OXFAM. Principal Psychiatrist, Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture. Research Associate, Refugees Study Centre, Oxford University. Leading critique of the medicalisation of distress via the diagnosis of PTSD, and strong critic of western psychiatric aid programmes to those in other cultures exposed to the horrors of disaster or war. Against Doctor Chris Freeman - Consultant Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh. Director of the Colin Rivers Centre, PTSD clinic, Edinburgh and responsible for the Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapy Unit, Royal Edinburgh Hospital. Chairman, Royal College Research Committee. Mr Andrew Buchan - Leading barrister for PTSD; Junior Counsel in the ground-breaking Walker stress case; Counsel in the Long v Mercury Mobile Communications: £327,500 for a first breakdown caused by bullying. Author of 'Personal Injury Practice' and 'Procedure and Personal Injury Schedules'. Authority on stress, bullying and PTSD cases, and has lectured on bullying and stress to IRS, IBC and Euroforum. Chair Simon Wessely - Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry (IoP); Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, King's and Maudsley Hospitals; Co-Director, Gulf War Illnesses Research Unit. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates For Mr Ben Shephard - Noted historian, journalist and commentator. Author of 'War of Nerves', the much praised history of the effect of war on the mind, and the often ineffective ways in which military psychiatry seeks to prevent this. Dr Derek Summerfield - Consultant Psychiatrist, SLAM Honorary Senior Lecturer, Institute of Psychiatry. Consultant to OXFAM. Principal Psychiatrist, Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture. Research Associate, Refugees Study Centre, Oxford University. Leading critique of the medicalisation of distress via the diagnosis of PTSD, and strong critic of western psychiatric aid programmes to those in other cultures exposed to the horrors of disaster or war. Against Doctor Chris Freeman - Consultant Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh. Director of the Colin Rivers Centre, PTSD clinic, Edinburgh and responsible for the Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapy Unit, Royal Edinburgh Hospital. Chairman, Royal College Research Committee. Mr Andrew Buchan - Leading barrister for PTSD; Junior Counsel in the ground-breaking Walker stress case; Counsel in the Long v Mercury Mobile Communications: £327,500 for a first breakdown caused by bullying. Author of 'Personal Injury Practice' and 'Procedure and Personal Injury Schedules'. Authority on stress, bullying and PTSD cases, and has lectured on bullying and stress to IRS, IBC and Euroforum. Chair Simon Wessely - Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry (IoP); Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, King's and Maudsley Hospitals; Co-Director, Gulf War Illnesses Research Unit. 1:11:29 1:11:29 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-14_Human_Rights_Gone_Mad_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-14_Human_Rights_Gone_Mad_.mp3 Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 14th Maudsley Debate 'Human Rights Gone Mad?' This house believes that human rights standards do not protect the dignity Date: 19 March 2002 18:00 Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 14th Maudsley Debate 'Human Rights Gone Mad?' This house believes that human rights standards do not protect the dignity Date: 19 March 2002 18:00 1:30:52 1:30:52 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-13_Method_in_Their_Madness_or_Madness_in_Their_Method_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-13_Method_in_Their_Madness_or_Madness_in_Their_Method_.mp3 Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 13th Maudsley Debate 'Method in Their Madness or Madness in Their Method?' This house believes that the public's reaction to terrorism is more irrational than the terrorists' motivation and behaviour Date: 23 January 2002 18:00 Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 13th Maudsley Debate 'Method in Their Madness or Madness in Their Method?' This house believes that the public's reaction to terrorism is more irrational than the terrorists' motivation and behaviour Date: 23 January 2002 18:00 1:38:39 1:38:39 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-12_Plan_or_Sham_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-12_Plan_or_Sham_.mp3 Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 12th Maudsley Debate 12th Maudsley Debate Plan or Sham? This house believes that the NHS Plan will transform psychiatric care in England for the better Tuesday 13 November 2001 6pm Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 12th Maudsley Debate 12th Maudsley Debate Plan or Sham? This house believes that the NHS Plan will transform psychiatric care in England for the better Tuesday 13 November 2001 6pm 1:40:29 1:40:29 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Who_gives_a_puff.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Who_gives_a_puff.mp3 Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 11th Maudsley Debate Who gives a puff? This house believes it is worth criminalising the majority to protect the vulnerable minority Supporting this motion were:- Dr Colin Drummond, Consultant Psychiatrist. St George's Medical School Professor Susan Greenfield, Director of the Royal Institution and Professor of Pharmacology, Oxford University Speaking against the motion were:- Dr Michael Farrell, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry Dr Leslie Iversen, Director of the Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases (King's College London) Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 11th Maudsley Debate Who gives a puff? This house believes it is worth criminalising the majority to protect the vulnerable minority Supporting this motion were:- Dr Colin Drummond, Consultant Psychiatrist. St George's Medical School Professor Susan Greenfield, Director of the Royal Institution and Professor of Pharmacology, Oxford University Speaking against the motion were:- Dr Michael Farrell, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry Dr Leslie Iversen, Director of the Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases (King's College London) 1:41:05 1:41:05 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Mental_Health_Reform.