In recent years, there have been extensive efforts in secondary schools to prevent, treat and raise awareness of adolescent mental health problems. For some adolescents, these efforts are essential and will lead to a reduction in clinical symptoms. However, it is also vital to assess whether, for others, the current approach might be causing iatrogenic harm. A growing body of quantitative research indicates that some aspects of school-based mental health interventions increase distress or clinical symptoms, relative to control activities, and qualitative work indicates that this may be partly due to the interventions themselves.

Within paediatrics, young children experiencing physical and emotional distress are admitted to hospital with their parents as a matter of course, recognising the trauma associated with parting children from their carers. Much of this practice is underpinned by our understanding of attachment theory, which also sits as a fundamental tenet of child psychiatry. Yet the culture in psychiatric in-patient hospitals remains to admit young children without their parents, often to units that are geographically distant from the family home. We argue that the practice of admitting lone children to psychiatric in-patient units is likely to be traumatising as well as less effective. We believe this culture requires challenge and change.

Increasingly, claims are being made by developmental neuroscientists that adolescence is characterised by unique changes to the brain. These changes are said to underlie what are claimed to be unique behavioural features of the teenage years. In this paper, it is argued that the brain changes described begin before the teen years and continue long after them. This is not surprising, as there are no behavioural features that are specific to adolescence.

Over the past few years the term ‘service users’ has been increasingly used to describe patients in mental healthcare. This paper argues that the term ‘service user’ in this context should be avoided and outlines four reasons: the term is discriminating, cynical, patronising and detrimental. Of course, none of these effects is intentional, but that does not change them. The term ‘patient’, however, describes appropriately a temporary role in healthcare, provides parity of esteem with patients in physical healthcare and reflects the reasons why large parts of society are willing to fund healthcare, in solidarity with those who are sick.