mental health

ssallyg

I believe that mental health hospitals are the last place you should go if you are going through a difficult time in life. People go through difficult times for a reason and I believe that going into a hospital is like giving up and not dealing with your own challenges and dilemnas.
When people are forced to go into these places it can be very destructive..

Hopefully someday these hospitals will no longer exist...and people can receive real healing from real healers .

Odysseus

This a place for professional and those with an interest in the area to discuss their opinions based upon research or valid arguments based upon strong theoretical critiques. Can you back you statement with either of these or are you trolling? Please read the charter, it tells you what is expected from you as a poster. Opinions and personal experience come very low on the list. By the way Psych Hospitals are run by medics not psychologists of psychotherapists. You are welcome to post here but I will not allow any trolling.

ssallyg

I'm just trying to understand what's going on in this country with regard to the mental health services. i think there's a lot of bad stuff happening which is being ignored. I'm not sure what the correct Forum for this is.
I think psychiatry can kill off peoples spirits.. Depression etc is a part of life and you need to go through it so you can come out the other side otherwise it'll always be there unresolved.
I'm trying to find out why in the year 2012 we haven't recognized that there are people far superior and very talented who can work with people who are going through difficult times without them having to go through the trauma and humiliation of hospitals. What kind of society throws its people into a hospital and forces them to stay there just because they are different... I have studied this subject in depth for a long time

sambuka41

ssallyg wrote: »

I think psychiatry can kill off peoples spirits.. Depression etc is a part of life and you need to go through it so you can come out the other side otherwise it'll always be there unresolved.

But not everyone who is hospitalised is suffering from depression. And not everyone can work through their issues in the community, of course that should always be the first port of call but it may be a case that someone's issues are so severe that hospitalised stay is necessary.

ssallyg

sambuka41 wrote: »

it may be a case that someone's issues are so severe that hospitalised stay is necessary.

i don't believe that a hospitalised stay is a cure... as many people end up going back there repeatedly...
there are now alternatives to hospitals, which is a fantastic thing.. although unfortunatley at the moment one has to pay... Renew Ireland has a place in I thinks it's Galway. It's a retreat aimed at people in distress...which does not involve locking people up or medication etc... It is not traumatic and it is private and not connected with the state...
i feel that many people need gentle therapy and encourgement and healing.. not bombardment with questions about all the bad things that have happened in their life and medications... people need a natural calm environment where they can find a direction for their energies..
i feel that psychiatry tends to block out and kill off energy instead of using it productively
A psychiatrist should be a healer but unfortunatly many of them seem to be control freaks wanting to take charge of others lives..
a healer on the other hand knows how to focus on the gentle side of human nature...

sambuka41

ssallyg wrote: »

i don't believe that a hospitalised stay is a cure... as many people end up going back there repeatedly...

But it may be needed to keep someone safe or to keep others safe. People may be dealing with illnesses where initially there is no way for them engage in the type of program that you mention. They may also not want the help, so they end up back in hospital because they done nothing to help themselves while they were out, and they are back to being a risk to themselves and others.

ssallyg wrote: »

A psychiatrist should be a healer but unfortunatly many of them seem to be control freaks wanting to take charge of others lives..
a healer on the other hand knows how to focus on the gentle side of human nature...

What do you mean by a healer? I have come into contact with many psychiatrists, many who work holistically, but maybe its a thing that there is more room for that in the community. By its purpose psychiatric hospitals will deal with people whose illness/ issues are quite severe and medication is required.

JuliusCaesar

Odysseus wrote: »

This a place for professional and those with an interest in the area to discuss their opinions based upon research or valid arguments based upon strong theoretical critiques.

Please don't just state anecdotes or feelings or beliefs, or we'll have to lock the thread. Last warning.

If you can come up with some facts or research, we can engage in discussion.
JC

ssallyg

sambuka41 wrote: »

What do you mean by a healer? I have come into contact with many psychiatrists, many who work holistically, but maybe its a thing that there is more room for that in the community.

the word psychiary means 'soul healing'.Are all psychiatrists truly healers of the soul?The fact is that psychiatry at the moment seems to focus on there being something wrong with the person .. and another fact is that the words 'psychiatry' and 'mental hospital' have a stigma attached to them whether people admit it or not.. Rehab or retreat centre would be a great allternative to mental hospital.. there is less focus on illness and more focus on healing... Rich/famous people go to rehab. poor people go to hospital

ssallyg

sambuka41 wrote: »

They may also not want the help, so they end up back in hospital because they done nothing to help themselves while they were out, and they are back to being a risk to themselves and others.

well if they've done nothing to help themselves yes it's kind of their own fault..
You'd be suprised to know how many people are actually in these hospitals because they don't fit in with convention or they are not particularly liked by other family members. this is a fact in ireland today...

