There are ways to work with human rights advocacies, so that there would develop a connection on the basis of values. Something that gets by the social differences and divergent lived experiences. Mikhail Lyubansky has written a PsySR blog "Changing Institutions: A Short Primer for the Individual" HERE which speaks to that social dynamic.

1. The "client/survivors" are broadly speaking within the "sphere of influence" of PsySR's advocacy. But many here do not "speak up." For instance, as a group we live about 25 years less than others, due to a phenomenology related to prevailing treatment paradigms and "metabolic syndrome." Today SAMHSA publicly recognizes that as a problem. PsySR could help put that in a social justice context, but so far it has not.
2. "Marginalized groups get silenced" when the "right problem" is not identified. When we are engaged here, most likely, our concerns are generally not identified. Instead we are "Alinsky tricksters," a point of view which I consider projective. Why should it be our "job" to be angry, to complain, to point fingers?
3. Some of us have worked out "alliance" based on being members of an oppressed group. But many here haven't taken in Mikhail's 'Rx': It's as though "oppressed group" does not apply in this instance. In 2005, Paula Caplan and I presented to the PsySR business meeting in DC. We got applause, and we were also told, "not interested." [!]
4. There is no path for accountability here apart from finger-pointing and blame. Recently we asked in a discussion with OpCom that our "standard" be respected. Instead, we were told that "essential parts of (our) humanity and individuality" were the proper focus of discussion: That's how we hear that response. PsySR has made progress, being as "learned helplessness" - given as justification for prevailing treatment modalities in 2005 - is now taken to be more suspect in that regard. Today some notice of our advocacy is taken, but really the path sought is not yet engaged.
5. Find allies. When I or others post, we rarely get a full-blown and meaningful response. We used to call that the "token response" approach. It is meaningful that some of us are politely allowed to post regarding our human rights advocacy. But is that only a "private opinion" that contends we have a human rights advocacy? PsySR doesn't seem to have developed the initiative to embrace those like Jancis Long and others who do take risks on behalf of this advocacy. Yet PsySR has many veteran peace and justice advocates who have come to realize the sensitivity Mikhail's critical reading of this institutional change dynamic.