Quote Originally Posted by WarKitty View Post
A lot of the problem is ensuring an objective independent review. It's a fairly common complaint that practitioners tend to be biased in favor of prior diagnosis. And the nature of mental health treatment means they're already on the lookout for people who don't think anything's wrong or don't understand. In fact that's one of the major worries a lot of people have about misdiagnosis, that further treating professionals tend to assume the diagnosis is correct, and symptoms are often vague enough that someone looking for confirmation can find it. An independent review won't help if the reviewer is going in with the idea that it's probably nothing.

That's actually been part of my complaint - that when you see someone else and report an issue with another professional, the default assumption seems to be that there's something wrong with you that's making you say that.
I know this is really stating the obvious, but that's not how peer-reviewed analysis work. You really should start from scratch, with ideally the person managing the application for a second opinion filtering the application so that the previous diagnosis is not known, only the symptoms.

But professional elitism and complacency is really a difficult beast to combat, since you need to balance between confidence and over-confidence.