JuliusCaesar

ssallyg wrote: »

this is a fact in ireland today...

Infarcted for not adhering to the charter or listening to the 2 warnings given in this thread. Opinions, not backed up with any evidence.

JC

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Infarcted for not adhering to the charter or listening to the 2 warnings given in this thread. Opinions, not backed up with any evidence.

JC

I think you're getting into semantics.

A statement of something as fact is still just an opinion.

I would be interested to know if they were any truth, or even if people held the opinion, that people who are unconventional(eccentric) and, or, people disliked by their families have been consigned to psychiatric institutions.

Does it go on? I've heard anecdotes. But you know what they can be like.

sambuka41

krd wrote: »

I would be interested to know if they were any truth, or even if people held the opinion, that people who are unconventional(eccentric) and, or, people disliked by their families have been consigned to psychiatric institutions.

But you are unlikely to have any stats for it, they are hardly going to take a list of people who are in hospitals for no real reason and then just leave them there.

I do believe there was a problem with the psychiatric hospitals in this country at one time and I don't think the professionals would disagree with that.

Odysseus

krd wrote: »

I think you're getting into semantics.

A statement of something as fact is still just an opinion.

I would be interested to know if they were any truth, or even if people held the opinion, that people who are unconventional(eccentric) and, or, people disliked by their families have been consigned to psychiatric institutions.

Does it go on? I've heard anecdotes. But you know what they can be like.

No the warning was given over a three three word thread was started and was deleted by me. This is without this thread, we all know the abuses that when on in the past in this country. However, unless they produce something that is not just their opinion. I am Lacanian I am not that difficult to work with on a topic like this, but I will not have trolling abd I believe the OP is doing so. Please prove me wrong. I don't like banning people but if it is needed I will.

krd

sambuka41 wrote: »

But you are unlikely to have any stats for it, they are hardly going to take a list of people who are in hospitals for no real reason and then just leave them there.

Yes it would be unusual to keep a file on all the people they'd incarcerated without good reason.

I do believe there was a problem with the psychiatric hospitals in this country at one time and I don't think the professionals would disagree with that.

Well, there many problems FULLSTOP. Not solely in psychiatric hospitals. The laundries were running up to the late 80s. The deal with the laundries was pretty outrageous. People would have awkward daughters committed. Though the committal to a laundry had absolutely no basis in law - when the women tried to escape the guards would go out and round them up and bring them back.

As for stories you hear about the mental health system. These stories are generally hard to trust. Because there are people who did get locked up, who needed to be, but they believe they shouldn't have been. And I would mean people who were both a real danger to themselves and the public.

But, I remember hearing Anthony Clare talk about it years ago. And he said there were people in the system who had been wrongfully committed. People who had been committed by relatives - and the relatives had seized and spent their money and property. Clare said this goes on.

There is another thing. Society's attitude to eccentricity. Eccentricity is not a mental health issue. It's not madness. But there have been times and places where it has been treated as such. I have heard of eccentrics being labelled as sociopaths (sociopaths for not recognising their eccentricity upset people - and sociopthic for not abandoning their eccentricity). Eccentrics can be persecuted. In Nazis Germany many found themselves in the gas chambers.

inda_kenny

ssallyg wrote: »

I believe that mental health hospitals are the last place you should go if you are going through a difficult time in life. People go through difficult times for a reason and I believe that going into a hospital is like giving up and not dealing with your own challenges and dilemnas.
When people are forced to go into these places it can be very destructive..

Hopefully someday these hospitals will no longer exist...and people can receive real healing from real healers .

i think you need to brush up on your knowledge of mental health policy in 2012 , the system was radically shook up in 2001 , long gone are the days when someone could find themselves institutionalised because thier family had sinister motives or eyes on a pot of money , anyone who is being permanently detained in a psychiatric hospital in ireland in 2012 is there for a very good reason , it is very difficult to get someone sectioned against thier will for even a few days let alone to have someone institutionalised , if your wish is to see mental institutions closed entirely one day , you may not have long to wait , the powers that be are working towards that goal and aim to replace it with what is known as CARE IN THE COMMUNITY , not everyone believes this is a good thing and i am one of them , the decrease in the population of our mental institutions this past two decades has coincided with a marked increase in the number of mentally unwell people who now reside in our prisons or homeless on our streets , mental health covers a broad spectrum , its is unconscionable to consider placing a person with regular depression in a controlled enviroment indefinatley but is entirely appropriate for someone who is violently mentally ill and have no doubt , a small number of people are violently mentally unwell , thier is no utopian solution to mental health and the liberals who now more or less drive policy in this area would do well to acknowledge this , i happen to know a family who have suffered for twenty years with a family member who is dangerously mentally ill , every attempt to have this person sectioned has been blocked by the HSE , some people cannot cope with life and it is deeply unjust to expect thier familys who do not posses the skills to deal with such severly mentally unwell people to look after them and protect the community from them , the present situation if a fudge , ultimatley the severe mentally unwell find themselves before the criminal courts and often end up in a place much worse than a pyschiatric institution

