})
Welcome & getting started
@Historylover wrote:I'd love to get involved with something like the Suicide Prevention minister has put forward. Have you put yourself forward? Was it in your state only or federally? Your ability to express yourself in these matters would be invaluable.
Sorry, but the call for input on their latest policy documents closed last week.
They were only open to responses for about 3 weeks, which I thought was a dreadfully brief span of time to collect input on a major policy document. But apparently they want it to be all wrapped up and done by the end of the year. I think it's all about getting on top of all the coronavirus depression and suicidalness as soon as possible.
On one hand, I can admire the government's initiative in wanting to take action to help suicidal people as soon as possible. But on the other, I can't help but feel that their very hasty appeal for responses to the policy has deprived them of an immense pool of useful input. They really needed to allow time for word about the policy (and their desire for feedback) to filter out into the community, in order to attract a strong volume of feedback.
Yes, I managed to give my own response; though without much time to spare before the deadline, nor with enough time to properly read the documents I was responding to, so I hope what I submitted wasn't too redundant.
It was fedral, and BTW, I must clarify that I mis-spoke earlier; she isn't a Suicide Prevention Minister, she's the Suicide Prevention Adviser; though my understanding is that, in practice, she has virtually minister-like power to direct government policy.
If you are interested, the link for the response appeal is here: https://consultations.health.gov.au/suicide-prevention-taskforce/national-suicide-prevention-taskfor.... You can still read the policy documents on there, but you can't provide feedback anymore.
@Historylover wrote:Something has to happen to get change in action - not just words.
Therein lies the rub, doesn't it? Government is always very good with words; but action...
We can only hope good things will come of it all.
@Historylover wrote:Re: wondering if you are listening to a person's self-perceived perception of their situation. EXACTLY! I recently heard an interview with a patient who just repeated his psychiatrist's appraisal of his situation. He considered him "cured" - that he wouldn't have to see him again. He had been sent away with his prescriptions. All fixed. For a while, perhaps. This happens all the time. Patients just believe and repeat what they have been told. Whatever the doctor says. No, it's not your prejudice against the system.
I should clarify that I don't get those impressions from everybody that express agreement with their therapists. A lot of them do seem to have engaged very thoughtfully with their therapists' stances and come to agree with them. You can just listen to these people and you can tell that they have a developed appreciation for what they are saying; even if I don't necessarily agree with them. But then there are others, who you can just tell are merely reciting what someone else has told them to believe. And on the rare occasions when someone challenges something they've said, they look like a deer caught in the headlights, because they themselves haven't truly found a coherent and solid truth in what their therapist has told them to believe.
These aren't external matters, either. These are people talking about their own needs and identities, and they are just reciting what someone else has told them to believe without any apparent thought or exploration. It truly boggles my mind how people can latch themselves so blindly on to an ideology that has such a massive direct impact upon them. If someone is going to tell you who you are, wouldn't you give their stance a great deal of thought to make sure they've got it right? To understand why the things they are saying are the way they are? To clarify the ambiguous elements?
As I say, not all patients who accept therapists' diagnosis do so blindly, or thoughtlessly. But many do. I just don't understand that at all.
Anyway, sorry to hear about your glasses. I hope somebody hands them in at the store where you lost them. Or, in any event, I hope you aren't without them for too long. 
@Historylover wrote:@chibam Sorry to hear about the closure of the submissions. Another half-hearted 'attempt' by those in power to make it appear that they are doing something. Appearance is everything - besides, they are doing fine themselves.
...
I will look into the link you provided later. It will be interesting to read how productive they were striving for it to be. How exactly the system would benefit. Three weeks speaks volumes in my opinion. There is no excuse for a half-hearted attempt.
Well, I don't know whether the short timeframe indicates "half-hearted", or "urgent". I guess "half-hearted" is the pessimistic assumption and "urgent" would be the optimistic one. Maybe "recklessly urgent" lies somewhere in the middle; poor execution driven by the best intentions. I've always found it quite wearying to be pessimistic, so I tend to lean towards a more optimistic interpretation of their motives. Perhaps more fool me.
@Historylover wrote:How can they fix this system? Psychiatrists would have to change their ways and I can't see that ever happening. Such a lucrative trade.
I agree, but a lot of the output I've been reading lately seems to completely circumnavigate that challenge. The emphasis isn't on changing the broken therapists, but rather on redirecting the patients to better services that tend to their true needs. It's also upon giving the patients more power to direct their own treatment, and for providing patient-centered advocacy for those who have difficulty expressing their own wishes.
So rather then trying to fix the deeply-rooted ugliness that runs through the therapist workforce, the emphasis seems to rather be upon rendering that evil as powerless as possible.
There's also a notable push for patient-advocacy organizations to be given a great deal more influence over mental health system policy. So the future fine-tuning that needs to be done to correct the system in the long-term sense will (hopefully) be done by the right people - patients/former patients & their advocates.
