Peter Dow

[abdoujaparov]

If a clinical psychiatrist or someone claiming to have expert experience in mental illness gave their opinion on the mental health of someone on a public online forum, then I would consider that to be unethical too.

[feral chile]

So, it's perfectly acceptal to label someone as "mental" or whatever, but it's unethical to sugest that there may be more to it than someone being a bit weird....

what a topsy-turvy view of ethics you have

Edited December 9, 2011 by feral chile

[russycarps]

so you're a pen pushing manager, not a doctor or anything.

I see.

[eFestivals]

Yes I do

Sorry, I should have said "consistently applied reasoning". You don't have that.

[feral chile]

I've not said 'everything'. I've said it depends on the importance we attach to that thing, and the consequences back on us from what happens.

[eFestivals]

I work for a housing association that provides services for, amongst other groups, people with mental health problems...so the answer to your question is unequivocally no

(just before you start thinking I was being accusatory or hostile with the line "I wonder if the housing association that abdoujaparov works for is working from those?", I wasn't - it was a genuine question).

The housing associations that use the service I mentioned also provide services for, amongst other groups, people with mental health problems. So if your answer is on that basis alone, it's not enough for your unequivocal 'no'.

And it's quite possible, dependent on your place in the chain, that the HA you work for could be using that service outside of your knowledge, and that the people you get to deal with are those who successfully get thru that remote assessment (around 25% do from the figures I've seen).

[feral chile]

double post again - my post keeps getting repeated as a quote further down the page - Neil, am I doing something to cause this?

Edited December 9, 2011 by feral chile

[abdoujaparov]

so you're a pen pushing manager, not a doctor or anything.

I see.

[abdoujaparov]

(just before you start thinking I was being accusatory or hostile with the line "I wonder if the housing association that abdoujaparov works for is working from those?", I wasn't - it was a genuine question).

The housing associations that use the service I mentioned also provide services for, amongst other groups, people with mental health problems. So if your answer is on that basis alone, it's not enough for your unequivocal 'no'.

And it's quite possible, dependent on your place in the chain, that the HA you work for could be using that service outside of your knowledge, and that the people you get to deal with are those who successfully get thru that remote assessment (around 25% do from the figures I've seen).

[abdoujaparov]

Sorry, I should have said "consistently applied reasoning". You don't have that.

[eFestivals]

double post again - my post keeps getting repeated as a quote further down the page - Neil, am I doing something to cause this?

On the basis that such things don't happen by themselves, I guess you must be. I'm not sure how tho.

[eFestivals]

I've got that too - you may not agree with my reasoning (and clearly you dont), but it is clear and consistent

Not with special rules for the socially inconvenient it's not.

[eFestivals]

let me try to be even more unequivocal then...we do not use, and have to the best of my knowledge never used the kind of assessment service you describe

clear?

Given that it's only become public knowledge in the last week, I'm not surprised at your answer.

[abdoujaparov]

Given that it's only become public knowledge in the last week, I'm not surprised at your answer.

[eFestivals]

I know exactly what referral, assessment and allocation criteria and tools we use - it's my job

You might be right, but that's what people have said in those 100 HA's that do use that service too.

Unless you handle every single part of a housing application you'd have no way of being certain.

Edited December 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

Not with special rules for the socially inconvenient it's not.

[abdoujaparov]

You might be right, but that's what people have said in those 100 HA's that do use that service too.

Unless you handle every single part of a housing application you'd have no way of being certain.

[feral chile]

as it happens, I have a good deal of sympathy with your position on the use of psychiatry and the mental illness label as methods of social control. I know that it happens - I have seen (for example) anti-psychotic drugs used to contriol inconvenient behaviour. It's unacceptable. I similarly find the whole paradigm of socially accpetable/unacceptable behaviour profioundly uncomfortable

so my vuiew isnt about social control of the inconvenient or the unusual - it's about recognising that some people are not in control of thir behaviour and/or relationship with the world and this can make them vulnerable to themselves and others. Some of those people want to change - I have given you very graphic examples of some very damaging behaviour - where the people concerned recognise their "illness" (for want of a better term) and want to behave differently. They may need help and support in achieving that outcome.

I dont want, any more than you do, to reduce everyone in society to a lowest common denominator of socially acceptable behaviour

[eFestivals]

In no part of any of our referral and assessment processes does the kind of assessment you are referring to take place.

I'm very surprised. How do you know that you're dealing with someone with a mental illness then (outside of them displaying extreme behaviour in front of you of course)?

[abdoujaparov]

I'm very surprised. How do you know that you're dealing with someone with a mental illness then (outside of them displaying extreme behaviour in front of you of course)?

[abdoujaparov]

You've left out peer pressure using mental health labels to stigmatise people being a form of social control too.

The people who complain about the idea of mental health 'diagnoses' being given on an internet forum, have no qualms about using the same labels in a derogatory way to express disagreement with a person's opinion.

It's a very powerful verbal tool used to enforce social compliance. At least the mental health professionals have the excuse that they're trying to help.

[eFestivals]

we arent a general needs housing association where anyone can rock up and apply for housing. We are a specialist provider of high intensity supported housing for a range of client groups, so we take referrals usually from statutory agencies. In the case of our mental health services, these are referrals from NHS clinicians who have undertaken a full mental health assessment

PMSL - statutory agencies such as the UKBA perhaps? (not necessarily them specifically).

You're relying on trust of those other agencies, which may or may not be using the service I'm referring to. You wouldn't know if they are.

[feral chile]

yep. Although all I was actually doing was stating an observable fact.

If "human psychology" wants to steal what existed before it did and claim it as exclusively its own, it can do - while I laugh.

when "mental health" is able to tell us what "mental health" actually is - in a consistent and not laughable form - I'll be happy to pass it a tissue so it can clean itself.

Vulnerable, yes. His reasoning on that? Who knows - he doesn't.

Anyone who refuses to play society's game is vulnerable to sanction by society - and labelling them as mentally ill which effects their whole person is a far bigger sanction than laughing at specific aspects of what they might say. No one is immune from their own stupidity (including all psycho-babble-ists) and being laughed at for it, but only some have their whole person sanctioned because of that on the basis of spurious ideas.

It's something that will continue until there's a reasonable basis for the whole idea of mental health - and that's something only in the control of those who currently psycho-babble on a very weak basis.

The situation is stuck until such time that psycho-babble is sane enough itself to admit its extremely weak basis. All the while it continues to laughingly believe that it's got it nailed there can be no progress.

[eFestivals]

agreed

what appears to have passed you and feral by is that people might not be using the words in the literal sense you're taking them as.

If you were to come out with a stupid idea - and we all do it at times - then someone might well say that you're nuts.

[abdoujaparov]

PMSL - statutory agencies such as the UKBA perhaps? (not necessarily them specifically).

You're relying on trust of those other agencies, which may or may not be using the service I'm referring to. You wouldn't know if they are.