Valmont

I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of such an important topic. The issue of the medicalisation of behaviour is something I would have thought is essential to the philosophy behind clinical psychology? Why should problems in living be medicalised or treated in a hospital? What are the grounds for such an approach? To ask for "facts" or "research" in relation to what is an epistemological and ethical issue is seriously missing the point of such debates.

Odysseus

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of such an important topic. The issue of the medicalisation of behaviour is something I would have thought is essential to the philosophy behind clinical psychology? Why should problems in living be medicalised or treated in a hospital? What are the grounds for such an approach?

You forget we can read edited posts, PM me we can have a chat about it if you want?

inda_kenny

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of such an important topic. The issue of the medicalisation of behaviour is something I would have thought is essential to the philosophy behind clinical psychology? Why should problems in living be medicalised or treated in a hospital? What are the grounds for such an approach? To ask for "facts" or "research" in relation to what is an epistemological and ethical issue is seriously missing the point of such debates.

medication does not pacify every single violently menatlly unwell person and besides , their is no guarentee that even those severley disturbed who can benefit from meds will take what they are prescribed , a young man from roscommon was released from a psychiatric institution around twelve months ago , his family begged the HSE not to let him out , he is now awaiting trial for the murder of his own mother , prior to the reform of the mental health act in 2001 , someone like that young man would have in all liklihood been detained permanently at the request of his family and most likely the familys local GP before a violent crime was committed , ironically , he will now find himself in somewhere like dundrum for the rest of his life , had he been locked up prior to the murder of his mother , the worst anyone could say was that the poor man had severe mental issues , now his family have a dead mother and a brother who is a convicted murderer but sure as long the liberals get to have thier idealised system , thats all that matters , pre emptive action is sometimes very nescessery but has more or less been phased out in any meaningfull sense , this will undoubtable cause tragedy for a small number of people

our awfull history when it comes to institutions has resulted in a reactionary 180 degree swing the other direction and we now have a case of one extreme to the other , while not many years ago it was too easy to find yourself in an institution , it is now undeniabley much too difficult to detain someone indefinatley , for all the good work she did on clerical abuse , the late mary rafferty was utterly wrongheaded on the issue of mental institutions , she of course had the backing of RTE in her whitewash docu not so long ago which related to the issue of mental institutions , perish the thought RTE would ever do a piece on the subject which did not potray institutions as being akin to autzwits

Valmont

inda_kenny wrote: »

but sure as long the liberals get to have thier idealised system , thats all that matters , pre emptive action is sometimes very nescessery but has more or less been phased out in any meaningfull sense , this will undoubtable cause tragedy for a small number of people

In the United States, a young black male is more likely to commit murder than any other ethnicity; would you support pre-emptively locking up black people? Who has the power to define who should be pre-emptively locked up? Where is the line drawn?

This the problem with involuntary incarceration for mental health reasons -- locking up an innocent person based on the opinion of a medical professional who of course may or may not be wrong and is subject to their own prejudice and bias. It's not only absurd but tramples over the very concept of individual rights.

inda_kenny

Valmont wrote: »

In the United States, a young black male is more likely to commit murder than any other ethnicity; would you support pre-emptively locking up black people? Who has the power to define who should be pre-emptively locked up? Where is the line drawn?

