Suicide is OK

drkpower

irishh_bob wrote: »

when dealing with a broken leg , a medic is dealing with something tangible , thier is no ambiguity in terms of diagnosis , when dealing with psychiatric diagnosis , thier are many shades of grey and many different viewpoints

....and that is wrong as well...... even a broken leg can have many shades of grey as to diagnosis and management.

Is there anything you have said that even approximates to the truth...?

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

as regards the 1st paragraph

what i meant to say was

when dealing with a broken leg , a medic is dealing with something tangible , thier is no ambiguity in terms of diagnosis , when dealing with psychiatric diagnosis , thier are many shades of grey and many different viewpoints

Maybe so, but from your posts it seems that your gripe with the psychiatric services is that they dont agree with you about your cousin.

The definitions of how and why someone can be detained are legal definitions.

Here is the " Headspace Toolkit" for young people that explains the Mental Health Act and rights and powers under it.

http://www.headspaceireland.ie/

So the decision to detain someone must also take their best interests into account and these may not always coincide with the families wishes.

The local psychiatrist has to follow the law ,and, if your cousin goes on and commits a crime then he will be accountable.

drkpower

irishh_bob wrote: »

the gardai were involved but could do nothing , they contacted the local GP and he told them the local psychiatricst would veto any attempt to have my cousin sectioned

Of course they can do something....if the GP is convinced he fulfills the criteria for involn admission, he could have issued a Reccomendation and brought him to the local Hospital - on a day when the 'local psychiatrist' wasnt on duty/on call......? Did you try that?

Or the GP could have suggested he be brought to a different Hospital; did you try that?

Or to a private Hospital? Did you try that?

Or if your GP, as an experineced medical professional is convinced he fulfills the criteria for involn admission and that the 'local psychiatrist' is neglecting his duties, the GP/you/anyone could issue a complaint to the Medical Council. Did you do that?

Your entire story is a pile of nonsense; or alternatively your GP, and yourself, are incompetent.

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

as for you sarcastic second statement , my aunt owns a small farm but this cousin of mine has one brother and two sisters so i think im slighly down the line for the throne but sarcasm aside , its funny that you brought such a scenario into the discussion,

Oh I wasnt being sarcastic, I was raising the issue of legal protection, I do find it strange too that his GP would discuss his health with you.

I wonder what Sam34 might say about families.

irishh_bob

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe so, but from your posts it seems that your gripe with the psychiatric services is that they dont agree with you about your cousin.

The definitions of how and why someone can be detained are legal definitions.

Here is the " Headspace Toolkit" for young people that explains the Mental Health Act and rights and powers under it.

http://www.headspaceireland.ie/

So the decision to detain someone must also take their best interests into account and these may not always coincide with the families wishes.

The local psychiatrist has to follow the law ,and, if your cousin goes on and commits a crime then he will be accountable.

no doctor is ever held accountable for anything in this country

my concern is for my aunt and cousins who have suffered in silence for over fifteen years and who have been shown absolutley zero sympathy by the HSE

regarding the best interest of my ( unwell ) cousin , the liberals who call the shots in the health service , while pretending to be putting his wellbeing 1st , are in reality , by following a policy of inaction , ensuring that he will eventually commit a crime , and while this will transfer the issue from one of medical to one of criminal and wash thier hands of the problem , ( i suspect that is the plan all along ) , the outcome for my cousin will be much more draconian , the criminal arena will treat him much harsher than he would be in the likes of a mental hospital , this is why i despise the hypocrosy and pretense of the liberals who run the system , while proclaiming ( from thier high moral ground ) that thier main priority is the wellbeing of the mentally unwell , they end up being the ones who cause the most damage

irishh_bob

drkpower wrote: »

Of course they can do something....if the GP is convinced he fulfills the criteria for involn admission, he could have issued a Reccomendation and brought him to the local Hospital - on a day when the 'local psychiatrist' wasnt on duty/on call......? Did you try that?

Or the GP could have suggested he be brought to a different Hospital; did you try that?

Or to a private Hospital? Did you try that?

Or if your GP, as an experineced medical professional is convinced he fulfills the criteria for involn admission and that the 'local psychiatrist' is neglecting his duties, the GP/you/anyone could issue a complaint to the Medical Council. Did you do that?

