Those of you, like me, who waste far too much time on Twitter might have noticed recent online faux-outrage at an apparent discovery that our College library in Prescott Street had blocked the purchase of several psychology-focused or psychiatry-critiquing textbooks by well-known contemporary British authors. The story was, well, #fakenews, but, my woke brethren, I have uncovered a more disturbing conspiracy: I cannot find any pharmacological, genetic or neuroimaging papers in this month’s BJPsych. Instead we have a plethora of psychology and health policy focused papers. I will investigate more on this evident deep-state fifth column undermining of our patriarchal biological medical model, and report back shortly. In the meantime, we start with a couple of outstanding, provocative and thoughtful editorials. Owen Bowden-Jones, Julia Sinclair and Anne Lingford-Hughes start us off (pp. 178–179) with a primer on the global drugs debate, a complex area often awkwardly interfacing healthcare, politics and wider society.We grapple with the conflict that some who use drugs are not significantly adversely affected, but many are – often profoundly – while several of these compounds also have emerging therapeutic potential. Further, legal frameworks are highly variable between jurisdictions and can reflect societal mores rather than clear evidence. The authors call for prioritising better understanding of drug policies on the most vulnerable, and the longer-term impact of adolescent substance use. In the UK, the challenge is magnified by the cuts to substance-use service spend, which is controlled by a social care system with uncertain, and historically pessimistic, funding forecasts. There has been a welcomed growth in perinatal mental health services, but Catalao et al (pp. 180–181) push it earlier, debating the less discussed issue of preconception care. Their editorial takes us right back, noting how perinatal problems can be preceded by difficulties from adolescence. Mental health problems are linked with poorer use of contraception and higher rates of unintended pregnancies. Besides the important point that this is clearly a concern for all society and not ‘just’ a ‘women’s issue’, the authors note it can also be a direct biological and psychosocial issue for men through mental ill health having an impact on offspring via epigenetic changes and impaired parenting. The authors propose that our growing perinatal and increasingly integrating services offer a mechanism through which preconception advice and care might be disseminated.

中文翻译：

---

本期要点

像我这样的人，在Twitter上浪费了太多时间，可能已经注意到最近的网上虚假宣传，这显然是因为我们位于普雷斯科特街的大学图书馆已经阻止了许多心理学类或精神病学教科书的购买。著名的当代英国作家。这个故事是#fakenews，但是，我醒来的弟兄们，我发现了一个更令人不安的阴谋：我在本月的BJPsych中找不到任何药理，遗传或神经影像学论文。相反，我们有大量针对心理学和健康政策的论文。我将对这种明显的深层第五专栏对我们的父权制生物医学模式造成的破坏进行更多调查，并在不久后进行报告。同时，我们从几篇出色，挑衅和周到的社论开始。欧文·鲍登·琼斯（Owen Bowden-Jones），朱莉娅·辛克莱（Julia Sinclair）和安妮·林福德·休斯（Anne Lingford-Hughes）（第178-179页）以全球毒品辩论为起点，这是一个复杂的领域，常常使医疗，政治和更广泛的社会陷入困境。虽然没有受到明显的不利影响，但是其中许多（通常是深刻的）影响很大，而其中的一些化合物也具有新兴的治疗潜力。此外，法律框架在不同司法管辖区之间变化很大，并且可以反映出社会习俗，而不是明确的证据。作者呼吁优先考虑对最弱势群体的药物政策以及青少年药物使用的长期影响。在英国，药物滥用服务支出的削减加剧了挑战，这是由一个不确定的，历来悲观的社会护理体系控制的，资金预测。围产期心理健康服务的增长令人欢迎，但是Catalao等人（第180-181页）更早地推动了这一发展，这引起了人们对孕前保健问题的讨论。他们的社论使我们马上回来，并指出青春期的困难如何导致围产期问题。心理健康问题与避孕手段使用不当以及意外怀孕率较高有关。除了重要的一点是，这显然是整个社会关注的问题，而不仅仅是“妇女问题”，作者还指出，这对于男性而言可能是直接的生物学和社会心理问题，其原因是精神疾病对后代的后代产生影响变化和育儿障碍。