This the problem with involuntary incarceration for mental health reasons -- locking up an innocent person based on the opinion of a medical professional who of course may or may not be wrong and is subject to their own prejudice and bias. It's not only absurd but tramples over the very concept of individual rights.

why use the example of a black person , do you assume that i have some racist tendancies ? , you could have used any amount of poor analogys

people with severe mental problems nearly always exhibit any amount of stark warning signs prior to tragic incidents occuring , as for the issue of rights , apart from the fact that im more concerned with the rights and wellfare of the ill persons family and neighbours , which is worse , a severly mentally ill person ending up in prison having committed a violent crime or placing them in a relativley benign controlled enviroment like an institution before severe damage is done , lets be clear , their are no pleasant options when it comes to dealing with a small minority of severley mentally unwell people but its a reality , the present path being pursued pretends that everyone can be pacified and taken care of while living free in the community , i strongly disagree with this and believe it is a disengenious and damaging approach

JuliusCaesar

ssallyg wrote: »

I believe that mental health hospitals are the last place you should go if you are going through a difficult time in life. People go through difficult times for a reason and I believe that going into a hospital is like giving up and not dealing with your own challenges and dilemnas

Most people go into hospital as a last resort. The ethos of treatment is not to admit people to a psychiatric unit unless absolutely necessary.

ssallyg wrote: »

What kind of society throws its people into a hospital and forces them to stay there just because they are different..

Please give us the statistics on involuntary admission over the last 10 years - or even the stats from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 as an example. They are easy enough to find. I think you'll see that involuntary admissions have reduced tremendously - but I haven't checked.

ssallyg wrote: »

i feel that many people need gentle therapy and encourgement and healing.. not bombardment with questions about all the bad things that have happened in their life and medications... people need a natural calm environment

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a General Hospital that is a haven of quietness and healing.....

krd wrote: »

A statement of something as fact is still just an opinion.

Unless it's backed up by evidence. :rolleyes:

krd wrote: »

But, I remember hearing Anthony Clare talk about it years ago. And he said there were people in the system who had been wrongfully committed. People who had been committed by relatives - and the relatives had seized and spent their money and property. Clare said this goes on.

Years ago. I think if you look you'll find that things have changed. It is a LOT harder to have somebody committed against their will nowadays. Do look up the present protocol.

krd wrote: »

Eccentrics can be persecuted.

Indeed they can. But they are unlikely to end up in psychiatric units. There's enough pressure on beds, without admitting people who have no psychiatric illness. The majority of people admitted are in for treatment of psychosis.

inda_kenny wrote: »

i think you need to brush up on your knowledge of mental health policy in 2012 , the system was radically shook up in 2001 , long gone are the days when someone could find themselves institutionalised because thier family had sinister motives or eyes on a pot of money , anyone who is being permanently detained in a psychiatric hospital in ireland in 2012 is there for a very good reason , it is very difficult to get someone sectioned against thier will for even a few days let alone to have someone institutionalised , if your wish is to see mental institutions closed entirely one day , you may not have long to wait , the powers that be are working towards that goal and aim to replace it with what is known as CARE IN THE COMMUNITY , not everyone believes this is a good thing and i am one of them

This is indeed the case. Happily for the bureaucrats, care in the community appears to be a cheaper option than running large institutions.

Valmont wrote: »

The issue of the medicalisation of behaviour is something I would have thought is essential to the philosophy behind clinical psychology? ......To ask for "facts" or "research" in relation to what is an epistemological and ethical issue is seriously missing the point of such debates.

We are not talking about the medicalisation of behaviour in this thread. The topic is the involuntary incarceration of people in psychiatric units.

Please notice that I have used the term Psychiatric Units throughout my reply. This is because, in an attempt to destigmatise psychiatric admission, most psychiatric units are now wards within General Hospitals.

If you are wondering where you might find information, research and statistic on Mental Health in Ireland, may I suggest that the Mental Health Commission is a good starting point.

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Years ago. I think if you look you'll find that things have changed. It is a LOT harder to have somebody committed against their will nowadays. Do look up the present protocol.

Well the whole thing is a little strange. Going back a few years - to the mid 90s. A friend's mother was seriously ill. She kept checking herself out. She was in no condition to be let go anywhere - one time she ended up on the news after being released, causing some kind of traffic chaos walking down the main Dublin Galway road. But she was really bad - she was disorientated the whole time. I don't know how she was able to talk herself out of the hospital because she wasn't able to hold any kind of coherent conversation. She was very confused all the time. The releases kept happening. Her son would get a call. Eventually he'd get back to hospital and they'd claim she had checked herself out.

Then again, in another part of the country, where I lived in the 90s. Someone I knew quite well - I won't say friend - he was in a pub, and acting manic - but not really incredibly bad - from what I'd heard he was acting pretty much himself. Normally, he was inarticulate and hyper active - turning his head mid sentence, sometimes not completing his sentences - it could sound like gibberish, but it made sense if you got him to repeat himself. The publican got worried. And he called the guards - the guards turned up and grabbed him, and he spent the next two weeks locked up.

JuliusCaesar

Does ANYONE follow links in this forum?