Your entire story is a pile of nonsense; or alternatively your GP, and yourself, are incompetent.

you do know that thier is no bigger clique in ireland that that of the doctor fraternity , dont you

my cousins local GP , were he to try and have my sick cousin sent to a different hospital , would have to go over the local hospital psychiatricsts head , that doesnt happen in rural ireland ,whatever about in dublin , if your in the midlands , your sent to the mental hospital in the midlands , your not sent to the west to be dealt with by the ruling psychiatricst there

in ireland ,a doctors loyalty is 1st and foremost to his or her colleauges

its not like heading over to tesco if your not happy with dunnes

irishh_bob

CDfm wrote: »

Oh I wasnt being sarcastic, I was raising the issue of legal protection, I do find it strange too that his GP would discuss his health with you.

I wonder what Sam34 might say about families.

hes my GP too , i grew up in the area and remained registered with this surgery after moving a few miles over , he knows that i have taken a close interest in this family for many years due to reasons which i wont go into , its not like i was the one who signed the involuntary admission papers , my aunt done that , my aunt told me about the local psychiatricst refusing to allow admission after a particular incident involving her son , upon a visit to my doctor some time later , he asked my how my aunt and her family were doing and then proceeded to enlighten me about the present policy regarding involuntary admittance of patients , frankly , im begining to find the veiled accusation that im making this up , quite offensive

drkpower

irishh_bob wrote: »

no doctor is ever held accountable for anything in this country

Wrong again:
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=11605
Sanctions were imposed against 19 doctors following inquiries last year; of these, three doctors were erased from the register, one was suspended, six had conditions attached to their continuing to practise, five were admonished/advised/censured and four had no sanction imposed.

irishh_bob wrote: »

in ireland ,a doctors loyalty is 1st and foremost to his or her colleauges

Wrong again:
http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Professional-Standards/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners-7th-Edition-2009-.pdf
You paramount responsibility is to act in the best interests of your patients. This takes priority over responsibilities to your colleagues and employers.

irishh_bob wrote: »

my cousins local GP , were he to try and have my sick cousin sent to a different hospital , would have to go over the local hospital psychiatricsts head

So your GP is not acting in the best interests of his patients. Have you thought about getting a new GP? Or do you prefer to endlessly moan and groan?

It seems far more likely that your GP fully agrees with the view of the consultant psychiatrist; and you just cant handle it.

irishh_bob

drkpower wrote: »

Wrong again:
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=11605
Sanctions were imposed against 19 doctors following inquiries last year; of these, three doctors were erased from the register, one was suspended, six had conditions attached to their continuing to practise, five were admonished/advised/censured and four had no sanction imposed.


Wrong again:
http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Professional-Standards/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners-7th-Edition-2009-.pdf
You paramount responsibility is to act in the best interests of your patients. This takes priority over responsibilities to your colleagues and employers.



So your GP is not acting in the best interests of his patients. Have you thought about getting a new GP? Or do you prefer to endlessly moan and groan?

It seems far more likely that your GP fully agrees with the view of the consultant psychiatrist; and you just cant handle it.

geez , you really know nothing about doctor politcs

in rural ireland , if you happen to be registered with a GP in kilcock for arguement sake but happen to be unsatisfied with him or her , you need not try and make an appointment with a GP in neighbouring summerhill , the GP in summerhill will refuse to see you , instead telling you to go back to the GP your registered with , doctors have an unwritten contract between each other , they do not steal each others patients , they stick to thier own territory , not for them , vulgar competition , leave that to the riff raff

drkpower

irishh_bob wrote: »

geez , you really know nothing about doctor politcs

in rural ireland , if you happen to be registered with a GP in kilcock for arguement sake but happen to be unsatisfied with him or her , you need not try and make an appointment with a GP in neighbouring summerhill , the GP in summerhill will refuse to see you , instead telling you to go back to the GP your registered with , doctors have an unwritten contract between each other , they do not steal each others patients , they stick to thier own territory , not for them , vulgar competition , leave that to the riff raff

Wrong again:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/gp_services/gp_services_to_medical_card_holders.html

If you wish to change doctors, you must complete a Change of Doctor form (available from the Local Health Office) specifying the new doctor.

Of course, I'm sure you will just tell me now that it 'cant be done' blah blah blah; despite the fact that thousands of people do it all the time. It begs the question why you dont just change a GP privately and pay a few quid to rescue your relative who has been suffering for so many years.... not willing to do that either, no.....?

Your excuses & victimhood is wearing a little thin.

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

no doctor is ever held accountable for anything in this country

my concern is for my aunt and cousins who have suffered in silence for over fifteen years and who have been shown absolutley zero sympathy by the HSE

regarding the best interest of my ( unwell ) cousin , the liberals who call the shots in the health service , while pretending to be putting his wellbeing 1st , are in reality , by following a policy of inaction , ensuring that he will eventually commit a crime , and while this will transfer the issue from one of medical to one of criminal and wash thier hands of the problem , ( i suspect that is the plan all along )

Cuz has not commited any crime and should not be treated as if he has.

