Remember Maggies Care in the Community??

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by midnight, Dec 3, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Care in the Community introduced by Virginia Bottomly shen she was Secretary of State for Health under the Tories. A cost-saving exercise for what was widely regarded as the 'Cinderalla' service of the NHS.

    The Tories later admitted that the exercise had been a complete disaster.

    It is the Prison System which is now routinely used as the social dumping ground for the mentally ill. - they are easier to convict and thus inflate the 'clear up' rates for recorded crime.
  2. Whilst the previous Tory Government can hold there hands up to this policy, the present regime has had 9 years to sort it out and has done squat!!!

    Implementing 4000 plus pieces of new legislation and imposing draconian restrictive laws will not fix flawed policies.

    I wonder if these Mental Health ASBOs will echo the failings of the current ABSOs. I feel the answer will be yes, unfortunately it will be on the back of another inquiry on some poor souls demise at the hands of another lunatic, inadequately treated, released early with a complete lack of monitoring and aftercare due to a lack of resources/money.

    And these Ministers have the arrogance to try to give themselves a 66% payrise. (Oops, another thread!). God give me strength.
  3. A good deal of the current problem - which the Times article does not seem to highlight - is that those with even severe personality disorders/illnesses cannot be legally be detained if their condition is untreatable. This led to the release of, for example, Michael Stone (killed Megan and Lin Russell).

    Is the answer just to lock up all of those people with such disorders? It's tempting to say yes, but we then have to overturn a presumption of innocence (bit of a slippery slope) due to the presence of illnesses which only cause violence in a small handful of cases.
  4. It's amazing he still finds time for his loyalist paramilitary activities.
  5. . . . but they did save the lives of four foxes
  6. Shock! Two b*stards have same name! Stop Press!
  7. The presumption of innocence is all but eroded as it stands. Constant surveillance, huge Governmental databases all but pervade a presumption of guilt until eliminated. Lets not kid ourselves that the presumption of innocence is the keystone to modern judicial practices and law. This ceased to be a few years ago.

    If someone is deemed an unacceptable risk, no matter how slight, then they should not be placed into society. Isn`t the prison process designed to rehabilitate individuals into becoming functional responsible members of society? Thus the "secure hospital" should work on the same principles.
  8. And in the last 8 years approximately 5000 people have been murdered by people who WEREN'T mentally ill....!

    Just another ill-informed and journalistically lazy article that socially stigmatises the metally ill yet again.

    The problem with the Compulsory Treatment Order (incidentally I now commission mental health services and I have NEVER heard a CTO called a 'mental health ASBO' before. I think the journalist may have invented that one!) is that I can't think of many CPN's who would be willing to forcibly medicate someone in their own home. If we set up clinics to provide the medication then the client still has to turn up. If they don't you are left with the prospect of nurses turning up mob-handed to forcibly remove someone to a place where their medication can be administered. That is not going to fill mental health professionals (or their clients) with joy....

    It's very difficult to enforce this as it means basically baby sitting the seriously mentally ill, and services don't exist to do that. All that will happen is that if people don't take their medication they will become unwell again and be re-admitted that way, the same as happens now.
  9. Isn`t this where the famous "the men in the white coats are coming", saying comes from? Forcibly "sectioning" someone is a necessary evil as they are hardly likely to "section" themselves. If there is a degree of danger to the "white coats" then perhaps police assistance will be required to detain under the Mental Health Act.

    I can`t see too many people hand wringing, seeing nurses forcing medication upon those clearly in need of it. Doctors carry it out on terminally ill patients, sometimes against their wishes. Sounds like a medico-ethical debate :lol:

    I would rather see the individual "sectioned" for his own and societies safety, than be left within the community for him and his 30 alter egos to run amok whilsting shouting it is his Human Right to do so.
  10. Agreed - should have said "further eroded". With the propsed abolition of trials by jury in some cases, things really are going further and further down the pan.

    However, surely we don't want to reduce such an important right still further unless absolutely necessary? You might say that it is in these cases: I'm not convinced that the "however slight" formulation is at all sensible, though. Do we really want to lock up - indefinately - anyone who poses even a slight risk to others? We would have to lock up a hell of a lot of people, many of whom don't pose a significant risk.

    The point about those with certain mental illnesses is that they are deemed untreatable. So secure hospitals can't work on the same principles. They can't be rehabilitated. Yet the majority do not pose a risk. Do we really want to start locking up and criminalising an entire group of people on the grounds that a very small number pose a risk? The parallels from history are obvious and concerning, IMO.
  11. I find it almost unbelievable that a teenager who doesn´t want to return home gets a 24/7 `nursery´ care in a flat or house;But a mentally unstable patient doesn´t?

    I know this as a cousin of mine used to earn lots of money to finance her Doctor in Social Studies,or some such rubbish;She left after becoming totally dissolusioned by the whole system,and is now a nurse.

    It stinks of ´saving resources´ in that somebody that is `untreatable`,is not locked up or cared for and is simply set onto the streets to fend for themselves,and are free to kill or maim others knowing that they cannot be convicted when they´re caught.

    A few months/years of treatment and they´re back out again,maybe we should lock up the `Doctors`that set them free on an unsuspecting public,and then say that they´re sorry that they couldn´t force somebody to take their tablets :x
  12. [
    This is a difficult dilemma, "devil and the deep blue sea" stuff. What constitutes an acceptable risk? Would you be prepared to explain it to Mrs Miggins who has just lost her husband after "Hannibal" has breakfasted on him?

    I appreciate it is a quandary, and someone may get it wrong and there will be a human price to pay for it.

    If these people are untreatable and do pose a risk then they should be "contained". I would certainly not want to see a prisoner parolled committing further criminal offences. If this does occur the risk assessment has failed and further rehabilitation is required. If the individual is beyond rehabilitation and would pose a risk to society he/she should be detained at Her Majesties Pleasure indefinately.

    When technology advances sufficiently to allow suitable treatment, these individuals will be re assessed accordingly. Not an ideal solution, but we do not live in an ideal world. The fundamental virtue of a society is the ability to function together. When this is threatened the perpetrator is excluded from that society. If I had a better solution I would be a rich man.
  13. Looking at both articles one describes the chances of being murdered by a mentally insane person.

    The second article refers to the chances of a mentally insane person being murdered.

    Not quite the contradiction indicated. :wink: