Mental Health & The NHS

kurgon

Natty68 wrote: »

All I can say is you must be in a highly funded area, or are delusional. As this is definately not happening..

QUOTE]
Nice to see you making ignorant statements. Either I am delusional or am able to read the IAPT statisitics produced by both the NHS and NAPT. The areas I am talking about are nationwide.

p999j

I find reading this thread quite distressing. Not because of the topic but the intolerance.

We are all in difficult situations. If we weren't it's unlikely we would be on this site.

One of the most common drugs in everyday situations is aspartame. It is in coke and many other common drinks. It failed it's LD50 tests then was passed without any chemical changes being made. http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html Yet it is trusted because it received FDA approval, albeit in a manner more suited to the Krays than the politicians!

I have great empathy with anyone wary of taking medication.

I work in nature conservation. I am well aware of the cyclical symptom>solution>symptom challenge. An example in nature is where sea otters were overhunted off the american coast, for their fur. As sea otters fed off sea urchins mainly, the loss of the top of the feeding chain resulted in a collapse further down the chain- i.e. because sea otters were reduced in numbers, sea urchin numbers exploded- these sea urchins lived on kelp forests which provided the shelter and food for numerous fish species. The entire food chain began to collapse, and was only possible to be righted by the re-introduction of the sea otters.

The reason I raise this is that often I find I am put on one medication, and then have to deal with the side effects of that medication, and so I am prescribed another medication. Ultimately the cumulation of the side effects ends up being worse than the original problem, or just replaced with a different set of side effects.

As competent intelligent adults, I think we all have the right to question and choose. Often we don't make the right choices but at least we are priviledged to be permitted that freedom.

I once read a magazine called 'the ethical consumer'. http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ If you want to have a better understanding of the foods and drugs we commonly use, I suggest reading it. However, it is depressing to read! It makes you lose faith in anyone who is making money from the food or drug business. Seems like some folk would sell the health of their children for a quick buck now.

We all only know our own stories. People can have different opinions without one being right or wrong. I fail to understand the need to put others down. It does not elevate ourselves.

"Tolerance is the eager and glad acceptance of the way along which others seek the truth."- Sir Walter Besant. We all have our own searches.

Sugar_Coated_Owl

If you aren't prepared to help yourself I don't see why the government should give you benefits.

kno

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think that people who claim benefits for a medical condition, whether physical or mental, and refuse the normal treatment for that condition (particularly without even trying it) should have their benefit entitlement reviewed very robustly.

It's quite unethical to force someone into taking medication not under a section. By removing their benefits what do you hope to achieve, that they will somehow get better or that they will somehow change their opinion on medication?

Just because something worked for you doesn't mean it will work or be appropriate for everyone else.

kno

Sugar_Coated_Owl wrote: »

If you aren't prepared to help yourself I don't see why the government should give you benefits.

Because that's what we call living in a civilised society, you know one that cares for the vulnerable.

Should you have been refused further residential treatment on the basis that you exhibited signs of your mental illness?

What do you say for conditions that are not treatable by medication?

Sugar_Coated_Owl

FYI I have declined residential treatment as I think it's a waste of 100K and I don't believe I need to be inpatient.

What kind of conditions are you referring to?

p999j

Sugar_Coated_Owl wrote: »

If you aren't prepared to help yourself I don't see why the government should give you benefits.

'Helping yourself' includes educating yourself on options as well as having trust (or blind faith) in others assisting in making these decisions.

We hold so much trust in our government helping us, don't we? There is no shortage of money-there is a shortage of people believing it should be spent on the more vulnerable in society. With having so many judging us, the last thing we need to do is judge each other.

I hope this article speaks for itself.

DomRavioli

p999j wrote: »

'Helping yourself' includes educating yourself on options as well as having trust (or blind faith) in others assisting in making these decisions.

We hold so much trust in our government helping us, don't we? There is no shortage of money-there is a shortage of people believing it should be spent on the more vulnerable in society. With having so many judging us, the last thing we need to do is judge each other.

I hope this article speaks for itself.

If you refuse treatment for any illness, regardless of its nature, then why should the state pay for someone that could be treated or cured, but chooses not to? This is EXACTLY why there is a benefits overhaul, the people who NEED the extra help are getting it, whilst those who wish to pick and choose are draining the funds available. If you wish to pick and choose your treatment, you fund your own life.

caela_2

dalgio wrote: »

I've know people that were stuck on a waiting list. They went down to A&E and told them how bad it was and got a referral without any problems.

You have to do what you have to do to jump the queue.

This is an interesting idea. I wouldn't consider it unless I was really bad, but at time, I am. I've often thought of just going in there and saying please do something. Do you mind telling me more about your friend's situation and what happened?

caela_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

You could also read that as "between 50% and 70% treated with a given antidepressant do show a response.".

"Relapse" is a strong word to use but many of those "relapsing" will be like me, perfectly well for months or years, feel depression returning, start on the ADs again and back to normal after a couple of weeks. Since I was first diagnosed 17 years ago that's been my recurring pattern and it's been no problem to lead a normal life and work throughout.

I think that people who claim benefits for a medical condition, whether physical or mental, and refuse the normal treatment for that condition (particularly without even trying it) should have their benefit entitlement reviewed very robustly.

I'm glad medication works for you, but I strongly disagree with your last statement. For the 1 millionth time I shall mention it here, my DLA was not refused because I do not take medication- it went to tribunal and the judge basically made up that I was OK. Medication was never once mentioned. I will not ever take medication because I am vehemently against animal testing- I have also said that before. It is against my beliefs.

You could easily flip the situation and say that people who do take medication are wasting resources and money on a non-permanent solution without trying more effective ways of recovery first. It is often something people become reliant on and cannot get off, with some drugs having extreme withdrawal side-effects worse than heroin. I am not having a go at you for taking medication, just trying to say that it is frustrating when someone tries to flip the situation on you to say your not getting the right treatment and should have all your benefits stopped as a result.