You cannot just intern people for the sake of it.

However, if he is making home life impossible for your aunt and is out of control she can have him barred from the home and if he is ill the HSE will have an interest if his circumstances were to change.

, he asked my how my aunt and her family were doing and then proceeded to enlighten me about the present policy regarding involuntary admittance of patients , frankly , im begining to find the veiled accusation that im making this up , quite offensive

I hope I am not being offensive, but , you are close to the family and it is your cousin and not your aunt who is the "patient". So their interests may not always be the same -living in the community may be best for your cousin though.

I know you might think that thinking is harsh but as long as your aunt is providing accomadation that might be the best outcome for cousin so maybe you guys need to discuss your options for your lives.

sam34

CDfm wrote: »

I wonder what Sam34 might say about families.

how much time have you got?

families vary hugely in their attitudes. thankfully, the majority of families are decent and caring and genuinely want the best for their relative, and are keen to work with us to achieve that.

then you have the families who will shout and rant and demand all sorts. wired for transmission but not reception, an old boss of mine used to call them.

they're usually the ones who threaten you with joe duffy, fully expecting that you will then accede to their every demand... i usually respond with "who's joe duffy?" (totally takes the wind out of their sails) or tell them they're perfectly entitled to talk to joe but that doing so will not change the clinical situation at hand which is ... whatever it is.

we still do get people trying to 'dump' family members on the psych services and wash their hands of them. at the moment i'm dealing with a family whose parent needs a nursing home, as they have dementia, but that would have financial implications so the 'caring' family want their parent committed to a psychiatric institution instead, despite them not needing psychiatric care.

the other side of that coin though, and equally as sinister (if not more so) are the families who will obstruct the psych services in care of a patient. it has happened me that i've had patients who i believed needed to be in hospital for treatment but who weren't willing to come in on a voluntary basis. ususally, in that situation, i'd get a family member to make the application, get the gp to do a recommendation and off we go. however, some families will refuse to do this. mostly, its because of bloody stigmatised attitudes, they dont want one of their family "signed in " anywhere, what would the neighbours think :rolleyes:. legally, there are other people who can make an application eg authorised officers, but they need to gain access to teh patient which ususally you need family cooperation for).

i have a real issue with these families. it's fine for an adult who is fully compos mentis to refuse medical treatment for themselves, thats their right. but i think it is not right for someone to obstruct medical treatment for someone else who needs it.

irishh_bob

sam34 wrote: »

how much time have you got?

families vary hugely in their attitudes. thankfully, the majority of families are decent and caring and genuinely want the best for their relative, and are keen to work with us to achieve that.

then you have the families who will shout and rant and demand all sorts. wired for transmission but not reception, an old boss of mine used to call them.

they're usually the ones who threaten you with joe duffy, fully expecting that you will then accede to their every demand... i usually respond with "who's joe duffy?" (totally takes the wind out of their sails) or tell them they're perfectly entitled to talk to joe but that doing so will not change the clinical situation at hand which is ... whatever it is.

we still do get people trying to 'dump' family members on the psych services and wash their hands of them. at the moment i'm dealing with a family whose parent needs a nursing home, as they have dementia, but that would have financial implications so the 'caring' family want their parent committed to a psychiatric institution instead, despite them not needing psychiatric care.

the other side of that coin though, and equally as sinister (if not more so) are the families who will obstruct the psych services in care of a patient. it has happened me that i've had patients who i believed needed to be in hospital for treatment but who weren't willing to come in on a voluntary basis. ususally, in that situation, i'd get a family member to make the application, get the gp to do a recommendation and off we go. however, some families will refuse to do this. mostly, its because of bloody stigmatised attitudes, they dont want one of their family "signed in " anywhere, what would the neighbours think :rolleyes:. legally, there are other people who can make an application eg authorised officers, but they need to gain access to teh patient which ususally you need family cooperation for).

i have a real issue with these families. it's fine for an adult who is fully compos mentis to refuse medical treatment for themselves, thats their right. but i think it is not right for someone to obstruct medical treatment for someone else who needs it.

regarding the family of the elderly person who has dementia , has it occured to you that perhaps they feel they are unable to take proper care of this loved one ?? , perhaps they couldnt afford to pay for a nursing home and felt thier only option was a mental hospital , at the end of the day a person with dementia is not right in the head , how would they be out of place in a pyschiatric unit

you really are one hell of a technocrat

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

regarding the family of the elderly person who has dementia , has it occured to you that perhaps they feel they are unable to take proper care of this loved one ?? , perhaps they couldnt afford to pay for a nursing home and felt thier only option was a mental hospital , at the end of the day a person with dementia is not right in the head , how would they be out of place in a pyschiatric unit

you really are one hell of a technocrat

irishh_bob as far as I know that nursing home care needs a contribution from the patient which is means tested and psychiatric care does not.