Obviously all this is very much still a work in progress, but I've been very impressed with how all the recent steps by the government seem to predominantly be massive steps in the right direction. Obviously, it's not perfect, but it is certainly impressive and encouraging.
@Historylover wrote:In my observation I find that society is comprised of those who are allowed to succeed and those who will not be allowed to - despite having all the right attributes - always getting second prize, or none e.g., when their work is so much better. It would change the pecking order to fix this system. Throw the balance of society into a correction . There are the winners and the losers and the winners will do everything in their power to maintain the status quo. People talk about ' a fair go'. There is no 'fair go'. In my opinion.
Well now we're getting into very complicated territory - such as how we each define "success" and "fair go", and perhaps most importantly, "kin" and "home".
I think that deep down, everybody just wants to live in a society that reflects their own ideals; a land that truly feels like home, because it reflects themselves. So we seek to empower and support those we recognize as being robust protectors of those ideals; people we can entrust to maintain the identity of our home, ideally in perpertuity.
But unfortunately, we live in such a muddled world with so many ideologically differant beings mixed together in geographical proximity, that we find ourselves having to suppress or drive away people who are deeply incompatable with our own character, and the character of our home. To see them rise in power presents serious risk that the identity of our home will be corrupted and even ultimately destroyed. And nobody who is fortunate enough to live in their true home ever wants to see that home destroyed. Not in their lifetime; not in the foreseeable future. We want to see our homes flourish and endure, so that our future kin: people who think and feel just like us who won't be born until after we a re long gone - will have a homeland and kindred community themselves.
IMHO, it's not an injustice that some people are fortunate enough to live in their true homeland, and vigorously defend that homeland from corruption from people who are incompatable with it. The injustice is that the rest of us are misplaced into environments that are deeply incompatable with ourselves; environments where we are "born losers" because we are at odds with the character of that environment. And it's an enduring injustice because we currantly have no mechanism for chanelling people towards their true homes and true communities.
I don't have a problem being some peoples' characterization of a "loser", a contaminant that they need to dilligently keep out of their boardrooms and parliamentary chambers, so as not to corrupt their homeland. I only have a problem with the fact that I never get to meet my own kin; people who would recognize me as a welcome asset to their own team, and a trustworthy defender of their own homeland, it's character and it's future.
But as I say, it's complicated territory and so what I've just said is a massive over-simplification and probably a little OT, too.
@Historylover wrote:You say that you don't understand how people can latch on to an ideology which has such a major impact on them - as a patient, that was me! I went in to treatment very depressed and met a psychiatrist who seemed to have his own act together and who also seemed to know what he was doing. We had an immediate rapport. I had never had that before - with anyone. I was younger then and not so enlightened. I thought people were intrinsically good and that relationships were a matter of you either liked them or you didn't. I wouldn't have dreamed that we can't even trust our doctors! They have the upper hand and we are mostly ignorant and at their mercy. And until we learn better - so trusting.
I was probably pretty unkind/unfair with my commentary in that last post. I've always been a sceptic, even since I was a little kid. So when my therapist started saying things in our 2nd or 3rd session that sounded really terrible, it immediately triggered my defenses. Ultimately it wasn't enough, and too much of her crap seeped in to my mind anyway; but it could've been a lot worse had I been inclined to accept everything she'd said to me.
Even so, I, like you, have fallen in to the trap of trusting the wrong people to repay trust and friendship with return friendship. In my case, that trust was betrayed by other people, not my therapist. But the dynamics seem similar.
@Historylover wrote:I read so many of these posts and see so much suffering. How do those who can help turn a blind eye to it? No empathy. No compassion. No conscience. No desirable human traits. They are themselves very damaged, empty 'souls'.
Very, very true.
@Historylover wrote:I'm sorry @chibam - I guess I just wasn't in the mood for pedantics. I'm feeling so very low at the moment and just needed some back-up I guess. I don't think I said anything very different to what you had already said but I felt like your response was splitting hairs needlessly.
Sorry about that. I do have a tendency to natter on sometimes. Especially when I get worked up about stuff.
@Historylover wrote:Personally, I think that integrity, uniformity of understanding between psychiatrists of the proven cause and effective treatment of symptoms - to cure, and accountability are what is lacking. A changed state of health is not a cure! (e.g." I have a diagnosis" or "I have medication/change" is not a cure - simply change)
And a changed state of procedures is not a fix.
But it's all a game of power with psychiatrists -perhaps there are a few who are different? There is no accountability - and the wheels just keep turning - making a bigger and bigger mess. How can it be fixed? Which bureaucrat - for want of a better word - which minister has the wisdom to look into the field of psychiatry and understand what is really going on? They simply make more changes.
A fix would require psychiatrists and others to learn a different way of doing things. That would require integrity, and if you get paid to look like you're doing your work - well it simply doesn't matter if you are only going through the motions - while doing further damage. Who outside of the field can tell the difference until they are a victim of it?
All good points. I don't have any answers, I'm afraid.