Mental Health Act 2001

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Does ANYONE follow links in this forum?

I don't think you're getting this: INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION occurs in this country, however infrequent. the Mental Health Act 2001 stipulates the conditions under which it should occur. What is the problem discussing this?!

"It is highly doubtful the current law would withstand scrutiny under the European Convention on Human Rights."

It would appear the issue is not quite cut and dried at all! Thoughts on the article anyone?

ssallyg

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a General Hospital that is a haven of quietness and healing.....
QUOTE]

What have hospitals got to do with 'psych itrea' which means 'soul healing'..? surely it's a spiritual matter

ssallyg

inda_kenny wrote: »

the system was radically shook up in 2001 , long gone are the days when someone could find themselves institutionalised because thier family had sinister motives or eyes on a pot of money ,

you might be surprised to know that those days are not actually gone. I can assure you of this... If you've been in a hospital once then you are always on file and can be locked up again. It's not always the ill that are locked up.

ssallyg

Valmont wrote: »

Why should problems in living be medicalised or treated in a hospital? QUOTE]

I agree. things happen in life for a reason... And to get over something difficult one has to find a way to do that.. It's the challenge one faces and one needs to take that challenge to move on in life... if it's all taken out of one's control and one thinks it can all be solved with medications or hospitalization..well..that's simply not true.. there are many people/therapists...all kinds of people one can see etc... why should anyone be forced into psychiatric treatment if they really don't want it. If somethings not right for you ,you simply don't do it....but if you're forced to do it and it makes things worse well what's the point in that?

sambuka41

ssallyg wrote: »

I agree. things happen in life for a reason... And to get over something difficult one has to find a way to do that.. It's the challenge one faces and one needs to take that challenge to move on in life... if it's all taken out of one's control and one thinks it can all be solved with medications or hospitalization..well..that's simply not true.. there are many people/therapists...all kinds of people one can see etc... why should anyone be forced into psychiatric treatment if they really don't want it. If somethings not right for you ,you simply don't do it....but if you're forced to do it and it makes things worse well what's the point in that?

The main point though is that if someone is ill enough to be hospitalised it may be a case that medication is the only thing that will help. I've been studying Lacan and psychoanalysis so medication is not part of the discipline that I am studying but I can see a need for it. And I can see a need for hospitalisation; both personally and professionally I have seen a need for it.

To be honest I think it is naive to think that all people can be helped spiritually in the community; this is just not the case.

There has to be a risk assessment as to whether the person is a danger to society/ themselves, if they are a danger to others then they have lost the right to choose, and maybe they will be forced into a hospital, but in my experience when the meds have kicked in these people are thankful that they were stopped before things got really bad. (Just another way to look at it)

Velvety

ssallyg wrote: »

What have hospitals got to do with 'psych itrea' which means 'soul healing'..? surely it's a spiritual matter

Not anymore it doesn't. It's the medical treatment of mental disorders. If you want to go back to the Latin or Greek roots of every word we won't be able to have much of a conversation.

Odysseus

ssallyg wrote: »

Valmont wrote: »

Why should problems in living be medicalised or treated in a hospital? QUOTE]

I agree. things happen in life for a reason... And to get over something difficult one has to find a way to do that.. It's the challenge one faces and one needs to take that challenge to move on in life... if it's all taken out of one's control and one thinks it can all be solved with medications or hospitalization..well..that's simply not true.. there are many people/therapists...all kinds of people one can see etc... why should anyone be forced into psychiatric treatment if they really don't want it. If somethings not right for you ,you simply don't do it....but if you're forced to do it and it makes things worse well what's the point in that?

Ssallyg it has already being noted that statement need to be backed up by reserach. Take this as a warning if you continue to just post you own thughts without backing them up, you will be banned

Valmont

Odysseus wrote: »

Ssallyg it has already being noted that statement need to be backed up by reserach. Take this as a warning if you continue to just post you own thughts without backing them up, you will be banned

I'm not disputing your moderation here Odysseus, but what point exactly in ssallyg's post needs to be backed up by research? It's a topic I've read widely on and I can provide some more authoritative sources if necessary -- or perhaps read over some of my sources and compose a new thread on the subject?

Valmont

sambuka41 wrote: »

There has to be a risk assessment as to whether the person is a danger to society/ themselves, if they are a danger to others then they have lost the right to choose

I don't buy into this 'risk assessment' theory. The individual in question has not committed any crime, correct? But a professional has, for their own reasons, deemed this person likely to commit a crime; where is the line on imprisoning innocent people who are simply more likely to do something than another person?