I think the politics of health funding has nothing to do with the doctor ,however, the value of the residual estate of the patient in this case seems to be influencing their decisions. They were seeing their inheritence flowing away.

If they want the money they should provide the care.

sam34

irishh_bob wrote: »

regarding the family of the elderly person who has dementia , has it occured to you that perhaps they feel they are unable to take proper care of this loved one ?? , perhaps they couldnt afford to pay for a nursing home and felt thier only option was a mental hospital , at the end of the day a person with dementia is not right in the head , how would they be out of place in a pyschiatric unit

you really are one hell of a technocrat

nah, that never occurred to me, thanks for the heads up :rolleyes:

it's patently obvious this family cannot care for their parent and they themselves readily acknowledge that.

the type of care their parent needs is physical - lifting, dressing, washing and incontinence care. that doesnt warrant an acute general hospital admission, much less an admission to an acute psychiatric unit. in any event, an acute psychiatric unit is an unsuitable place for a demented person, due to the environment and the type of patients there.

the person needs long term nursing home placement.

the financial burden is not one that the family would have to carry now. with the Fair Deal scheme, the cost would be taken form the patient's pension and from the value of their home after they die. the family would not have to pay now, so its not a case of them not having the money now, it;s their inheritance they're protecting.


lastly, now i'm a technocrat, as well as a "PC wooly liberal do gooder shrink"? LOL, keep 'em coming, it's quite amusing.

sam34

CDfm wrote: »

,however, the value of the residual estate of the patient in this case seems to be influencing their decisions. They were seeing their inheritence flowing away.

snap!

irishh_bob

CDfm wrote: »

irishh_bob as far as I know that nursing home care needs a contribution from the patient which is means tested and psychiatric care does not.

I think the politics of health funding has nothing to do with the doctor ,however, the value of the residual estate of the patient in this case seems to be influencing their decisions. They were seeing their inheritence flowing away.

If they want the money they should provide the care.

sam and her ilk are swords of righteousness , preventing greedy people up and down the country from stealing thier siblings belongings by way of having them locked up

ive said it before , in the eyes of those who call the shots in the mental health service , every single mentally unwell patient is innocent ( and loveable ) as a new born baby and thier familys are intollerant , malevolent opportunists who need to be enlightened and re-educated by sam and her morally superior colleagues

sam34

irishh_bob wrote: »

sam and her ilk are swords of righteousness.....sam and her morally superior colleagues

that chip on your shoulder sure is getting a lot of exercise these days :rolleyes:

irishh_bob

sam34 wrote: »

that chip on your shoulder sure is getting a lot of exercise these days :rolleyes:

now your trying to get me on the couch , ive no wish to further enrich the doctor community

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

now your trying to get me on the couch , ive no wish to further enrich the doctor community

LOL bob- is that a cry for help

*kicks back and waits for huge tirade and denial* :p

Really, Sam is just giving you a different point of view.

Programmes for the mentally ill are government funded and it is not normally within an individuals doctors discretion to detain someone. Their work can also be reviewed and patients have legal rights which they can enforce at law.

So if it is not HSE/Dept of Health Policy to hospitalise/detain someone with your cousins condition. While that may be your optimum solution you may need to look at other options. So maybe you are asking the wrong questions.

Fighting Irish

I use to think suicide was a total cop out, then i realised how i feel sorry for people with physical injuries and never really taught about how mental injuries(problems) can cause suicide, just like someone having a gammy leg can make them fall over

Laisurg

It depends, i think its wrong for people to leave family members behind, potentially crippling their entire family.

sam34

CDfm wrote: »

Programmes for the mentally ill are government funded and it is not normally within an individuals doctors discretion to detain someone. Their work can also be reviewed and patients have legal rights which they can enforce at law.

i'm not quite sure what you mean by that?

i think what you're saying is that individual doctors do not influence what is defined in law as "mental illness" and the detention criteria, which is correct. so if a patient does not meet those criteria then they cannot be detained, such as the suicidal man i posted about earlier.

Mr. Loverman

Laisurg wrote: »

It depends, i think its wrong for people to leave family members behind, potentially crippling their entire family.

