BBC News - Mental health staff to be based in police stations - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25588547 - 10 areas of England as part of a pilot scheme -
Mental health staff to be based in police stations - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25602179 - Video and Article.
This project is inadequate. The criminal justice system still send people with mental health issues to prison, which of course makes mental health worse. People should get the mental health treatment they need, always and without exception, whether or not there is police contact. So One Cheer for this postcode lottery effort to get some people treatment some of the times they are in crisis in some places.
A further need is for Crime Victims with mental health issues to be listened to when they report a crime -
BBC News- Mind 'shocked' crime victims with mental illness ignored - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24430556 - Video - Mentally ill crime victims 'disbelieved'.
Is anything going to be provided at police stations to ensure people with mental health issues who have been OFFENDED AGAINST are listened to?
Saturday 4 January 2014
Friday 3 January 2014
Mental Health Treatment is a Right
This post challenges the view that Mental Health Treatment is only a means to an end such as making the person employable.
Which sound reasonable statements from 1 or 2 ? -
1 a) We should treat someone with a broken leg.
b) We should treat someone with cancer.
2 a) We should treat someone with a broken leg so he/she can gain employment.
b) We should treat someone with cancer so he/she can gain employment.
I suggest that only the most harsh and uncaring person would suggest the simple statements in 1 need further qualification to suggest that the treatment is just a means to get the person into employment.
So who would advocate statement 2 for an illness?
2 c) We should treat someone with mental health issues so he/she can gain employment.
At the Conservative Conference in Autumn 2013 George Osborne promised help for people with mental health issues so they can get work.
"Only about a third of the 200,000 Jobseekers Allowance claimants affected will be on the work placements.
The other two thirds will either have to attend a jobcentre every day or undergo programmes to address the reasons they cannot find work like illiteracy or mental health problems."
George Osborne extends 'work for benefit' for jobless - 30 September 2013 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470
The treatment is a RIGHT and should be provided now anyway?
Statement 2 comes with a threat also that those who don't co-operate with their treatment will be forced to, or lose benefit. But who would argue that point for the broken leg or the cancer? - argue that people with a broken leg or cancer should be compelled to co-operate with their treatment, or lose benefit?
Of course there may be some people with mental health issues who don't co-operate with the treatment. However, given that mental health is an issue of the mind, and the mind is the source of decision making, that is hardly surprising! Even so, the vast majority (including the less co-operative) want to get better and/or manage their condition.
However, all healing depends on trust. Except as a last resort, any compulsion is a breach of trust, and so counterproductive. The last resort is for when the person is not coherent enough to make decisions, in that case it would clearly be wrong anyway to punish the person for bad decisions via benefit sanctions. Further, sanctions to Employment Support Allowance and/or disability benefits (which many with mental health issues can and should get) would clearly be illegal.
It is equally wrong to give treatment only to prevent offending -
Mental health staff to be based in police stations - My Comment - http://peterhaleserviceuser.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mental-health-staff-to-be-based-in.html
The brilliant cartoon below satirises the discriminatory approach to mental health of expecting people to heal themselves and/or undergo treatment solutions that are easy and miraculous. The cartoon highlights the 'pull yourself together' attitude of ill informed people. It's especially worrying that some such ill informed people are in power!
Helpful Advice - If People 'helped' with physical health like they do with mental health - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BaqVFWiCAAAZtUX.png:large
A further point about the stupidity of making people (many of them ill) work for free is highlighted in my post -
Why forcing people to work for benefit won't work - http://peterhaleserviceuser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-forcing-people-to-work-for-benefit.html - Wombling for Welfare!
That post references -
Maslow's Hierarchy of needs - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23902918 - Abraham Maslow and the pyramid that beguiled business.
At least Step 1 and 2 needs must be met BEFORE someone is capable of work.