I used this example before in the thread and I think it illustrates the absurdity of the 'risk assessment' theory: black males are significantly more likely to commit murder in the United States so, using your logic, should we lock them up pre-emptively because, as you say, being a danger to others (statistically speaking) takes away their right to choose?

Why discriminate against the perceived 'mentally ill' but not ethnic minorities? Where is the line here?

Odysseus

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not disputing your moderation here Odysseus, but what point exactly in ssallyg's post needs to be backed up by research? It's a topic I've read widely on and I can provide some more authoritative sources if necessary -- or perhaps read over some of my sources and compose a new thread on the subject?

Have you read Freud's paper on negation?:) Normallly I would just view this as back seat modding, but you are a valued regular poster here, so I'm passing on it. However, the warning still stands for the OP. I have patients to see, but I will answer you question when I get home tonight.

sambuka41

Valmont wrote: »

I don't buy into this 'risk assessment' theory. The individual in question has not committed any crime, correct? But a professional has, for their own reasons, deemed this person likely to commit a crime; where is the line on imprisoning innocent people who are simply more likely to do something than another person?

I am not familiar with a risk assessment theory so I can't discuss it really, I have only used risk assessments in a practical sense, while working with people. When I have used them it has been based on past experiences with a person, what have they done before, what are they likely to do, how will their current enviornment impact on the possibility of it happening,what can be put in place to limit the chances of it happening. I worked with homeless kids and vulnerable adults so its in this context that I have used them.

I do agree that they can be very subjective tools, and two people will write two different risk assessments.

But from my experience with someone going into psychiatric setting involuntarily, it has been more than a risk assessment that will determine whether they are detained, it's based on actual behaviour and current, real risks. In fact risk assessments and previous behaviour has been completely ignored, leading to the death of one young person I know as a placement wasn't available for her and GP's were incredibly reluctant to have her held involuntarily.

Also psychiatric hospitals are about helping too, maybe not spiritually as the OP suggests but having worked with people who are psychotic it's not particularly nice experience for them, they are suffering.

ssallyg

sambuka41 wrote: »

Also psychiatric hospitals are about helping too, maybe not spiritually as the OP suggests but having worked with people who are psychotic it's not particularly nice experience for them, they are suffering.

there is always a way out of psychosis without medications or hospitals..

ssallyg

Doctors at psych hospitals spend so much time writing down every word the patient says it's almost a joke. they don't even see the person who is sitting in front of them. Then there is a huge file written about the person.. and each nurse and doctor refers back to it constantly instead of actually getting to know the patient. they focus on all the bad things that have happened instead of trying to bring out the positive things
these files are kept and the contents thrown back at the same patient who gets locked up in years to come even though the info has no relanencve to his/her life anymore.

What i'm saying is that doctors don't really see patients as they are, but rather as what's been written about them in a file...

sambuka41

ssallyg wrote: »

there is always a way out of psychosis without medications or hospitals..

What way?

ssallyg

sambuka41 wrote: »

What way?

Many ways one of which is creative self expression...Painting...writing etc..that's just two examples...different things work for diffrent people. Psychosis is a result of inability to express your SELF.

Odysseus

ssallyg wrote: »

there is always a way out of psychosis without medications or hospitals..

This is just dangerous, the poster was warned and and ignored it; hence they have been banned , so there is no point in responding to her posts for a few weeks. Plently of people with psychosis never need to be seen as an inpatient, but some do and suggesting that people can do without meds is dangerous.

We can talk all we want about the over use of meds, however, how many people have had to deal with the very serious consequences that can arise if a subject comes off their meds when they need them. I have seen people end up in jail and have gone to a few funerals because the patient was advised by some para professional that they don't need those meds.

kermit_the_dog

Valmont wrote: »

I don't buy into this 'risk assessment' theory. The individual in question has not committed any crime, correct? But a professional has, for their own reasons, deemed this person likely to commit a crime; where is the line on imprisoning innocent people who are simply more likely to do something than another person?

I used this example before in the thread and I think it illustrates the absurdity of the 'risk assessment' theory: black males are significantly more likely to commit murder in the United States so, using your logic, should we lock them up pre-emptively because, as you say, being a danger to others (statistically speaking) takes away their right to choose?

