Psychiatry

[Serotonin]

Try refusing a psychiatrist an admission under the MHA 1983 to hospital and see how thery react, big ego's and big threats.

To be fair, being 'mad' is not in itself a rational for being detained under the mental health act. They have to be able to prove their is a risk to self or others as well as an unwillingness to engage with treatment.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

To be fair, being 'mad' is not in itself a rational for being detained under the mental health act. They have to be able to prove their is a risk to self or others as well as an unwillingness to engage with treatment.

A problem occurs however when the person being assessed, quite rightly doesn't see themself as a danger to themself or others, and has very good reasons (e.g. based on previous experience) for refusing to accept the need for a particular treatment. Their apparent (mis)assessment of their own condition is seen as proof of their compromised mental helath, an appreciation re-inforced by their refusal to comply with the (expertly prescribed) treatment. The fact that so many people remain in hospital 'voluntarily', when they are unhappy with both diagnosis and treatment, is evidence that mental health service users are quite aware of the weak postion they find themselves in, when confronted by medical authority and the Mental Health Act 1983.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Serotonin]

A problem occurs however when the person being assessed, quite rightly doesn't see themself as a danger to themself or others,

What do you mean quite rightly? Are you claiming that people with mental health problems are never a danger to themselves or others?

 

[118118]

People with mental health problems commit less crime, and are no more violent than those who have not. Or so I have read many times. What reason so you have to think that those with mental health problems are any more violent? Its just idiotic media hysteria. The number of psychotics you would have to lock away to prevent one murder is huge.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What do you mean quite rightly? Are you claiming that people with mental health problems are never a danger to themselves or others?

I was pointing out that there are times when the professionals get it wrong, and when they do it can be very difficult for the service user to set the record straight. The costs (to those identified as having mental health problems) of this dramatic inbalance of power and legitimacy, between the mental health professionals and service users, can be massive in economic, social and emotional terms.

Louis Mac

 

[Serotonin]

People with mental health problems commit less crime, and are no more violent than those who have not. Or so I have read many times. What reason so you have to think that those with mental health problems are any more violent? Its just idiotic media hysteria. The number of psychotics you would have to lock away to prevent one murder is huge.

Hang on, did I say 'any more violent'. I said a risk to themselves or others.
Please don't strawman me.

 

[118118]

Please don't strawman me.

So what exactly is your argument. That as sometimes the mentally ill are violent I acnnot be right about if I'm a danger?

 

[Serotonin]

I am not arguing, just raising the point about the criteria for sectioning, which in many cases is the appropriate course of action to keep someone safe and ensure they get the help that they need.

 

[118118]

What do you mean quite rightly? Are you claiming that people with mental health problems are never a danger to themselves or others?

That the criteria is sometimes met. Do you think its a valid criteria for forced treatment? Considering the mentally ill are no more a danger to others? It is quite difficult to justify forced treatment

I am not arguing, just raising the point about the criteria for sectioning, which in many cases is the appropriate course of action to keep someone safe and ensure they get the help that they need.

IME people who accuse others of building straw men are arguing. LOL.

 

[Ryazan]

The decsion to section people is not done on a mere wim. Stop getting oversensitive. I've been in the bin a few times, twice under a section.

 

[118118]

...

 

[118118]

...

 

[Ryazan]

Neither am I. I have a lot of experience. And I don't think the poster was making out that mentally ill people are more of a danger to society than "normal" people.

 

[Serotonin]

Neither am I. I have a lot of experience. And I don't think the poster was making out that mentally ill people are more of a danger to society than "normal" people.

Of course I wasn't insinuating that.

I'm not really getting oversensitive. I probably don't hold a grudge against being sectioned, but I do feel that the system might do more damage than good. I feel that that can at least be recognized

I'm sorry if you feel your section was unwarranted or if you had a bad time, but I firmly beleive that on balance the risk that some people may be sectioned mistakenly (which in my experience is rare) is far outweighed by the good that complusory treatment can do for those people in desperate need and at extreme risk to themselves.
Pyschiatrists and other mental health professioanls are not evil agents of social control, although I know there are some very angry 'survivor' movements that try and perpetrate that myth. The majority are working for very low pay in poor conditions and do their utmost to help the patients in their care.

