This editorial summarises the work done to prepare ICD–11 and DSM–V (which should be published in 2015 and 2013 respectively). It gives a brief description of the structures that have been put in place by the World Health Organization and by the American Psychiatric Association and lists the issues and challenges that face the two organisations on their road to the revisions of the classifications. These include dilemmas about the ways of presentation of the revisions (e.g. whether dimensions should be added to categories or even replace them), about different versions of the classifications (e.g. the primary care and research versions), about ways to ensure that the best of evidence as well as experience are taken into account in drafting the revision and many other issues that will have to be resolved in the immediate future.

The principles of primacy of patient welfare, patient autonomy and social justice are fundamental to medical and psychiatric professionalism. Medical professionalism is also about encouraging and celebrating good practice. As a set of values and behaviours on the one hand, and relationships with patients, carers and other stakeholders on the other, the implicit contract between psychiatry and society needs to be renegotiated regularly. Serious threats to medical professionalism in the past 30 years have led to the demoralisation of professionals. Learned helplessness and a perceived loss of autonomy have been recognised as important factors in the ‘loss’ of professionalism. Psychiatry as a profession needs to identify its core attributes, skills and competencies. Professionalism should allow individuals to set and maintain their own standards of care.

This article proposes a simplification to the chapter structure of current classifications of mental disorder, which cause unnecessary estimates of ‘comorbidity’ and pay major attention to symptom similarity as a criterion for deciding on groupings. A simpler system, taking account of recent developments in aetiology, is proposed. There is at present no simple solution to the problems posed by the structure of our classification, but the advantages as well as the shortcomings of changing our approach to diagnosis are discussed.

We have arrived at our current descriptive classifications, with their many and varied array of categories, through the committee processes of DSM and ICD. To date, expert opinion, rather than solid science, has been the driver for change and this helps to explain the bewildering number of diagnostic categories and the fact that many patients meet criteria for several categories. Over the coming years, advances in neuroscience will offer the opportunity to base classification on robust evidence with diagnostic entities mapping more closely onto the workings of the brain. There are major shortcomings to the current classifications but all changes come at a cost to their users. We should be fully aware of the shortcomings and be thinking about the future. However, major changes to classification should await the emergence of robust empirical data and proven clinical utility. This will be the best way to benefit patients.

In recent decades there has been much interest in using cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) with children, young people and families. CBT is a collaborative approach, based on shared building of a hypothesis (the formulation) about causative and maintaining factors. When working with children, young people, their families and wider systems (e.g. a support network), therapy should incorporate interpersonal, family and systemic factors, together with developmental and attachment issues and phenomena more commonly expressed through other psychotherapeutic modalities. There is growing clinical experience that systemic cognitive–behavioural formulation can lead to systemic-process working on an individual, parent–child, family or wider-system basis. Formal evaluation of this approach is needed to consider where it fits among established psychotherapies in mental health work with young people and their families.

The importance of considering antisocial behaviour among people with autism-spectrum disorders is apparent from the significant number of case reports and case series describing criminal behaviour of people with a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. The evidence so far does not support a specific association between the syndrome and criminal offending. However, a small yet significant number of offenders with autism who engage in illegal behaviour find themselves socially excluded or detained in secure provisions for prolonged periods. This article gives an overview of the scant empirical evidence relating to criminality within the context of Asperger syndrome, and offers suggestions for managing the syndrome in mentally disordered offenders.

This commentary aims to support and elaborate on some of the specific issues raised by Dein & Woodbury-Smith. Although I agree with many of their comments, I believe that the role of neuropsychological and sensory impairments, as well as dysfunctional coping strategies among individuals with an autism-spectrum disorder who offend, need to be expanded from a psychological perspective. In my experience, the assessment of these factors plays a crucial role in guiding opinions on mental capacity, individual interventions, risk assessment and management. Elements of psychopathy in autism also require clarification. It could be argued that by understanding these issues, any attempts at social inclusion and preventing offending will be more successful.

Many memorable characters in Western culture could be viewed as having features of autism or Asperger syndrome. In spite of the familiarity of autistic stereotypes such as Star Trek‘s Mr Spock, more completely described characters with autism are still unusual. In recent years there has been a growing interest in autism, mirrored by an increase in depictions of autism in popular works of fiction and autobiography. In this article I will outline the issues that have preoccupied writers and the techniques they have used to demonstrate autistic difference. Some writers have illuminated aspects of the autistic triad of social impairment, abnormalities of language and need for sameness. Other writers have opened our eyes to the autistic world view in its strangeness and richness. Still more have started to examine prejudice, disability rights and the implications of an international autism community. As in other areas of mental health, literature can help inform, entertain and question our attitudes and values.

This article discusses the evidence that experiences of stigmatisation and discrimination among people with mental illnesses are common and may be severe. Furthermore, there are growing concerns that people with mental illness receive second-class physical healthcare. Beyond this, some aspects of psychiatric practice are reported as being insensitive, disrespectful or even disabling. We consider whether such claims are justified and what psychiatrists can do, directly and indirectly, to reduce stigma and discrimination and improve our practice.

Stigma-discrimination against people with mental health problems is more prevalent and damaging than the weaker ‘stigma by association’ experienced by mental healthcare professionals. Not only are patients reluctant to seek psychiatric help, but they are shunned by society and discriminated against by general healthcare services when they do. Other clinicians see psychiatric services as a last resort and government funding of these services is disproportionately low. Psychiatrists must engage in anti-stigma activities. I suggest ways in which, both in the clinical arena and in the wider context of education and society, psychiatrists can challenge clinicians' and the public's value judgements of psychiatric patients.

The prescription of antipsychotic medication in children and adolescents (<18 years of age) has increased immensely for a wide range of disorders including psychoses, bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, pervasive developmental disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder. This has led to some concerns particularly as the evidence base in some areas is not strong, and antipsychotic medication – both first generation (FGA) and second generation (SGA) – is associated with considerable side-effects. Evidence from an increasing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) points to therapeutic efficacy with moderate to large effect sizes. However, some RCTs have a small number of participants, are of short duration, and many are industry funded. The use of antipsychotics alongside psychosocial interventions can be recommended in certain disorders, provided there is continued, careful monitoring. It is important to note, however, that for many conditions the use of antipsychotics is not licensed in the UK.