Why discriminate against the perceived 'mentally ill' but not ethnic minorities? Where is the line here?

your analogy involving african americans is eroneous and i suspect a device to try and silence discussion , you might aswell use travellers or people from sherriff street to hammer home your point , it contributes nothing to the debate

when it comes to mental health policy right now in this country , those who partake in risk assessment are much more likely to not order a person to be detained , unless the person is displaying stonewall psychotic and dangeorus behaviour , they will be released , in fact many GP,s are of the view that psychiatricsts are predisposed to finding a person psychologically fit , their is a very definite idealogical mindset when it comes to mental health policy in this country nowadays and this idealogy often ignore practical realitys like the fact that some people are so severley unwell , they are a danger to their community and their family are unable to deal with them

in response to ssalyg , the notion that every single last mentally unwell ( a broad term which covers a wide spectrum ) person can be made right as rain by involving themselves in an amateur painting group , is not only pie in the sky fantasy , its incredibly dangerous

the reality right now in this country is that it is far too difficut to get someone detained for an extended period of time in our hospitals , many ill people and their familys are in desperete circumstances which although satisfying to the increasingly influential idealogues who vehemently oppose incarceration , does nothing to deal with the realitys of often uniquely severe problems

their are no one size fits all , john who lost his job on the buildings and who is feeling depressed is a million miles from brendan o donell and its absurd to think both can be treated in the same manner or in the same enviroment

time a bit of old fashioned common sense was returned to our mental health services, human rights and other high minded ideals are one thing but personal and public safety is more important

Odysseus

ssallyg wrote: »

Many ways one of which is creative self expression...Painting...writing etc..that's just two examples...different things work for diffrent people. Psychosis is a result of inability to express your SELF.

@Valmont I'm on my lunch now so just a quick example, if I stated that psychosis was a disorder at the level of language, namely taking a Lacanian viewpoint. Even as a Mod I would be asked to show some research that backed that up. This poster has no showed one element of research in relation to her posts. I don't think that every thing someone posts here needs to be backed up, but at the same time this is not a place to just express personal opinion.

Valmont

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

your analogy involving african americans is eroneous and i suspect a device to try and silence discussion , you might aswell use travellers or people from sherriff street to hammer home your point , it contributes nothing to the debate

You support committing individuals who pose a higher risk to others than the average person. I'm arguing that there are many such groups who fulfill this criteria. If you believe such pre-emptive action to be justified in terms of its preventative effects, then surely, if you're being consistent, you should support such a system aimed towards those ethnic groups who are significantly more likely to commit a crime than the average person. This is the logical implication of your position and I'm extending it to point out the ethical absurdity of committing someone who might become a criminal.

kermit_the_dog wrote:

human rights and other high minded ideals are one thing but personal and public safety is more important

Personal safety is important, right, unless a psychiatrist wants to make you one of the five people locked up every day for mental health reasons. Although if you think that human rights are nothing more than 'high minded ideals', I can't see us reaching any agreement on this!

kermit_the_dog

Valmont wrote: »

You support committing individuals who pose a higher risk to others than the average person. I'm arguing that there are many such groups who fulfill this criteria. If you believe such pre-emptive action to be justified in terms of its preventative effects, then surely, if you're being consistent, you should support such a system aimed towards those ethnic groups who are significantly more likely to commit a crime than the average person. This is the logical implication of your position and I'm extending it to point out the ethical absurdity of committing someone who might become a criminal.

Personal safety is important, right, unless a psychiatrist wants to make you one of the five people locked up every day for mental health reasons. Although if you think that human rights are nothing more than 'high minded ideals', I can't see us reaching any agreement on this!

i have no doubt we will not reach agreement on anything relating to mental health seeing as i firmly believe that our system is way too liberal and that its much too difficult to get someone committed against their will in 2012 and that this poses a significant physical threat to the broader community and a large threat to the pyschological wellbeing of severly unwell peoples immediete familys , its a subject quite close to my own heart , the statistics about five per day , i have heard before , im well enough informed to know that while perhaps technically correct , the vast majority of people detained are released within a short period of time

as for the comparison with african americans , i flat out refuse to conflate the issue of psychiatry with race and ethnicity

JuliusCaesar

Valmont wrote: »

You support committing individuals who pose a higher risk to others than the average person.

Well, we're not just roaming the streets in our white coats throwing people we don't like the look of into the back of the van!


Seriously, the majority of people being committed are there because they pose a risk to themselves.

When I worked in another jurisdiction, I had the power to hold people against their will for I think 12 hours. I only ever used it once. That was to hold a person who was otherwise determined to kill himself, as - from his point of view - was the only option left to him. He truely believed that his family would be relieved of the burden of him being depressed and a worry to them, and he felt it was the only escape from these awful feelings of hopelessness and despair and black black depression. A week later, he had come up from the bottom of the pit - not cured by any means, but had gained a slightly different perspective, enough to realise that his family mightn't have been overjoyed by his death, and that depressed or not, they wanted him here.