 

[TeeJay]

...I firmly beleive that on balance the risk that some people may be sectioned mistakenly (which in my experience is rare) is far outweighed by the good that complusory treatment can do for those people in desperate need and at extreme risk to themselves...

Well I hope its not you who is carted off next and treated like a piece of shit. You'll get people who hear voices locked up and forcibly medicated while suicidal people ignored. The solution for each group is largely to drug them to the eyeballs until they are "normal" and locking them on a ward is a cheap and nasty way of doing this. Almost no attention is paid to any underlying causes, the model used is very mechanistic, reductive and contains a lot of subjective value-judgements and simplistic check-lists. The patient is rarely involved in helping to define their wider objectives and welfare. Many effective therapies are not offered and if they are they are offered as an afterthought and often far too late. Nursing staff, therapists and other non-doctors who often have a lot of contact with patients are regarded as idiots and often ignored by the psychiatrists who swan around and sign off "drugs to be administered". Secure wards can be extremely disturbing and depressing places - very *non* therapeutic - and people get abused by staff and other patients. They can be very unpleasant places to spend *any* length of time. The "lobster-pot" effect has been demonstrated on various occasions - ie it is a lot easier to get in than get out, even when actors have made up fake symptoms - I have even met someone who made up a load of shite just to be admitted over the Xmas period - and then couldn't get out again, because the relevant doctor was doing ward rounds so infrequently. Other people have family or other people living at their address making up complete lies about violence or other behaviour because they want to get them out of the house. People regularly don't see any kind of social worker, advocate, can miss out on benefits, can have other medication withheld and other illnesses neglected - because almost nothing they say is paid any attention to. People can be left to live in squalor and filth on wards.

It isn't surprising that many people who have been through this once have no faith in the so-called "science" of psychiatry or the so-called "care" offered by NHS mental health services. Yes it is underfunded and yes many people who work in it do want to help people - but this doesn't mean that poor pay excuses abuse or that good intentions can counteract or overcome a completely fucked up system and a deeply flawed model.

I expect you will try and label me as "very angry 'survivor'", but that probably shows more about you being in denial and on the defensive (do you or a partner by any chance work for or with the NHS or in psychiatry?) and wouldn't in any case go any distance in addressing the very real and dire state of mental health care in the UK. Sorry.

 

[118118]

but I do feel that the system might do more damage than good. I feel that that can at least be recognized

Which you are not willing to do

but I firmly beleive that on balance the risk that some people may be sectioned mistakenly (which in my experience is rare) is far outweighed by the good that complusory treatment can do for those people in desperate need and at extreme risk to themselves.

There is of course the damage and distress that being sectioned can do, which of course applies to those who are sectioned "correctly" as well as those who are not. Also, IME psychiatrists contribute to stigma by forcing treatment.
What is this experience that it is rare to be sectioned unless a genuine danger to oneself?
You are allowed to refuse medical treatment if doing so puts your life a risk, why not psychiatric?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Does anyone have anything on linking psychology or the mentally ill/illness to politics. I am a psychology student, and I am psychotic, so there *is* your explanation.

This could be helpful to you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060911514/102-8307230-1871356?v=glance&n=283155

You might be interested in the writings and theories of Dr. Thomas Szasz.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I see soulrebel and vixen already mentioned Szasz. Oh well....

 

[Herbert Read]

To be fair, being 'mad' is not in itself a rational for being detained under the mental health act. They have to be able to prove their is a risk to self or others as well as an unwillingness to engage with treatment.

cheers i didnt notice that when i underwent my approved social work training

 

[Ryazan]

You're a social worker?

 

[Herbert Read]

You're a social worker?

your an ex mental patient whos working class and stacks shelfs

 

[Ryazan]

What is your area of work?