They clearly aren't thinking straight though (they're about to kill themselves...!) so I don't think they can be regarded as selfish.

It's sort of like the usually law abiding person who steals an apple from an orchard because they've fallen on hard times and haven't eaten for a few days... I'm not sure I'd call them a thieving scumbag... even though technically they're being a thieving scumbag...

CDfm

sam34 wrote: »

i think what you're saying is that individual doctors do not influence what is defined in law as "mental illness" and the detention criteria, which is correct. so if a patient does not meet those criteria then they cannot be detained, such as the suicidal man i posted about earlier.

Spot on.

stupidusername

I will admit I only read the first and last pages of this thread. I just want to say that I find it very very frustrating to hear people saying things like this:

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

They clearly aren't thinking straight though (they're about to kill themselves...!)

Who are you to say someone isn't thinking straight just because a person has decided they would rather not live? I mean for whatever reason the person has decided that it would be better that they didn't live any longer, and yes maybe if they spoke to someone / more people they may have discovered a way of dealing with some things that may have changed their mind. But overall, and I realise this may be controversial to say, what is this obligation to live all about? Surely it's more about the living persons inability to be comfortable with death / suicide? Perfectly put by the-rigger on the first page, we don't choose to be born, and so why can we not decide for ourselves whether or not we want to continue living? He put it better than that :rolleyes:

Mr. Loverman

stupidusername wrote: »

Who are you to say someone isn't thinking straight just because a person has decided they would rather not live?

How many happy, stable people commit suicide?

I'm pretty sure nearly every psychologist and psychiatrist shares my opinion. but by all means continue to be outraged that you have a different opinion than me.

stupidusername

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

How many happy, stable people commit suicide?

I'm pretty sure nearly every psychologist and psychiatrist shares my opinion. but by all means continue to be outraged that you have a different opinion than me.

No one I've known has committed suicide so I couldn't comment on how many happy people have committed suicide.

I'm not very good at putting into words the things I think and feel about things, but if I do manage to find a way to explain myself I'll come back and post it.

CorkMan

Can somebody please edit the title of this topic. I hate scrolling down the page and hearing those words enter my mind when I see the topic title.

CDfm

there is a lot of it about

Coroner warns of rampant rural suicide at inquest of five men


By Eoghan MacConnell and Gordon Deegan

Tuesday January 25 2011

A CORONER warned yesterday how suicide is rampant in rural areas as he heard five inquests into the deaths of men who took their own lives.
Dr Brian Mahon, acting coroner for Co Offaly, said: "It is just an example of the rampant and really serious situation in Ireland and in particular in the rural areas where there seems to be an increase in these suicide deaths."
Of those who died by suicide, all were male and they were aged between 32 and 55. A sixth inquest related to a Polish national who lost his life in a fatal traffic accident.
While the cases date back to last year, Mr Mahon said there had been no let up in the number of cases for 2011.
"There is a very serious situation abroad in the country, it has not improved," he said.
And in Co Clare, three times more people died from taking their own lives than the number who died on the county's roads, according to provisional figures from the coroner's office. There were 15 suspected suicides in the county last year, compared to four road traffic fatalities.
But the suicide total may be even higher as, in some cases, the cause of death has not been fully determined.
Yesterday, consultant psychiatrist Moosajee Bhamjee called for the same energy and funding from the Government that had been put in place to tackle road safety to be put into suicide prevention.
"The figures are very worrying," Dr Bhamjee said. He called for a hard-hitting media campaign on suicide.
Policy
However, he conceded that government policy alone could not solve the issue. "It is a societal problem and people have to learn better coping skills."
Helen Dunne of the Irish Rural Link group said a combination of financial pressure and isolation had contributed to the problem. "The economic situation has had a huge effect. They have huge pressure in their own lives meeting bills," she said.
"If people are not in the workplace there is less social contact so it's not just the breakdown in finances."
Midlands suicide prevention officer Josephine Rigney said the HSE had rolled out two programmes in the region in conjunction with the National Office of Suicide Prevention.
More than 2,000 people took part in the ongoing accredited ASIST and SAFETALK prog-rammes in 2009, she said.
"The objective is to increase people's awareness and alertness," Ms Rigney said.
"If we are concerned about people and we get those skills, that increases our confidence and our capacity to be able to provide that support."
1Life offers a 24-hour national suicide helpline seven days a week and can be contacted at 1800 24 7 100. The Samaritans can be contacted on 1850 60 90 90 or texted at 087 260 9090.
- Eoghan MacConnell and Gordon Deegan

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coroner-warns-of-rampant-rural-suicide-at-inquest-of-five-men-2509048.html