Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.

[Hot Flatus]

You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
 

[Regulator]

You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
 

It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.

Mr R is an Approved Clinician.  He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.

[GruB]

Has he had time to watch the footage?  I would have thought he would find it interesting.

[Regulator]

Has he had time to watch the footage?  I would have thought he would find it interesting.

I'll ask him.

[Zoidburg]

You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
 

It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.

Mr R is an Approved Clinician.  He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.

And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.

It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.

Dismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.

Arrogance.

[Regulator]

You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
 

It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.

Mr R is an Approved Clinician.  He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.

And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.

It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.

Do you (without googling) actually know the requirements of the MHA, DOLS and the hurdles that need to be got over for that to happen?

Dismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.

There is a difference between 'dismissing the plain truth' and giving due weight to the uninformed opinions of those who know bugger all about the subject...

Arrogance.

Yeah - whatever... I'd rather be arrogant than plain pig ignorant.

[Zoidburg]

You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
 

It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.

Mr R is an Approved Clinician.  He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.

And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.

It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.

Do you (without googling) actually know the requirements of the MHA, DOLS and the hurdles that need to be got over for that to happen?

Dismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.

There is a difference between 'dismissing the plain truth' and giving due weight to the uninformed opinions of those who know bugger all about the subject...

Arrogance.

Yeah - whatever... I'd rather be arrogant than plain pig ignorant.

So tell me Doctor Freud

If you had been the custody sergeant or the doctor who saw her and you had been shown that tape would you have sent her on her way?

[Hot Flatus]

I don't think they saw the footage.

She was very clearly a nutbag.... but it isn't against the law to be mad. Besides, she hadn't murdered anybody...yet.

[Regulator]

You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
 

It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.

Mr R is an Approved Clinician.  He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.

And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.

It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.

Do you (without googling) actually know the requirements of the MHA, DOLS and the hurdles that need to be got over for that to happen?

Dismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.

There is a difference between 'dismissing the plain truth' and giving due weight to the uninformed opinions of those who know bugger all about the subject...

Arrogance.

Yeah - whatever... I'd rather be arrogant than plain pig ignorant.

So tell me Doctor Freud

If you had been the custody sergeant or the doctor who saw her and you had been shown that tape would you have sent her on her way?

She wasn't "sent on her way" by the custody sergeant or the doctor, was she?

Your comments not only betray your ignorance of mental health law, but also seem to show that you haven't followed the case very well...

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

[Zoidburg]

I don't think they saw the footage.

But why not?

It seemed to be a pretty important bit of film, usefull even...

[Regulator]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

[Zoidburg]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

[Regulator]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assess,emt is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

[Zoidburg]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assess,emt is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

And the assessement was muddied by the fact that she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.

This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.

Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen the tape before assesment - would you have let her go?

[GruB]

Zoiders,

Did you watch the film right to the end along with the updates from the expert?

[Zoidburg]

I did and he used a lot of words to say "I dunno".

 

Non sharing of information is the issue here, I want to know why.

[Regulator]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.

How do you know that?  You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.

This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.

No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.

Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?

I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.

What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...

Want to stop digging now?

[Zoidburg]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.

How do you know that?  You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.

This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.

No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.

Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?

I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.

What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...

Want to stop digging now?

Want to answer the question now?

[GruB]

I did and he used a lot of words to say "I dunno".

 

Non sharing of information is the issue here, I want to know why.

I must have been watching a different show to you then.  Or perhaps my spectacles were not rose tinted with a prejudiced view.

[Regulator]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.

How do you know that?  You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.

This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.

No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.

Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?

I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.

What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...

Want to stop digging now?

Want to answer the question now?

Want to stop making a prat of yourself?

[Zoidburg]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.

How do you know that?  You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.

This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.

No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.

Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?

I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.

What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...

Want to stop digging now?

Want to answer the question now?

Want to stop making a prat of yourself?

Still waiting...

[Regulator]

The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.

Exactly.

The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.

And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?

It was there and it was not passed on.

Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?

You don't get it do you?

A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour.  You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.

And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.

How do you know that?  You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.

This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.

No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.

Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?

I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.

What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...

Want to stop digging now?

Want to answer the question now?

Want to stop making a prat of yourself?

Still waiting...

For what?

[clarion]

Some people might suggest this was a silly and trivial response to what was a serious case.

Without the evidence we cannot judge what is clearly a difficult situation, complex even for those who have spent years studying the subjects.  With hindsight, it's easy to be an armchair critic.  Or a Mail columnist.

[Zoidburg]

Don't be obtuse Reg.

You are just afraid that if you give an honest answer you would be forced to contradict yourself.