World Health Organisation Mental Health Report March 11th 2009
The World Health Organisation latest March 11th Mental Health Europe report states its findings are open to interpretation . The Guardian in the shape of writer Mary Ohara reported on the 11th March about the social inequalities being the factors that caused worsening mental health outcomes the further down the social ladder people are in the UK .
But what's wrong with the word and concept of "Class" ? Well it appears it's a dirty word in the UK. One the eliter classes in Britain do not like. The UK has some of the worst mental health outcomes where material inequality is sharp and social cohesion is underminded especially by its own benefit and health adminstrative classes . That much is echoed even from Mary Ohara's report. The UK when compared to Sweden just does not rate as very kind to its underclass and mental health lower class citizens (unless somehow they are well connected)
"The adverse impact of stress is greater in societies where greater inequality exists and where some people feel worse off than others. We will have to face up to the fact that individual and collective mental health and wellbeing will depend on reducing the gap between rich and poor."
But what's wrong with the word and concept of "Class" ? Well it appears it's a dirty word in the UK. One the eliter classes in Britain do not like. The UK has some of the worst mental health outcomes where material inequality is sharp and social cohesion is underminded especially by its own benefit and health adminstrative classes . That much is echoed even from Mary Ohara's report. The UK when compared to Sweden just does not rate as very kind to its underclass and mental health lower class citizens (unless somehow they are well connected)
"The adverse impact of stress is greater in societies where greater inequality exists and where some people feel worse off than others. We will have to face up to the fact that individual and collective mental health and wellbeing will depend on reducing the gap between rich and poor."
" In Britain it is very evident that some of the poorest people feel abused and disrespected by public welfare provision and are hurt by the manner in which they are characterized by the tabloid press. Not only do they get less welfare than their Swedish counterparts, but they receive it in a context that is often dehumanizing and unpleasant. "
Jones et al 2006 p. 430 "
At UserWatch we would go further and say the great Social Inclusion experiment run by Mental Health Trusts (as per Social Exclusion Unit logic 2003 ) is something approaching a costly scam . Driven by top-Down delivery beliefs in "anti-stigma" the result is not social inclusion but selective inclusion of classes of fitter aspiring-Users in mental health . These people often now with Trust jobs, form the "voice" of others . The truth is many Users are not represented and cannot be until they have their own budget power or independent local groups that are not inside the compromising context of performance management behaviour of the Trusts themselves .
So what keeps this illusion of "social inclusion" and "User-Voice" going ? In the UK it started with "Class" - the middle class absolutely run the Trusts from Board level to manager level and look for those Users who fit their agenda and then they promote it all in a skewed form of image management and publicity ..There are sadly plenty of Users who have no choice of how to form their social inclusion and get in control of their affairs in their own locality - part of the reason being is the Trusts have little populations now of captured User-workers to support and spare capacity money if that is what you may call it, goes that way .. Its a dead end cul de sac route of "social" inclusion just for the few with a narriow gully at the end where some are filtered through for strategic use ..
The Mental Health Trusts in the UK are given too much power over patient budgets and , we repeat , the result are forms of captured User-corrals they can point to for "good performance" .
Frankly in Birmingham UK this competes with any independent User-led models/groups which can barely exist in a mental health economy dominated by the State . In Birmingham the best outcomes for mental health patients in the community surrounds assimilation into the middle class and management connection .
The remedy at least partly may be localising power over social inclusion budgets, taking them away from the large corporate mental health Trusts and ring fencing them into localities whilst powering social inclusion groups in those localities. The delivery method might be the UK Primary Care Trusts and local constituencies who have the means to allocate funding even more finely. The NHS in mental health is a perverse social engineer that should empower recovery treatments but only through personalised budgets - otherwise the NHS creates a permanent round of a User-culture benefiting the few and trapping the weak within limited almost opportunityless contexts....We've observed this at a number of Trusts in the UK .
Jones et al 2006 p. 430 "
At UserWatch we would go further and say the great Social Inclusion experiment run by Mental Health Trusts (as per Social Exclusion Unit logic 2003 ) is something approaching a costly scam . Driven by top-Down delivery beliefs in "anti-stigma" the result is not social inclusion but selective inclusion of classes of fitter aspiring-Users in mental health . These people often now with Trust jobs, form the "voice" of others . The truth is many Users are not represented and cannot be until they have their own budget power or independent local groups that are not inside the compromising context of performance management behaviour of the Trusts themselves .
So what keeps this illusion of "social inclusion" and "User-Voice" going ? In the UK it started with "Class" - the middle class absolutely run the Trusts from Board level to manager level and look for those Users who fit their agenda and then they promote it all in a skewed form of image management and publicity ..There are sadly plenty of Users who have no choice of how to form their social inclusion and get in control of their affairs in their own locality - part of the reason being is the Trusts have little populations now of captured User-workers to support and spare capacity money if that is what you may call it, goes that way .. Its a dead end cul de sac route of "social" inclusion just for the few with a narriow gully at the end where some are filtered through for strategic use ..
The Mental Health Trusts in the UK are given too much power over patient budgets and , we repeat , the result are forms of captured User-corrals they can point to for "good performance" .
Frankly in Birmingham UK this competes with any independent User-led models/groups which can barely exist in a mental health economy dominated by the State . In Birmingham the best outcomes for mental health patients in the community surrounds assimilation into the middle class and management connection .
The remedy at least partly may be localising power over social inclusion budgets, taking them away from the large corporate mental health Trusts and ring fencing them into localities whilst powering social inclusion groups in those localities. The delivery method might be the UK Primary Care Trusts and local constituencies who have the means to allocate funding even more finely. The NHS in mental health is a perverse social engineer that should empower recovery treatments but only through personalised budgets - otherwise the NHS creates a permanent round of a User-culture benefiting the few and trapping the weak within limited almost opportunityless contexts....We've observed this at a number of Trusts in the UK .
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment