Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why the NHS has greater “powers” than the police to search

I suggest an urgent review of the MHA 2007.  As a mental health patient you may have less rights than a criminal. The distinction between a community Hospital and a jail should be fundamental.  Once that becomes blurred the whole basis for therapy crumbles (Linklater m. 2001) The power to stop and search law abiding vulnerable people and give medication without consent raises deep concens that violate human and civil rights for those who have already lost their liberty/freedom – the inequality between physical and mental health care within the NHS is clear.  Though there is much evidence of excellent mental health care, to balance this there are many flaws, examples of rigid rules, overly oppressive environments that promote dependency in a contolling and custodial culture. stark power imbalances and routine practices  that include cto's, physical and chemical restraints, exclusion and seclusion may succeed in escalating rather than reducing distress.  That this can be termed as "treatment in their best interest" beggars belief. The NHS may increasingly be challenged by once powerless resilient people, due to out dated patriarchal approaches and overcoming adversity.  Requesting medical records and redressing the balance  maybe paramount for all our sakes. 1:4 of us may experience mental health difficulties.  Hostile environments within and outside the institution may increase health and safety risks for all and hinder therapeutic relationships, trust and recovery.

Guidelines/policy/procedures may benefit from robust srcutiny and clear transparent independent audits to ensure vulnerable law abiding patients/citizens/staff are safeguarded/protected from unintentional institutional abuse.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest an urgent review of the MHA 2007.  As a mental health patient you may have less rights than a criminal. The distinction between a community Hospital and a jail should be fundamental.  Once that becomes blurred the whole basis for therapy crumbles (Linklater m. 2001) The power to stop and search law abiding vulnerable people and give medication without consent raises deep concens that violate human and civil rights for those who have already lost their liberty/freedom – the inequality between physical and mental health care within the NHS is clear.  Though there is much evidence of excellent mental health care, to balance this there are many flaws, examples of rigid rules, overly oppressive environments that promote dependency in a contolling and custodial culture. stark power imbalances and routine practices  that include cto's, physical and chemical restraints, exclusion and seclusion may succeed in escalating rather than reducing distress.  That this can be termed as "treatment in their best interest" beggars belief. The NHS may increasingly be challenged by once powerless resilient people, due to out dated patriarchal approaches and overcoming adversity.  Requesting medical records and redressing the balance  maybe paramount for all our sakes. 1:4 of us may experience mental health difficulties.  Hostile environments within and outside the institution may increase health and safety risks for all and hinder therapeutic relationships, trust and recovery.

Guidelines/policy/procedures may benefit from robust srcutiny and clear transparent independent audits to ensure vulnerable law abiding patients/citizens/staff are safeguarded/protected from unintentional institutional abuse.

Ban The Stereotype!!! There is a serious side to this.

As a rock'n'roll male of the species I have long hair and ear-rings.  I used to wear a suit when I worked for the banks as well.  They recognised the 'student' and 'arty-farty' factor, and how relevant it was to custom.

Many don't though, and the bullying can get pretty bad.

Your appearance is tied to who you are as a person.  It's part of your personality, and everything to do with that.  And linked to your mental health as well.  Bully someone for long enough over something as petty as fashion and you will harm them.

And if they're downtrodden will they be able to show any of the genius they once had?  It's unlikely, as they'll be too afraid to even think straight.

Why is this idea important?

As a rock'n'roll male of the species I have long hair and ear-rings.  I used to wear a suit when I worked for the banks as well.  They recognised the 'student' and 'arty-farty' factor, and how relevant it was to custom.

Many don't though, and the bullying can get pretty bad.

Your appearance is tied to who you are as a person.  It's part of your personality, and everything to do with that.  And linked to your mental health as well.  Bully someone for long enough over something as petty as fashion and you will harm them.

And if they're downtrodden will they be able to show any of the genius they once had?  It's unlikely, as they'll be too afraid to even think straight.

repeal cto’s review mha 2007 consider civil/human rights/freedoms

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Why is this idea important?

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Lower minimum age for buying alcohol in pubs/clubs to 16

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

protecting our tolerant liberal democracy

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.

Why is this idea important?

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.