There are many definitions of “recovery.” Clinical recovery is usually defined as symptom remission, return to work or education, distant contact with mental health services, and a sustained social support network (Liberman and Kopelowicz, 2002). Because clinicians tend to see much more of the disabled than of the recovered, a “clinician’s illusion”(Cohen and Cohen, 1984) arises–the illusion that recovery is rare. However, studies of long-term clinical recovery from schizophrenia published from the 1970s onwards revealed that clinical recovery is more common than previously understood, typically above 50% after 20 years. In contrast to clinical recovery, the term “personal recovery” is often chosen to describe something with broader implications than dispelling clinicians’ illusions. Contributions to the recovery movement come from civil rights movements, the Consumer/Survivor/Ex-patient Movement, and consumerism (Davidson, 2008). From these perspectives, patients or clients are often disempowered. Their voices and preferences may have been unheard, unasked for, or overridden by health professionals carrying greater power in society and clinical relationships. In this paradigm, care is criticized as focusing unduly on symptom resolution or objective functional improvement. In relation to the things that matter to the patient or client, such a focus may miss the point. Symptom resolution, for instance, may be achieved at the cost of side effects such as drowsiness, weight gain, or sexual dysfunction, which may affect a client’s ability to participate in work or sustain critically important relationships. Patients or clients do not necessarily feel involved in decisionmaking or determining what is a priority in treatment. The kinds of interventions or service provisions that make a difference to an individual’s considered goals and aspirations may be quite different from what is commonly offered. Assisting the recovery process involves respect for clients and their autonomy.