Posts by Neil
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the emphasis the government has placed on mental health is significant and welcome.
Not agreeing to a zero rate of suicide as a goal for suicide prevention does make sense. Those working in acute mental health will know only to well that there will always be a small number of people who will complete suicide despite concerted mental health involvement sometimes over many years. A zero goal would place health professionals under extreme pressure and lead to a number of unintended consequences.
Including social housing funding along with mental health also makes sense. One of the major bottle necks in acute mental health is finding accomodation for inpatients once they have got well. But accomodation will have to come in various types including supervised settings and also some secure settings. It has to be a wrap around service.
The new front line service proposed is more problematic and on the face of the scant information we have looks like it may fall into the trap of reinventing the wheel. There already is an extensive community mental health system designed to provide a range of services over the spectrum of mental health. Increased funding for that could easily extend the ability to provide increased services to the mild to moderate part of the spectrum. There’s no need to duplicate administrative structures.
The biggest problem I have is that the inquiry and the budget proposals side step some of the most critical issues in mental health, issues that do not have easy solutions.
Repealing and replacing the Mental Health Act sounds straight forward but there has been no broad community discussion about the consequences. There has been no specific evidence put forward to explain why the current act is problematic and no explanation of how a new act would be any improvement. This will be contentious to a degree as it revolves around such issues as risk, safety, coercion and responsibility.
Health professionals I have spoken to believe that not having a compulsory treatment option will result in more mentally unwell winding up in prison.
-
Hard News: Splore 2019 – Please Don't…, in reply to ,
True it’s not necessarily the majority of people coming off meth but the people being seen in residential settings may already have gone through the more intense part of withdrawal with paramedics and in ED.
The meth rampage is not an urban myth. The paramedic protocol is physical restraint and IV ketamine.
The brain damage is one the most troubling aspects. There’s a frightening number of young people coming into adulthood with meth induced brain damage that will place increasing demands on health resources and sadly prison resources.
But it’s not every meth user. However it is a group that appear to be being left out of the current harm minimisation debate. And they are the most vulnerable and most at risk to themselves and others.
People who have the wherewithal to engage in a residential setting don’t pose quite the same dilemmas and risk as those that don’t. And those that don’t I think have less chance of having their voices heard.
-
The effective decriminalisation of small time possession and use is welcome news even if the government is choosing to be coy about it.
But as others are pointing out there needs to be a substantial boost to treatment funding as the other part of the equation.
Something else that should be a very high priority is increased funding and resourcing of acute mental health facilities. That is where the most vulnerable wind up and at present these units are being turned into war zones by drug use and consequent anti-social behaviour placing other patients and staff at great risk.
Specialist secure detox units could be one part of the solution. Separating those with violent P rage from vulnerable people with mental health issues. It’s often the case now that people admitted to acute inpatient units are exposed to violent and predatory behaviour which is highly traumatic.
-
One theory of the origin of this form of extremism has been disproved at least. These people are not the product of oppression or some sort of western imperialism. Their grudges and grievances are based on hatred of difference which has been with us for a very long time.
-
I do think there’s something new about how social media effects the liberal democratic process. Being a bit inclined to the medium is the message I think it’s partly about how things are being said not just what is being said.
However, looking at Europe, the dynamic is a fairly straight forward one of ultra nationalism vs internationist inclusion. What brought about Brexit has been with us for a long while - in group out group antagonism. Long before social media.
-
-
-
Hard News: Digital persuasion and the…, in reply to andin,
Maybe a new development in politics, but not for humanity, and that is where the problem is our selves.
Yes, is social media just giving us what we already have been doing just in another guise or does social media tap into something in us that has been hitherto latent.
Social media certainly provides something we have not had before in our social history - an instant audience, or the impression of one at least, anytime one wants.
Some things might be very difficult to combat. Misrepresentation is extremely easy on Twitter, deliberately taking things out of context would be very difficult to police. Then again if people don’t want to check for context then they’re already on board with the message.
-
Is this a new development in politics? We’ve had very bad things happen in the past without social media.
-
Hard News: Splore 2019 – Please Don't…, in reply to ,
Because you did a little bit of academic study, and a bit of internship, and maybe some work around the outskirts of the 12 step programs and now make a living out your addiction job, doesn’t automatically make you an expert.
Possibly you’re more familiar with the real hard edge of addiction – something most people don’t see.
There’s some very difficult decisions to be made with drugs that don’t sit easily with the classic harm minimisation model.
The other side of the coin to harm minimisation is risk management. How to deal with people who pose a risk, a serious risk, to themselves and others. It’s going to take some form of coercion and secure residential settings.
-
We have a Deputy Prime Minister who explicitly demonised Muslims and has built their career on fostering ethic hatred.
That might be the place to start – where people did actually incite hatred for political gain.