Blanket Man passes away

**JimO** · 18th January 2012, 06:30

dont know what the fuss is really, its not like we have a shortage of fucked up lazy pisshead maori

**nodrog:Me** · 18th January 2012, 06:57

Originally Posted by White trash

Hey! Are you two timing my goat?

We broke up, I found out she was underage, and im not into kids.

**willytheekid** · 18th January 2012, 07:07

Originally Posted by White trash

Hey! Are you two timing my goat?

wait...what?

**doc** · 18th January 2012, 08:38

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

That's just the thing Stephen, plenty was said at the time, very vocally and very strongly opposing the change. But still it was decided to close down the hospitals.

People seem to think that everyone is apathetic about their beliefs, well I say people have short memories.

This was a Jenny Shipply era. Major health reforms. Mental health cost cutting. They replaced Kingseat with a 20 bed intensive care unit , that was trashed within weeks. Nowdays people are assesed on their threat of harm to themselves or others and admitted for 3 week intensive care, to sort out a drug therapy regime. then released and monitored . Problem has become at times the 20 bed unit comes under pressure and to get one in you have to get one out. People who are odd like blanket man are a low level so dont get a lookin , every town has the oddballs . Its a bean counter solution. They also had a charge for clinics at hospitals, I remember being at one childrens block booking with the ex , she created quite a fuss , when she bought to the administrations attention, why should we have to wait while some one else on a benefit community, services card didn't have to pay. Those charges didn't last for long.

**rachprice** · 18th January 2012, 09:20

People have rather interesting ideas about mental illness

Sounds like some of you think we should be back to the 50's-60's where everyone that suffered from mental illness should be locked away forever

While some people NEED to be in hospital and some long-term, it is just not sustainable or right to lock someone up because they will have a mental illness for the rest of their life

**scumdog** · 18th January 2012, 10:20

Originally Posted by Brian d'marge

but, will shoot rich fkers at a moments notice

. .....

Good idea - I'll help you.

And when there's only you and I left in the world who is going to be the rich one???

**oneofsix** · 18th January 2012, 10:31

Originally Posted by rachprice

People have rather interesting ideas about mental illness

Sounds like some of you think we should be back to the 50's-60's where everyone that suffered from mental illness should be locked away forever

While some people NEED to be in hospital and some long-term, it is just not sustainable or right to lock someone up because they will have a mental illness for the rest of their life

nope. think you will find they are recognising that the hospitals weren't closed down for the good of the patients but for the sake of the savings.
The post above yours mentions monitoring, how many times have we seen news reports were some mental "patient" (how can they be a patient when they aren't being treated?) has done themselves or others harm because the monitoring wasn't good enough? For a mental patient is asking them if they have their drugs and if they are taking them good enough? In many cases the answer is no. So many of those released into the community need more support than the community is equipped to give them and sometimes having them in one place is more effective but this doesn't mean a return to the Bedlam of the 1700s.

**carbonhed** · 18th January 2012, 11:38

Originally Posted by oneofsix

nope. think you will find they are recognising that the hospitals weren't closed down for the good of the patients but for the sake of the savings.

That's just not true. The closure of the institutions was advocated for by patients rights groups and for many patients it's led to much more fulfilling lives. Of course there's a legitimate argument on the level of funding/monitoring but to characterise it as a cost saving measure is just garbage.

**jasonu** · 18th January 2012, 11:59

Originally Posted by carbonhed

That's just not true. The closure of the institutions was advocated for by patients rights groups and for many patients it's lead to much more fulfilling lives. Of course there's a legitimate argument on the level of funding/monitoring but to characterise it as a cost saving measure is just garbage.

In the early 90's the health board purchased a house next to my parents in their reasonably ritzy neighborhood as a 'halfway house' for mental patients. They sent out a letter telling residents what they planned to do AFTER they had already made the purchase. Nek Minnit my Mum had to listen to screaming at all hours and look at naked men running around the yard.

**oneofsix** · 18th January 2012, 12:36

Originally Posted by carbonhed

That's just not true. The closure of the institutions was advocated for by patients rights groups and for many patients it's lead to much more fulfilling lives. Of course there's a legitimate argument on the level of funding/monitoring but to characterise it as a cost saving measure is just garbage.

"advocated by patients rights groups" - true but doesn't mean that is why it was done, made a good excuse though.
"for many patients it's lead to much more fulfilling lives" - probably true but many have been left badly monitored and wondering in a daze unable to integrate .
There were a lot of patients in those hospitals that should not have been there but there have also been a lot kicked out on the street that require a institution to look after them. A lot of the second group are finding that institution to be run by Corrections so they are now worse off.

**rachprice** · 18th January 2012, 13:09

Originally Posted by oneofsix

nope. think you will find they are recognising that the hospitals weren't closed down for the good of the patients but for the sake of the savings.
The post above yours mentions monitoring, how many times have we seen news reports were some mental "patient" (how can they be a patient when they aren't being treated?) has done themselves or others harm because the monitoring wasn't good enough? For a mental patient is asking them if they have their drugs and if they are taking them good enough? In many cases the answer is no. So many of those released into the community need more support than the community is equipped to give them and sometimes having them in one place is more effective but this doesn't mean a return to the Bedlam of the 1700s.

How many patients are monitored successfully in the community? You often don't hear about them because they don't cause trouble

Curiously what do you base your opinions on?

'for a mental patient'.... your choice of word phasing seems interesting and only strengthens my opinion of your thoughts and views of mental health patients being unrealistic

I'm not saying our system is perfect or hasn't failed some, unfortunately people do fall through the cracks, but it is a dam sight better than it used to be

**oneofsix** · 18th January 2012, 13:53

Originally Posted by rachprice

How many patients are monitored successfully in the community? You often don't hear about them because they don't cause trouble

Curiously what do you base your opinions on?

'for a mental patient'.... your choice of word phasing seems interesting and only strengthens my opinion of your thoughts and views of mental health patients being unrealistic

I'm not saying our system is perfect or hasn't failed some, unfortunately people do fall through the cracks, but it is a dam sight better than it used to be

I expect most to be successfully monitored but generally the situation has got worse.

What do I base my opinions on? observations both near and far.
Why do you think my views that they require individual assessment and that some fair better in care are unrealistic?

Yes the current system is better but in terms of mental health we are still a long way behind physical health. To put mental health into physical health terms we don't seem to be far beyond American Civil War hacking off limbs standards.

**rachprice** · 18th January 2012, 14:07

Originally Posted by oneofsix

I expect most to be successfully monitored but generally the situation has got worse.

What do I base my opinions on? observations both near and far.
Why do you think my views that they require individual assessment and that some fair better in care are unrealistic?

Yes the current system is better but in terms of mental health we are still a long way behind physical health. To put mental health into physical health terms we don't seem to be far beyond American Civil War hacking off limbs standards.

I agree we are a long way behind mental compared to physical

I think your views on people with mental health and their ability to function may be distorted

Observations?
Do you work in mental health or do you have personal experience with many mental health patients...I'm just curious because in general people that haven't miss a lot.
I'm curious if you you have been exposed to, or really have a good idea of the mental health system.
Many people think because they have studies of n=1 (or n=2,3 or 4), that everything is a mess