The Secret Life of a Manic Depressive
In very basic terms MH charities and in the case of what I am about to say here Rethink are wanting people to add there voice to get the Government to put more money into MH services especially therapy based support. All well and good most people want more money spent somewhere and Im sure lots of different charities and organisations are campaigning to get a bigger slice of the pie, so here is one for MH.
The trouble is and this I have said before although may be not here or at least not all of it. The whole economics issues boils down to limited resources to meet unlimited needs. For every gain in one area another area, department, business, person (something somewhere) will have to lose. I know first hand that MH services have been one of the areas that has been cut back to pay for other areas of the NHS.
On this page at Rethinks site it talks about what they want to see in the spending review. I do agree with some but am rather disguised by the rest. Anyway here is what they say:
Comprehensive Spending Review
The Treasury and Gordon Brown are deciding how Government will spend its money from 2008 to 2011. We must make sure people affected by severe mental illness get their fair share.
What is the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Every three years, Government decides how it will spend its money for the next three years, this time from 2008 until 2011. The Treasury also decides targets, known as Public Service Agreeements, which Government departments must adhere to.
Why does Rethink want change?
Currently, there are no Public Service Agreements which relate to mental health. But we need one to make sure that every department plays its part to improve the lives of people affected by severe mental illness. Taking action mental health should reduce homelessness, high imprisonment rates and unemployment, a winner all round.
We want to see a properly funded anti-stigma campaign. It only costs £3.70 to change one person's mind about mental illness, according to the London School of Economics.
At the moment, someone with mental illness has 10 times less spent on their care than someone with cancer. This is unfair and means that people cannot get the psychological therapies they need and which are proved to be cost effective. Waiting lists are not even kept in many areas and waits of 6 months or more are common. This is unfair - a waiting time target should be established for mental health treatment as well as physical health. We need to talk
Spending more on the health service brings results. Already increased spending on mental health has brough benefits recognised by people who use these services.
What does Rethink want to happen?
We want Treasury to:
* give mental health a bigger increase than other health areas
* start real targets on reducing stigma and social exclusion for people affected by mental illness
Now the quote of the spending gap between someone suffering form cancer and someone with MH difficulties is terrible, shameful and ridiculous. The remarkable thing is when I have discussed spending cuts in the past I have always used the following example. You are in charge of spending at a hospital you have two patients at the door one with cancer and one with MH problems but you can admit one and send one home with tablets. What do you do? I would not hesitate but admit the one with cancer. Its almost like a triage situation where the most ill have to be seen first.
I would also suspect that the costs involved in treating cancer patients would be incredibly high. I have no real knowledge of the costs but tests, surgeries, treatments, drugs, hospital says and out patients would be significant.
I really can not comprehend the type of #$%& that would in anyway compare cancer and MH illness. Yes they are both illnesses and yes both can ruin or end lives but physical illnesses have to come first. What are they looking here a system where you get run down by a car and the hospital says the bad news is we could not afford the surgery on your legs so we cut them off. The good news is we can afford to send you to therapy to help you with the emotional trauma of the crash. What about the mental health of that cancer patient as well!!!
Damn these MH charities get me so annoyed they make my matters worse. I wonder how much of the charities money was spent coming up with all this stuff instead of helping someone.
The next little pearl of wisdom was the anti stigma and that it ONLY costs £3.70 to change one persons mind about mental illness. Only £3.70 is fine if its only a handful of people that need to be educated (change a persons mind is terrible wording) about MH. How many people live in this country? Suddenly that becomes a hell of a lot of money. As much as the whole stigma thing sucks its hardly worth of spending vast amounts of £3.70's on when there are people who need direct help themselves. It wont work anyway because words like mental, psycho disturbed & deranged mind and so on make great headlines and film/TV story lines. The media makes money off those words and themes. That would be the same media as you want to give all those 3.70's to I suppose.
I have said before and recently that there are all these campaigns and charities that spend vast sums on window dressing and hangers on instead of directly helping the people in need. While they are busy up in there ivory towers coming up with this crap the people they supposedly represent slip through the cracks unnoticed. Its charities like this that never campaigned on the ground when services are cut because they get to run the community services that replace them. The more services and members the more they can justify there own salaries. I never give to charities like this because so much get used up by the organisation itself and never gets near the people they are supposed to help.
This is another amazing publication that is more likely to give MH an even worse name. I know this blog is full of errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling but who gives a sh!t, its personal. But if you have to do a campaign then run a bloody spellchecker on what you publish.....
W@&#ers!