 

[Serotonin]

I expect you will try and label me as "very angry 'survivor'", but that probably shows more about you being in denial and on the defensive (do you or a partner by any chance work for or with the NHS or in psychiatry?) and wouldn't in any case go any distance in addressing the very real and dire state of mental health care in the UK. Sorry.

I won't try and label you as anyhting other that someone who has had a poor deal.

Yes I do work within psychiatry, and the picture you paint is quite different from the area I work in (and no I am not in denial). Some areas do have very poor practise but we strive to be as client centred as possible and have a lot of user involvement in everything from a patients care plan to service development and governance issues.

My angry survivor comment was a bit of a throw away, as sometimes in my experience those people who want to work in service user invovlement tend to be those with a massive axe to grind with the service and not those who are representative of the majority of people we care for.

And yes I am one of the so called Idiot non doctors, but again your description of the team working bares little resemblacne to where I work.
Not that we are perfect- far from it , and we strive to improve all the time, but there are at least as many areas of good practise as those of bad. I will agree that psychiatry is massively underfunded though, and in my area you are more likely to be left to rot in the community than rot in a acute ward, beds are so scarce.

 

[118118]

a lot of user involvement in everything from a patients care plan to service development and governance issues.

Really? A lot?
You clearly ready t dismiss any groups that you do not agree with though, whih sugests its just token, and you are not open to any real change offered by user groups.

 

[Serotonin]

Really? A lot?
You clearly ready t dismiss any groups that you do not agree with though, whih sugests its just token, and you are not open to any real change offered by user groups.

Clearly...

 

[118118]

Well you seem unable to enter a discussion with me

 

[118118]

I think it says alot of your professional integrity in dealing with survivior/user gorups in your rolling your eyes at someone who clealy does not agree with beliefs that it appears you are not able to cagllenge.

 

[Serotonin]

What it says is that I am unwilling to engage in debate with someone who continues to strawman me at every turn.

I said sometimes those who want to work in user involvement have an axe to grind and are not representative of those they are apparently speaking up for.

This is not saying I disregard what users says to me and its lazy and intellectually dishonest to claim I clearly dismiss any groups that disagree with me.

 

[118118]

This is not saying I disregard what users says to me and its lazy and intellectually dishonest to claim I clearly dismiss any groups that disagree with me.

Stop claiming that I'm strawmanning you. You have in the space of two sentences dismissed "a group that diagrees with you" and me.

What it says is that I am unwilling to engage in debate with someone who continues to strawman me at every turn.

I said sometimes those who want to work in user involvement have an axe to grind and are not representative of those they are apparently speaking up for.

You claim that it is, becausse it is not representative, but I find it fantastic that you actually believe that you know what is representative (especially if you redicule those who seem to have "irrational" views like you redicule me), ignoring the fact that these groups are under the "moral sway" of the psychiatric community, are made to feel gulity for their illness by society etc.
You have dismissed me without questioning what I have to say or any of your views. I contend that you do so because you're a nurse and used to ignoring the "irrational" . Constantly accusing me of building straw men is thick, it shows a complete inability to engage with me on an "honest" level.

I said sometimes those who want to work in user involvement have an axe to grind

those people who want to work in service user invovlement tend to be those with a massive axe to grind with the service

Bold added by me.
You also began this thread by questioning if I could ever be right about if I am a danger to myself.

 

[118118]

This is not saying I disregard what users says to me and its lazy and intellectually dishonest to claim I clearly dismiss any groups that disagree with me.

Are you claiming that you would support a movement to end compulsory treatment if it was sugested it was a view representative of mental health users. Would you support attempts to get some kind of support for such a consensus. Or are your views based on the "expressed" ideas of a small group who have been massively stigmatized and had all power and identity taken away from them.

Hang on, did I say 'any more violent'. I said a risk to themselves or others.
Please don't strawman me.

For someone who doesn't hold these views you have a good go at supporting their casue. Its "lazy" to think that you're not using points like these to implicitly advance your argument.
Yawn. You also are unable to construct a "debate", as indicated by your constant cod philosophical accusations of "straw men".