Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Family and care of psychiatric patients

«1

Comments

  • #2
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I don't know how you mandate family involvement without breaking the right of a patient to confidentiality. There's enough stigma around mental health without the worry that your next of kin would get a heads up about your mental illness and treatment plan.
    And some people don't want their families involved in their care for very, very good reasons.


  • #3
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    A terrible tragedy but you just cannot do what she is asking.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    ^^^^ yes.

    Nieve and simplistic


  • #5
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    No bother to the Health Service to discharge people to their families to care for them with little support, (mental or physical illness). Surely if you are to be the carer of someone who is ill you should have input into their care and know what you are dealing with.

    I do understand the confidentiality angle, but there is a balance out there somewhere. I suppose the fear of a family sectioning someone for nefarious reasons is at the back of some people's minds, but many leave their elderly ill in hospital for the HSE to organise their care.

    An independent advocate unconnected with the HSE or the family maybe? Wards of Court? I dunno, it's a very difficult subject, but if some change saved lives it would be worth investigating.


  • #6
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,153 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    I simply don't understand how this will work due to Dr patient confidently.
    Apart from people being less inclined to talk in front of family members and them I also feel partners/parents could really manipulate a situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    No bother to the Health Service to discharge people to their families to care for them with little support, (mental or physical illness). Surely if you are to be the carer of someone who is ill you should have input into their care and know what you are dealing with.

    I do understand the confidentiality angle, but there is a balance out there somewhere. I suppose the fear of a family sectioning someone for nefarious reasons is at the back of some people's minds, but many leave their elderly ill in hospital for the HSE to organise their care.

    An independent advocate unconnected with the HSE or the family maybe? Wards of Court? I dunno, it's a very difficult subject, but if some change saved lives it would be worth investigating.
    If people cannot care for someone at home they need to refuse to act as a carer. I know families who refused to agree to an elderly person being discharged to their care because the necessary home care packages and other supports weren't in place.
    I'm not a nurse. Or a psychiatrist. I couldn't agree to act as one for anyone and I would be **** at the job.


  • #8
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    too much concern about human rights ( in an ideological sense ) and not enough about life and death reality

    of course the families of someone who is a danger to themselves and others should be given powers

    the culture which prevails amongst psychiatry today is riddled with liberalism and believes taking away someones freedom is a worse situation than that person committing murder

    we threw the baby out with the bathwater when we closed down the old institutions , the much lauded Mary Raftery done a lot of harm yet was treated as a hero by the likes of RTE , it is far far too hard to get someone committed against their will and innocent people die as a result


  • #9
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Women with post natal depression used to be locked up. In fact any troublesome family member could be locked up on the word of a psychiatrist who would take the opinion of the man of the household. We can't go back to having mass incarceration for mental illness.


  • #10
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    lazygal wrote: »
    Women with post natal depression used to be locked up. In fact any troublesome family member could be locked up on the word of a psychiatrist who would take the opinion of the man of the household. We can't go back to having mass incarceration for mental illness.

    we dont need to do that but the pendulum completely swung the other way


  • #11
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    we dont need to do that but the pendulum completely swung the other way

    No it didn't. It was always inappropriate to have people committed to institutions rather than develop more appropriate care pathways.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    sporina
    Registered Users Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭sporina


    lazygal wrote: »
    If people cannot care for someone at home they need to refuse to act as a carer. I know families who refused to agree to an elderly person being discharged to their care because the necessary home care packages and other supports weren't in place.
    I'm not a nurse. Or a psychiatrist. I couldn't agree to act as one for anyone and I would be **** at the job.

    no offence but you are not comparing like with like, with the above...

    we are talking about when there is a situation by where the patient/relative is a potential harm to themselves or someone else..


  • #13
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,153 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    lazygal wrote: »
    Women with post natal depression used to be locked up. In fact any troublesome family member could be locked up on the word of a psychiatrist who would take the opinion of the man of the household. We can't go back to having mass incarceration for mental illness.

    I've a relative who honestly thinks if you have a relative who's depressed you just bring the person to faciality and you get them locked up for a while because that's what it used be like.


  • #14
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    sporina wrote: »
    no offence but you are not comparing like with like, with the above...

    we are talking about when there is a situation by where the patient/relative is a potential harm to themselves or someone else..

    That still doesn't mean someone's medical details legally have to be shared with anyone but their medical team.


  • #15
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    I've a relative who honestly thinks if you have a relative who's depressed you just bring the person to faciality and you get them locked up for a while because that's what it used be like.

    Some people still think a "nursing home" deals with all sorts of illness.


  • #16
    sporina
    Registered Users Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭sporina


    lazygal wrote: »
    That still doesn't mean someone's medical details legally have to be shared with anyone but their medical team.

    I didn't say it did..