Added to all of the above failings is an attitude amongst public services that it is OK to neglect the physical health of those with mental health issues, and thus harm their physical AND mental health. These services to the most vulnerable should not be cut; this is a health budget not just a leisure budget. It is usually wrong to assume that people with mental health issues need the same non-specific exercise and health solutions as everyone else. It is wrong to treat exercise and health for those with mental health issues as a leisure activity, and so expect all mental health sufferers to join mainstream leisure centres, teams, and activities. Again, physical health treatment combined with a supported environment for health and exercise should be a right! This is covered in the post -
Mental Health and the Right to Life and Exercise -http://peterhaleserviceuser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/mental-health-and-right-to-life-and.html - at risk of dying up to 20 years before the general population
Which sound reasonable statements from 1 or 2 ? -
1 a) We should treat someone with a broken leg.
b) We should treat someone with cancer.
2 a) We should treat someone with a broken leg so he/she can gain employment.
b) We should treat someone with cancer so he/she can gain employment.
So who would advocate statement 2 for an illness?
2 c) We should treat someone with mental health issues so he/she can gain employment.
At the Conservative Conference in Autumn 2013 George Osborne promised help for people with mental health issues so they can get work.
"Only about a third of the 200,000 Jobseekers Allowance claimants affected will be on the work placements.
The other two thirds will either have to attend a jobcentre every day or undergo programmes to address the reasons they cannot find work like illiteracy or mental health problems."
George Osborne extends 'work for benefit' for jobless - 30 September 2013 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470
The treatment is a RIGHT and should be provided now anyway?
Statement 2 comes with a threat also that those who don't co-operate with their treatment will be forced to, or lose benefit. But who would argue that point for the broken leg or the cancer? - argue that people with a broken leg or cancer should be compelled to co-operate with their treatment, or lose benefit?
Of course there may be some people with mental health issues who don't co-operate with the treatment. However, given that mental health is an issue of the mind, and the mind is the source of decision making, that is hardly surprising! Even so, the vast majority (including the less co-operative) want to get better and/or manage their condition.
However, all healing depends on trust. Except as a last resort, any compulsion is a breach of trust, and so counterproductive. The last resort is for when the person is not coherent enough to make decisions, in that case it would clearly be wrong anyway to punish the person for bad decisions via benefit sanctions. Further, sanctions to Employment Support Allowance and/or disability benefits (which many with mental health issues can and should get) would clearly be illegal.
It is equally wrong to give treatment only to prevent offending -
Mental health staff to be based in police stations - My Comment - http://peterhaleserviceuser.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mental-health-staff-to-be-based-in.html
The brilliant cartoon below satirises the discriminatory approach to mental health of expecting people to heal themselves and/or undergo treatment solutions that are easy and miraculous. The cartoon highlights the 'pull yourself together' attitude of ill informed people. It's especially worrying that some such ill informed people are in power!
Helpful Advice - If People 'helped' with physical health like they do with mental health - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BaqVFWiCAAAZtUX.png:large
A further point about the stupidity of making people (many of them ill) work for free is highlighted in my post -
Why forcing people to work for benefit won't work - http://peterhaleserviceuser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-forcing-people-to-work-for-benefit.html - Wombling for Welfare!
That post references -
Maslow's Hierarchy of needs - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23902918 - Abraham Maslow and the pyramid that beguiled business.
At least Step 1 and 2 needs must be met BEFORE someone is capable of work.
Added to all of the above failings is an attitude amongst public services that it is OK to neglect the physical health of those with mental health issues, and thus harm their physical AND mental health. These services to the most vulnerable should not be cut; this is a health budget not just a leisure budget. It is usually wrong to assume that people with mental health issues need the same non-specific exercise and health solutions as everyone else. It is wrong to treat exercise and health for those with mental health issues as a leisure activity, and so expect all mental health sufferers to join mainstream leisure centres, teams, and activities. Again, physical health treatment combined with a supported environment for health and exercise should be a right! This is covered in the post -
Mental Health and the Right to Life and Exercise -http://peterhaleserviceuser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/mental-health-and-right-to-life-and.html - at risk of dying up to 20 years before the general population
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)