Author Topic: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.  (Read 4729 times)

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #50 on: August 12, 2010, 05:15:29 pm »
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.

Indeed.

One thing about being with Mr R is that I have learned a lot about the MHA and DOLS, etc. and how the assessment process is far more complex than some seem to think it is (and I don't include Daily Wail columnists in that, as they clearly don't have the capacity to think...)

When I was first at the SHA I got involved in the Approved Clinician / Section 12 (re)approvals processes and it is by no means an easy thing to get through.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #51 on: August 12, 2010, 05:17:46 pm »
Don't be obtuse Reg.

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

I've already given you an answer.  I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Zoidburg

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #52 on: August 12, 2010, 05:19:11 pm »
Don't be obtuse Reg.

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

I've already given you an answer.  I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Let me make this simple for you.

Yes or No.

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #53 on: August 12, 2010, 05:20:54 pm »
Don't be obtuse Reg.

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

I've already given you an answer.  I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Let me make this simple for you.

Yes or No.

Yes - you're commenting on something you know bugger all about.

Clear enough for you?
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2010, 05:22:57 pm »
Mental illness includes difficulty thinking, socializing, & functioning.


Zoidburg

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2010, 05:23:25 pm »
Don't be obtuse Reg.

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

I've already given you an answer.  I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Let me make this simple for you.

Yes or No.

Yes - you're commenting on something you know bugger all about.

Clear enough for you?
Even jurors get asked to give a yes or no answer about complex issues Reg and they are laymen and women.

So you need to answer the question instead of hurling snobby abuse.

Yes?

Or...

No?

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2010, 05:25:07 pm »
Mental illness includes difficulty thinking, socializing, & functioning.



Remind you of anyone on here?   ;)
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Zoidburg

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2010, 05:27:49 pm »
A smiley doesn't make your comments any less animal farm than they were minutes ago.

Now can you answer the question?

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #58 on: August 12, 2010, 05:28:11 pm »
Don't be obtuse Reg.

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

I've already given you an answer.  I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Let me make this simple for you.

Yes or No.

Yes - you're commenting on something you know bugger all about.

Clear enough for you?
Even jurors get asked to make a yes or no deciscions about complex issues Reg and they are laymen and women.

So you need to answer the question instead of hurling snobby abuse.

Yes?

Or...

No?


*Yawn*

I've already given you an answer.  

So rather than making yourself look even more foolish why don't you just go back and read it...


Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Zoidburg

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #59 on: August 12, 2010, 05:29:33 pm »
No you haven't.

 ::-)

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2010, 05:33:19 pm »
Actually Zoiders, if you think about the last comment I made and the way the 'system' used to apply the methods of determining how and when a person was fit to detain under the mental health act, it may help you to understand why the legislation and procedures were changed.

Care in the community for example is a relatively new process and one that in many ways is still evolving.  It is the principles of that caring approach that does not simply lock people up because some one believes they must be deluded.  Tests must be undertaken and failed.  It cannot be done on a whim, like it was years ago to inherit etc.

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2010, 05:36:58 pm »

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.


She and her sister had clearly had an episode of delusional behaviour. The reason for it was far from clear. The best guess (though it proved to be wrong) of the people at the scene was that it was a reaction to drugs, possibly something like PCP. But it was only guesswork. In custody she seemed calm, lucid and co-operative. I'm surprised the court didn't keep her in custody for a bit longer for reports but as a layman myself it is not clear to me what their powers were given the minor charges brought against her. It's not clear to me either what more the police could actually have done. You can't simply lock people up in this country for being strange. Possibly more serious charges could have been brought in order to give the court more leeway but that raises its own questions of abuse of process.

(Edited to fix typo)
The old Legion hand told the recruit, "When things are bad, bleu, try not to make them worse, because it is very likely that they are bad enough already." -- Robert Ruark

Zoidburg

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2010, 05:43:32 pm »
Actually Zoiders, if you think about the last comment I made and the way the 'system' used to apply the methods of determining how and when a person was fit to detain under the mental health act, it may help you to understand why the legislation and procedures were changed.

Care in the community for example is a relatively new process and one that in many ways is still evolving.  It is the principles of that caring approach that does not simply lock people up because some one believes they must be deluded.  Tests must be undertaken and failed.  It cannot be done on a whim, like it was years ago to inherit etc.
I know why they changed the system, ignore what Reg said he was just hurling abuse to bully and I was not going to rise to it.