  • #17
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    lazygal wrote: »
    No it didn't. It was always inappropriate to have people committed to institutions rather than develop more appropriate care pathways.

    broad brush statement , the reality is some people are deeply unwell and its the kinder act to them and everyone else to put them in a controlled environment

    that poor woman who was found not guilty by insanity last week , had she been committed , she would simply be a patient in a hospital , now she will be remembered as something else which is a tragedy for her and obviously her husband and children


  • #18
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,345 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    broad brush statement , the reality is some people are deeply unwell and its the kinder act to them and everyone else to put them in a controlled environment

    that poor woman who was found not guilty by insanity last week , had she been committed , she would simply be a patient in a hospital , now she will be remembered as something else which is a tragedy for her and obviously her husband and children
    Unless psychiatrists have a crystal ball, they won't be able to predict the future.

    If you want to reduce the chances of this stuff happening, make sure people get proper treatment.


  • #19
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Unless psychiatrists have a crystal ball, they won't be able to predict the future.

    If you want to reduce the chances of this stuff happening, make sure people get proper treatment.

    first things first is to head off a horrific event taking place , after that treatment which ensures a return to normality can begin

    as i said earlier , the ideology of human rights is seen as more important than human beings wellbeing

    these tragic events are becoming tedious in their pattern , families begging for their loved ones unwell situation to be taken serious and nothing is done ( or apparently can be done ) until a disaster takes place


  • #20
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,345 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    first things first is to head off a horrific event taking place , after that treatment which ensures a return to normality can begin

    as i said earlier , the ideology of human rights is seen as more important than human beings wellbeing

    these tragic events are becoming tedious in their pattern , families begging for their loved ones unwell situation to be taken serious and nothing is done ( or apparently can be done ) until a disaster takes place

    Great - can we lock up every speeding driver on the road too, to head off horrific events taking place?


  • #21
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Great - can we lock up every speeding driver on the road too, to head off horrific events taking place?

    Maybe we shouldn't let women who've given birth home until they can prove they don't have post natal depression or psychosis.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Great - can we lock up every speeding driver on the road too, to head off horrific events taking place?

    Don't be obtuse


  • #23
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,345 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    Don't be obtuse

    Far more people are killed on the road than murdered by psychiatric patients. So if we really want to save lives with this preventative approach, why can't we lock up all speeding drivers?

    Or are they not quite vulnerable enough to be locked up?


  • #24
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    Don't be obtuse

    You did say that "the ideology of human rights is seen as more important than human beings wellbeing". Do you cherry pick the areas where safety/wellbeing of people trumps human rights and freedoms to do what they want? When in a car, human rights more important. When you have a mental health condition, wellbeing of others more important...

    On the specific suggestions, I don't see how you can have a blanket legal requirement that spouses have a right to detailed information and involvement in a patient's care. It's already the case that if children are at risk, then doctors will breach confidentiality to ensure their safety. Can't always be 100% though.


  • #25
    sporina
    Registered Users Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭sporina


    oh gosh.. i think I shudda posted this thread in the legal forum :(


  • #26
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Far more people are killed on the road than murdered by psychiatric patients. So if we really want to save lives with this preventative approach, why can't we lock up all speeding drivers?

    Or are they not quite vulnerable enough to be locked up?

    and more people die due to alcoholism

    any more examples of whatabouterry ?


  • #27
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Amirani wrote: »
    You did say that "the ideology of human rights is seen as more important than human beings wellbeing". Do you cherry pick the areas where safety/wellbeing of people trumps human rights and freedoms to do what they want? When in a car, human rights more important. When you have a mental health condition, wellbeing of others more important...

    On the specific suggestions, I don't see how you can have a blanket legal requirement that spouses have a right to detailed information and involvement in a patient's care. It's already the case that if children are at risk, then doctors will breach confidentiality to ensure their safety. Can't always be 100% though.

    the poster is erroneously conflating two entirely different situations in order to make a bogus point


    the current system is too concerned about the liberty of those who are a real risk to themselves and those most closest to them , extreme aversion to incarceration trumps everything


  • #28
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    the poster is erroneously conflating two entirely different situations in order to make a bogus point


    the current system is too concerned about the liberty of those who are a real risk to themselves and those most closest to them , extreme aversion to incarceration trumps everything
    How do you propose to breach doctor patient confidentiality in the case of mental illness?


  • #29
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,345 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    the poster is erroneously conflating two entirely different situations in order to make a bogus point


    the current system is too concerned about the liberty of those who are a real risk to themselves and those most closest to them , extreme aversion to incarceration trumps everything

    Like your extreme aversion to incarceration of speeding drivers?

    Yes, they are absolutely different situations, but maybe you could explain why it's OK to lock up people with mental illness to avoid possible future deaths but not OK to lock up speeding drivers to avoid possible future deaths?


  • #30
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Like your extreme aversion to incarceration of speeding drivers?

    Yes, they are absolutely different situations, but maybe you could explain why it's OK to lock up people with mental illness to avoid possible future deaths but not OK to lock up speeding drivers to avoid possible future deaths?

    strawman


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,783 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Our mental health services are atrocious and require a substantial investment immediately, this wont occur so nothing is going to change


Advertisement