What is it in our minds which makes us happy or sad?
Much research has been carried out over many years in mental institutions to determine the way in which the physical process of our state of mind operates. How much is down to chemical imbalance and how much is a reflection on the state of our lives at any given time?
It appears that we have progressed somewhat over the years and no longer appear to treat the mentally ill person with an automatic straight jacket and electric shock treatment, but are the drugs used to replace and re-balance the imbalances of the brain simply replacements for these old fashioned and barbaric treatments? I don't know enough to give an answer.
From my own limited experience it does appear that we are more knowledgeable now about the way in which the chemical and electrical way in which the brain operates, and one would therefore assume that the treatments offered to those suffering from mental illnesses are improving.
In the UK in recent years there has been a change in attitude towards the treatment of mental illness. Now there is a much more apparently 'patient centered' approach, but maybe this has gone too far towards caring for the person's rights instead giving them the proper levels of treatment.
A mental health practitioner, having diagnosed a patient with a problem can institute a regime of treatment which could include prescription of drugs to alleviate the symptoms of the problem - provided that the patient takes them. The patient is deemed to be capable of making a decision as to whether or not they take those drugs and so alleviate the problems associated with the illness. But how much of this is true?
If someone is suffering from a severe mental illness then one of the problems they might face is the inability to make what we would consider to be a rational judgment - on taking the drugs. The result could be that they do not take the drugs from time to time and that their condition worsens, yet the practitioner is not able to force them to take the medication. This decision is left entirely up to the patient.
Let us paint the scenario where someone suffering from a serious mental health problem decided not to take the medication they have been prescribed. Over a period of time their condition deteriorates to such an extent that they brought once again to the notice of the authorities, who place them once more into secure accommodation in a hospital ward from when they originally were released into the community.
On the face of it this system appears to place the welfare and rights of the patient uppermost. But does it?
Over a period of years, perhaps, this patient might be re-introduced to hospital several times without any real improvement in their overall condition. They are merely treated for a period of weeks in a hospital ward then released once more into the outside world, where they begin the cycle again.
A revolving door for the patient and indeed for the hospital.
So, why does this happen? Is it because in the UK we have a system of hospital funding for mentally ill people which gives the hospital a certain amount of funding each time a patient is admitted to a ward?
I suggest that this is exactly what is behind it.
To keep someone in a ward for a long period of time is expensive and each time a patient is admitted the hospital receives a large sum of money for their upkeep. This is whether they stay for weeks or a year. So it is in the financial interest of the hospital to keep someone coming back every few months or so for a period of stay lasting a few weeks. The money keeps coming in. Cynical? - Maybe.
In certain parts of the UK the waiting time to see a psychologist or psychiatrist is measured in months or years. Yet all this time mentally ill people are not being given the level of treatment they should be receiving. No diagnosis means no treatment, means vulnerable and fragile people are having to cope with a terrifying and debilitating illness alone.
If you wish to read more then go to this link.
Much research has been carried out over many years in mental institutions to determine the way in which the physical process of our state of mind operates. How much is down to chemical imbalance and how much is a reflection on the state of our lives at any given time?
It appears that we have progressed somewhat over the years and no longer appear to treat the mentally ill person with an automatic straight jacket and electric shock treatment, but are the drugs used to replace and re-balance the imbalances of the brain simply replacements for these old fashioned and barbaric treatments? I don't know enough to give an answer.
From my own limited experience it does appear that we are more knowledgeable now about the way in which the chemical and electrical way in which the brain operates, and one would therefore assume that the treatments offered to those suffering from mental illnesses are improving.
In the UK in recent years there has been a change in attitude towards the treatment of mental illness. Now there is a much more apparently 'patient centered' approach, but maybe this has gone too far towards caring for the person's rights instead giving them the proper levels of treatment.
A mental health practitioner, having diagnosed a patient with a problem can institute a regime of treatment which could include prescription of drugs to alleviate the symptoms of the problem - provided that the patient takes them. The patient is deemed to be capable of making a decision as to whether or not they take those drugs and so alleviate the problems associated with the illness. But how much of this is true?
If someone is suffering from a severe mental illness then one of the problems they might face is the inability to make what we would consider to be a rational judgment - on taking the drugs. The result could be that they do not take the drugs from time to time and that their condition worsens, yet the practitioner is not able to force them to take the medication. This decision is left entirely up to the patient.
Let us paint the scenario where someone suffering from a serious mental health problem decided not to take the medication they have been prescribed. Over a period of time their condition deteriorates to such an extent that they brought once again to the notice of the authorities, who place them once more into secure accommodation in a hospital ward from when they originally were released into the community.
On the face of it this system appears to place the welfare and rights of the patient uppermost. But does it?
Over a period of years, perhaps, this patient might be re-introduced to hospital several times without any real improvement in their overall condition. They are merely treated for a period of weeks in a hospital ward then released once more into the outside world, where they begin the cycle again.
A revolving door for the patient and indeed for the hospital.
So, why does this happen? Is it because in the UK we have a system of hospital funding for mentally ill people which gives the hospital a certain amount of funding each time a patient is admitted to a ward?
I suggest that this is exactly what is behind it.
To keep someone in a ward for a long period of time is expensive and each time a patient is admitted the hospital receives a large sum of money for their upkeep. This is whether they stay for weeks or a year. So it is in the financial interest of the hospital to keep someone coming back every few months or so for a period of stay lasting a few weeks. The money keeps coming in. Cynical? - Maybe.
In certain parts of the UK the waiting time to see a psychologist or psychiatrist is measured in months or years. Yet all this time mentally ill people are not being given the level of treatment they should be receiving. No diagnosis means no treatment, means vulnerable and fragile people are having to cope with a terrifying and debilitating illness alone.
If you wish to read more then go to this link.
