You couldn't make it up.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4830448.stm

This one beggars belief. You would have thought the NHS had enough on it's plate without going in for this.

 

On the other hand if it does help them understand the phenomenon and perhaps move towards helping these unfortunate people to stop it may well be a good thing.

Peter

 

I have often pondered the question whether or not some Trick Cyclists are the full shilling and if they are not who is to say so.

 

Whilst that is a quite different question it is an interesting point, does the trcik cyclist, like the pet owner becomes like the pet, become like the patient.

Peter

 

well it does seem that the lunatics have eventually taken over the asylum,but what do they call self harm,someone with a cutthroat razor by their neck?

 

I've worked in a few help centres in my time and I know that depriving people of their coping mechanism, which self-hamr can be interpretted as, by making them go cold turkey often does do more harm than good.

What the NHS now needs to address is why self harm is on the rise and start making parents, guardians and kids more aware of it so all the misconceptions can be chucked out of the window.

/soap box

 

I'm amazed that nothing's been done before now. After all there used to be kids in Ganges who self harmed because they couldn't cope: swallowing toxic substances like cleaning fluid, open safety pins, cutting themselves with razor blades. Did the andrew take any notice? Well it did if they ran away: it harmed them by giving them the dreaded cuts. Perhaps it should have tried finding out WHY they went on the Run in the first place? Well done NHS!

 

Before they invented trick cyclists nobody had any problems.




As for the NHS and the BBC ditty what a load of ballocks.



Reminds me of the take away the guns and nobody will kill each other super idea followers.

 

Which is fair enough on civvie street but when these tossers are doing it 3 times a year to get out of sea drafts they should be kicked out. Duty of care my arse.

 

So what happens if one of these patients is successful and tops themselves and their relatives seek redress.? Who would be liable ? Lack of Duty of Care would surely come into play then

 

Ah that is a wholly diferent question, but back in the 'good old days' that didn't happen, so I can't really give any advice.

peter

 

The "good old days" eh?

What happened in the good old days was that the Services were able to slope any difficult health problems onto the NHS, or at least remove them from the Service with very few questions asked. As the Armed Forces have become smaller, problems have become much more evident and therefore hurt more.

It's just sad that the ability to investigate and treat these problems (among many more) has been lost with the iniquitous reduction in healthcare provision for Servicemen and women just as the operational load increased to levels not seen since the Korean War, if not WW2.

Does the Defence Medical Service exist to provide cheap labour to the NHS, or to treat Service people in their fighting environment?

 

When I was in the service it had it's own psychiatric hospital to which those who had severe problems were sent, rather than 'sloping them off onto the NHS'.

On the point of the present situation being a failure of the state to provide proper and appropriate medical services for thos who put their lives on the line for the state then I would agree wholheartedly.

Peter

 

Oh Yes Netley wasn’t it?
Before we all decry it give it a chance after all none of us knows what goes on in that mind of ours

 

Bring back the looney bins, all this counselling crap is a waste of time. What was wrong with the good old days of locking the nutty relative in the loft or cellar? Either that or the captive bolt !!!
Didn't do me any harm..............

 

Yes we can all see that the old system did you no harm whatsoever. One of my wifes fiends is a psyciatric nurse, and she says that in the old days the problem was that half the inmates should really have been released but there was no real way to do it, and today the same number are out but should be in and there is no way to deal with this.

The real problem is that locking them up costs a lot of money, whereas letting them out with a few boxes of pills costs almost nothing. Which option do you think this government will take.

Peter

 

Sorry Maxi_77 been offline a while.

Whilst RVH Netley certainly did take difficult psych cases, as did Wroughton and Catterick after its demise, survey boards then sloped them onto the NHS, which I would agree was inevitable, given that UK plc does not nurture and protect those Service and ex-Service people who become sick in service.

Where is the support for veterans that our ex colonies provide as a matter of course? My point about the good old days is that we have very selective memories and tend to remember the good, whilst ignoring some of the more difficult times that we all, inevitably, had.

 

I think the differences in the UK regarding ex service and health problems are mainly that this country has a recognised NHS .

No good quoting the colonies[ex most of them are Republics or whatever these days] they don't have a recognised health service ,most of them rely on people providing their own health insurance . Although ex service people are usually provided with slightly up rated health policies.

As for mental health and the NHS --well the local mental health wards around here at present contain geriatric dementia and a few specials for the people that have been 'sectioned' .They downloaded a lot of institutionalised patients into the community -----bad news is the out patients are ok if they keep taking the pills--- so they are costing the community carers fund a bomb providing home attendance to keep tabs on them.

 

It has little to do with the NHS, other countries have both good social welfare and good veterans support. This country has never really been prepared to look after those who have been foolish enough to put their lives on the line and survive.

The community care costs for the mentally ill are far far less than keeping them in hospital or the loony bin. The problem is that community care tends to consist of a weekly visit and if no contact is made there is no follow up. I have recently seen some one leave hospital full of enthusiasm only to be back in hospital after about a month simply because there was no effective care in the community at all, and the real problem was the community care did not care at all, it was just another client and as long as they could tick the box that they had made an attemt to contact the person once a week their job was done. Friends and family tried to help but without the expertise they of course failed.

Peter