The principles of the caring aproach still leave the option of making sure someone is in a place of safety even if just on a temporary basis, this didn't happen and I want to know why.

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2010, 05:47:48 pm »
What we all saw from the footage is a person who demonstrated, in one of the clearest ways imaginable, that, at that time at least, she was a danger to herself and the public, yet she was set free.

One can explain the current system and how it isn't able to section everyone who behaves like that, but you can't say someone shouldn't critcise the system if they're not an expert, unless you don't want to live in a democracy.  Those who have the vote include those of use who "know bugger all".  But actually we do get to know something through TV programmes such as these, in addition to any personal experience.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Eccentrica Gallumbits

  • Rock 'n' roll and brew, rock 'n' roll and brew...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #64 on: August 12, 2010, 05:52:48 pm »
What we all saw from the footage is a person who demonstrated, in one of the clearest ways imaginable, that, at that time at least, she was a danger to herself and the public, yet she was set free.
But was she a danger because of a treatable illness? Because if something else, which was not an illness which can be treated, was causing her behaviour, she can't be sectioned. The point of holding someone on a section is to assess and treat them. She'd been assessed. If there was nothing wrong with her that could be treated, there were no grounds to hold her.
My feminist marxist dialectic brings all the boys to the yard.


Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2010, 06:13:42 pm »
That's explaining the current system.  The system could be changed, if there is the will, so that a person with an untreatable illness or condition could be detained, too.

I'm not saying it's easy!  Of course it's difficult to decide who it's fair to hold or not.  That doesn't mean non-experts can't ask for change.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Eccentrica Gallumbits

  • Rock 'n' roll and brew, rock 'n' roll and brew...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2010, 06:36:56 pm »
How long do you hold someone if you can't treat them? If you can't treat them, you can't make them better. Do we hold people forever on the offchance they might do something stupid? When do you decide the risk has diminished enough to let them go? What if you decide it's ok to let them go and they kill themselves or someone else? What if someone decides that you cycling without a helmet is putting yourself at risk and tries to detain you for that? Are you going to detain everyone who goes into a supermarket and buys a 36-pack of superlager? Everyone who buys cigarettes? Everyone who drives like a twat?

The purpose of the various sections of the various mental health acts are to ensure treatment and care for people with mental illnesses, not to detain fuckwits and stop them doing fuckwittery. If this woman had a mental illness that could have been treated, did the doctors fuck up in not noticing it? Possibly, but possibly not. Mental illness can be tricky to diagnose, and almost impossible if someone is on drink and/or drugs at the same time. If there were no grounds to believe she had a mental illness which would respond to treatment, there were no grounds to hold her.
My feminist marxist dialectic brings all the boys to the yard.


Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #67 on: August 12, 2010, 06:37:52 pm »
That's explaining the current system.  The system could be changed, if there is the will, so that a person with an untreatable illness or condition could be detained, too.

I'm not saying it's easy!  Of course it's difficult to decide who it's fair to hold or not.  That doesn't mean non-experts can't ask for change.

What next?  We detain people because thye might not think what we want them to think?

Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Zoidburg

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #68 on: August 12, 2010, 06:43:01 pm »
The idea of locking people away pre-emptively because they have an untreatable "personailty" disorder was put forward and thankfully dropped because it hinged on hearsay and opinion - not evidence.

Yes thats right - they wanted to lock people away for thinking wrong.

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #69 on: August 12, 2010, 07:29:43 pm »
All the issues raised above also come up with "treatable" illnesses - whether or not the treatments work for the individual - but it is deemed acceptable to detain people when they are a danger to themselves and others.  The difficulty is deciding whether a person is dangerous.  Once that has been decided, it shouldn't matter if their condition is treatable or not, in my opinion.

I don't see a great moral difference between people being locked up while being forced to receive treatment and people being locked up while having no treatment.  Already people can be detained when they haven't committed a crime.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Eccentrica Gallumbits

  • Rock 'n' roll and brew, rock 'n' roll and brew...
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #70 on: August 12, 2010, 07:47:40 pm »
All the issues raised above also come up with "treatable" illnesses - whether or not the treatments work for the individual - but it is deemed acceptable to detain people when they are a danger to themselves and others.  The difficulty is deciding whether a person is dangerous.  Once that has been decided, it shouldn't matter if their condition is treatable or not, in my opinion.

I don't see a great moral difference between people being locked up while being forced to receive treatment and people being locked up while having no treatment.  Already people can be detained when they haven't committed a crime.
But if the condition isn't treatable, then you're talking about locking somebody up forever, because there's no hope of them getting better and no longer presenting a risk. One of the underlying principles behind the mental health acts and the adult protection legislation is minimal intervention. If someone will come along and agree to treatment voluntarily, you don't detain them. If there is no treatment possible, you don't detain them. You're saying it's acceptable to lock people up indefinitely because they might do something dangerous. That's a serious attack on people's civil liberties and it's completely diffferent to detaining somebody who is ill and making bad decisions because of their illness and who would no longer be at risk once their illness was treated.
My feminist marxist dialectic brings all the boys to the yard.


Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #71 on: August 12, 2010, 08:07:00 pm »
In some cases people may be judged to have recovered by themselves without treatment, but yes I do think people should be locked up or closely supervised indefinitely while judged to be a serious threat to the public.

Quote
You're saying it's acceptable to lock people up indefinitely because they might do something dangerous. That's a serious attack on people's civil liberties and it's completely diffferent to detaining somebody who is ill and making bad decisions because of their illness and who would no longer be at risk once their illness was treated.

It doesn't seem completely different to me because the ill people in some cases are detained against their will and the treatment may not work.

I'm never comfortable about infringing on people's civil liberties, but I think more of it is necessary in some areas now.  I'm hopeful that all mental illness will be treatable and even curable eventually, though I'll be long dead before that happens.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #72 on: August 12, 2010, 11:18:34 pm »
Well, in the time it has taken me to wathc the tape of this show, YACF has moved on further than I'd anticipated ...

may I just say that this was a very tragic and moving story. I was very impressed by the actions of the emergency service staff involved, who must know this sh1t might await them every day of the week.

The story seems to be one of those (thankfully) rare situations where random shit conspired to create tragedy in a way noone would have predicted without 20/20 hindsight goggles on. I don't believe any procedures could be written to deal with this, without infringing civil liberties or quintupling the budget of the services involved.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #73 on: August 13, 2010, 12:11:24 am »
I have also just watched the programme. Two things strike me having read whats shown here:

1. The footage from the motorway shows two women running into the road, it does not show why. Therefore there may be a sound mental reason for that e.g. attempting to escape from the law, or they may be at that point in time unstable. The crying to each other about taking organs could be either way as two women running down the road could be trying to escape from someone.

2. The police surgeon was probably asked if the lady is fit to be questioned and or charged. This is a specific assessment they are being asked to make and relates to the state of the person in front of them at that point in time. I would hope that that assessment is informed of the recent events and medical treatment received, such as the sedation administered. The footage from the road is not directly relevant to this assessment as it is not the now, however if informed of the sedation I would hope that the mental state prior to its administration would be considered.

Zoidburg, I recognise that as a local to this incident you are concerned as to how it can have happened and could it happen again. If the people making the assessment under the MHA were unaware of the sedation then I would agree that there was a communication failure, that is not made clear in the documentry but I am sure has been part of an internal review. However we laymen looking back in hindsight can assess her mental state with the additional knowledge of the stabbing and the bridge jump. This is information which the Police surgeon did not have and colours our view. Therefore any opinion here about whether or not to section her is made on a different basis to the decision at the time and is unfair. Additionally I believe all here are commenting as laymen, yes some have firsthand medical and nursing experience of the mental health system, others have been treated by that system and some live with those who work in that system and do this job which may provide a greater level of technical knowledge. None of us though can be in the position of those individuals who were there then to remake the decision.

Additionally because these assessments are on the basis of does this person pose a risk to themselves or others as I see them before me now, then judging by the footage of her when she was released from hospital and then booked into custody I am not surprised that they may have put the earlier behavior down to substances rather than mental illness which the officer on the motorway obviously suspected.

Overall the system can be considered to have failed because she went on to kill someone. However if this is because the system was not implimented correctly or due to the limits of what society believes is a reasonable restriction to place on the mentally unwell I do not feel sufficiently qualified or informed to judge on the basis of that documentry alone. As I don't feel able to judge the cause of the failure I do not wish to assign blame to any part of that system, particularly the doctors. I consider this to an air accident board of the RAF not blaming the pilots without clear evidence they were at fault.

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Madness In The Fast Lane - BBC1 Now.
« Reply #74 on: August 13, 2010, 12:48:11 am »
They were tested negative for drugs.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●