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Mental_Health_Reform.mp3 Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg The 10th Maudsley Debate was held on Thursday July 5th on the topic of mental health law reform. A lively audience of service users, psychiatrists, and health care professionals including the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists attended the debate, which was chaired by Professor Tom Fahy. Before hearing the arguments of the speakers only 2% of the audience supported the motion and the implementation of the Government White Paper on Mental Health with 61% opposed and a substantial 37% undecided. Professor Tony Maden of Imperial College opened the debate arguing for the motion. He put forward that the Mental Health White Paper ensured that difficult patients received treatment rather than punishment, and that the governments interest in public protection was valid. Paul Bowen, a barrister of Doughty St Chambers, opposed this, pointing out that the White Paper severely constrained liberty, expanded the class of people subject to coercion, and breached the Human Rights Act. Next Dr Chris Burford, a consultant at St Anns Hospital, Tottenham, supported Professor Maden and the motion. He spoke of changes in psychiatry and the difficulties of revolving door admissions; he suggested that the White Paper provided a framework for treating vulnerable people who otherwise missed or evaded treatment. Finally, Dr Andrew Johns a consultant of forensic psychiatry at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, concluded by noting that the White Paper coerced both patients and psychiatrists. He rounded up the debate by reiterating the estimation that 5000 patients would require detention in order to prevent a single homicide by a person with a mental disorder. After comments and questions from the floor the audience was able to vote on the motion again. It turned out that still only 1.5% supported the implementation of the White Paper. However the number of those opposed had increased to 90%. The speakers opposing the motion had evidently convinced the majority of those undecided before the debate, whose number dropped to a mere 8.5%. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates The 10th Maudsley Debate was held on Thursday July 5th on the topic of mental health law reform. A lively audience of service users, psychiatrists, and health care professionals including the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists attended the debate, which was chaired by Professor Tom Fahy. Before hearing the arguments of the speakers only 2% of the audience supported the motion and the implementation of the Government White Paper on Mental Health with 61% opposed and a substantial 37% undecided. Professor Tony Maden of Imperial College opened the debate arguing for the motion. He put forward that the Mental Health White Paper ensured that difficult patients received treatment rather than punishment, and that the governments interest in public protection was valid. Paul Bowen, a barrister of Doughty St Chambers, opposed this, pointing out that the White Paper severely constrained liberty, expanded the class of people subject to coercion, and breached the Human Rights Act. Next Dr Chris Burford, a consultant at St Anns Hospital, Tottenham, supported Professor Maden and the motion. He spoke of changes in psychiatry and the difficulties of revolving door admissions; he suggested that the White Paper provided a framework for treating vulnerable people who otherwise missed or evaded treatment. Finally, Dr Andrew Johns a consultant of forensic psychiatry at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, concluded by noting that the White Paper coerced both patients and psychiatrists. He rounded up the debate by reiterating the estimation that 5000 patients would require detention in order to prevent a single homicide by a person with a mental disorder. After comments and questions from the floor the audience was able to vote on the motion again. It turned out that still only 1.5% supported the implementation of the White Paper. However the number of those opposed had increased to 90%. The speakers opposing the motion had evidently convinced the majority of those undecided before the debate, whose number dropped to a mere 8.5%. 1:38:11 1:38:11 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Fashion_Victims.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Fashion_Victims.mp3 Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg The media is being used as a convenient scapegoat for the development of eating disorders. This is the view of Professor Kenneth Nunn from Sydney University, Australia who will be speaking at the ninth in a series of debates on topical issues in psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry. He will argue that evidence suggests that the onset of an eating disorder has little to do with the media and everything to do with individual biological and psychological vulnerabilities. Vehemently opposing this view will be Melanie Katzman, Consultant Psychologist from the US and the author of many books on eating disorders. She will explain that meta analysis of studies due out this spring reveals that the media is the medium for spreading the social contagents that cause eating disorders. She will also highlight data from Fiji which demonstrates that after the introduction of television, eating disorders emerged. Eating disorders currently affect around 1.1 million people in the UK. The widely held image of these disorders as slimming diseases belies the seriousness of the conditions: anorexia nervosa has the highest death rate of any psychiatric disorder, with around 1 in 5 sufferers dying within 20 years of the onset of illness. Also speaking at the debate are W. Bose, Spokesperson for Premier Model Agency Management and Nicky Bryant, Chief Executive of the Eating Disorders Association. W. Bose will argue that through the use of imagery and the written word, the media can be held accountable for a persistent focus on weight, shape and dieting; negative stereotypes of women and a focus upon image instead of capabilities. This, he says, has served to undermine the self-esteem of generations of women. Nicky Bryant, however, will argue that we are only fashion victims if we allow the fashion industry to dictate thin as the aspirational body shape and size. Chairing the debate is Janet Treasure, Professor of General Psychiatry, Guys Hospital & Director of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trusts Eating Disorders Unit. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates The media is being used as a convenient scapegoat for the development of eating disorders. This is the view of Professor Kenneth Nunn from Sydney University, Australia who will be speaking at the ninth in a series of debates on topical issues in psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry. He will argue that evidence suggests that the onset of an eating disorder has little to do with the media and everything to do with individual biological and psychological vulnerabilities. Vehemently opposing this view will be Melanie Katzman, Consultant Psychologist from the US and the author of many books on eating disorders. She will explain that meta analysis of studies due out this spring reveals that the media is the medium for spreading the social contagents that cause eating disorders. She will also highlight data from Fiji which demonstrates that after the introduction of television, eating disorders emerged. Eating disorders currently affect around 1.1 million people in the UK. The widely held image of these disorders as slimming diseases belies the seriousness of the conditions: anorexia nervosa has the highest death rate of any psychiatric disorder, with around 1 in 5 sufferers dying within 20 years of the onset of illness. Also speaking at the debate are W. Bose, Spokesperson for Premier Model Agency Management and Nicky Bryant, Chief Executive of the Eating Disorders Association. W. Bose will argue that through the use of imagery and the written word, the media can be held accountable for a persistent focus on weight, shape and dieting; negative stereotypes of women and a focus upon image instead of capabilities. This, he says, has served to undermine the self-esteem of generations of women. Nicky Bryant, however, will argue that we are only fashion victims if we allow the fashion industry to dictate thin as the aspirational body shape and size. Chairing the debate is Janet Treasure, Professor of General Psychiatry, Guys Hospital & Director of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trusts Eating Disorders Unit. 1:15:05 1:15:05 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Minor_Ailments.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Minor_Ailments.mp3 Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 8th Maudsely Debate Minor Ailments? This House Believes That Psychiatrists Over-Medicate The Exuberance Of Youth Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 8th Maudsely Debate Minor Ailments? This House Believes That Psychiatrists Over-Medicate The Exuberance Of Youth 1:14:47 1:14:47 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Psychiatric_institutions_are_irretrievably_racist.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Psychiatric_institutions_are_irretrievably_racist.mp3 Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 7th Maudsley Debate This house believes that psychiatric institutions are irretrievably racist Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 7th Maudsley Debate This house believes that psychiatric institutions are irretrievably racist 1:36:52 1:36:52 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-06_The_Brain_the_final_frontier_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-06_The_Brain_the_final_frontier_.mp3 Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 6th Maudsley Debate The Brain: the final frontier? This house believes that studying the brain tells us little about the mind 11 October 2000 6pm Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 6th Maudsley Debate The Brain: the final frontier? This house believes that studying the brain tells us little about the mind 11 October 2000 6pm 1:33:49 1:33:49 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Keep_taking_the_tabloids.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Keep_taking_the_tabloids.mp3 Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 5th Maudsley Debate Keep taking the tabloids: is the media bad for mental health? 27 June 2000 6pm Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 5th Maudsley Debate Keep taking the tabloids: is the media bad for mental health? 27 June 2000 6pm 1:33:05 1:33:05 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-What_should_we_do_with_psychopaths_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-What_should_we_do_with_psychopaths_.mp3 Wed, 03 May 2000 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 4th Maudsley Debate What should we do with psychopaths? 3 May 2000 6pm Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 4th Maudsley Debate What should we do with psychopaths? 3 May 2000 6pm 1:44:38 1:44:38 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Does_counselling_screw_you_up_.mp3 http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/rss/Maudsley_Debates/Institute_of_Psychiatry-Does_counselling_screw_you_up_.mp3 Wed, 22 Mar 2000 18:00:00 GMT audio/mpeg 3rd Maudsley Debate Does counselling screw you up? This house believes that there should be no more counselling until it is proved to be safe and effective. Institute of Psychiatry / Maudsley Debates 3rd Maudsley Debate Does counselling screw you up? This house believes that there should be no more counselling until it is proved to be safe and effective. 1:37:24 1:37:24