Another person who was detained was psychotic - a female who kept removing her clothes (can't remember the reason she had) in public places. She needed to be in a place of safety.

Remember the newspaper stories of a man who got into a lion's cage? He was psychotic.

It's only a small minority of people with mental health problems who are actually deemed dangerous to others, or who may be violent.

On a more pragmatic and rather selfish note, I believe there's an extraordinary amount of paperwork and bureaucracy associated with involuntary admissions, and everything is scrutinised to the nth degree by the Tribunals. Who'd wish that on themselves, unless it's totally necessary?



Number of admissions has actually reduced dramatically over the last 20-30 years.

kermit_the_dog

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Well, we're not just roaming the streets in our white coats throwing people we don't like the look of into the back of the van!

Seriously, the majority of people being committed are there because they pose a risk to themselves.

When I worked in another jurisdiction, I had the power to hold people against their will for I think 12 hours. I only ever used it once. That was to hold a person who was otherwise determined to kill himself, as - from his point of view - was the only option left to him. He truely believed that his family would be relieved of the burden of him being depressed and a worry to them, and he felt it was the only escape from these awful feelings of hopelessness and despair and black black depression. A week later, he had come up from the bottom of the pit - not cured by any means, but had gained a slightly different perspective, enough to realise that his family mightn't have been overjoyed by his death, and that depressed or not, they wanted him here.

Another person who was detained was psychotic - a female who kept removing her clothes (can't remember the reason she had) in public places. She needed to be in a place of safety.

Remember the newspaper stories of a man who got into a lion's cage? He was psychotic.

It's only a small minority of people with mental health problems who are actually deemed dangerous to others, or who may be violent.

On a more pragmatic and rather selfish note, I believe there's an extraordinary amount of paperwork and bureaucracy associated with involuntary admissions, and everything is scrutinised to the nth degree by the Tribunals. Who'd wish that on themselves, unless it's totally necessary?

do you think it has become too difficult to detain someone against their will , i mean someone who has a history of bizzare ( delusions about people and what might happen , end of world etc ) and potentially very violent behaviour

steoin

Valmont are you suggesting that nobody should be locked up involuntary under any circumstances?

steoin

Also sorry if i going slightly off topic but i believe this is relevant to the ethical issue. (Mods feel free to move to a new thread)

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/south-korea/120523/south-korea-chemical-castration-raping-children-child-rapist

Valmont

steoin wrote: »

Valmont are you suggesting that nobody should be locked up involuntary under any circumstances?

Sorry if I wasn't clear Steoin, but yes, that is what I'm arguing. I would point out however that I'm merely trying to play the devil's advocate on the subject. I'm not certain where I stand on this issue to be honest!

While I look at some of JC's examples which are hard to disagree with, I'm thinking of involuntary ECT, and something which is a bit more contentious: the idea of respecting self-determination. For example, as stupid and destructive as one's will to commit suicide may seem to us, should we not be ethically compelled to accept someone's decision to go through with it? On what moral basis does a psychologist or psychiatrist assume the authority to override this decision?

JuliusCaesar

The basis is very clear: the person is not in their right mind. They are unable to think clearly. Their thinking has been effected by the illness/distress that they are suffering.

In the same way, we prevent children sticking their fingers into sockets.

Odysseus

steoin wrote: »

Also sorry if i going slightly off topic but i believe this is relevant to the ethical issue. (Mods feel free to move to a new thread)

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/south-korea/120523/south-korea-chemical-castration-raping-children-child-rapist

That is all well and good but is any rehab being offered?

kermit_the_dog

Valmont wrote: »

Sorry if I wasn't clear Steoin, but yes, that is what I'm arguing. I would point out however that I'm merely trying to play the devil's advocate on the subject. I'm not certain where I stand on this issue to be honest!

While I look at some of JC's examples which are hard to disagree with, I'm thinking of involuntary ECT, and something which is a bit more contentious: the idea of respecting self-determination. For example, as stupid and destructive as one's will to commit suicide may seem to us, should we not be ethically compelled to accept someone's decision to go through with it? On what moral basis does a psychologist or psychiatrist assume the authority to override this decision?

your perogitive but under your rules , our prisons would soon fill up with severley mentally unwell people with a murder conviction under their belt , this is already a reality in some cases , the huge decrease in the population of our mental institutions has ( by no coincidence ) coincided with a large increase in our homeless and prison population , the number of mentally unwell people who are homeless or in prison is staggering , the humanitarians who wish to see mental facilitys closed might need to bare this in mind