The pot (HM’s Opposition party) calls the kettle (Celebrity culture) black & its relation to the Government’s production of taint in its clinic of Mental Health: 2 new posts: Reminder – conference on current issues on Sunday December 2nd

by Julia Evans on November 1, 2012

A)  details of two new posts on LacanianWorks

B) A reminder of the conference on 2nd December 2012 which is about finding a way forward.

C) A reminder of your  Invitation: The Future of Counselling and Psychotherapy: Sunday 2nd December.  Many of these issues will be aired there.

D) Some comments arising from Ed Milliband’s intervention into the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Monday 29 October, 2012.  (i) The categorisation of Mental Health as different to normal  (ii)  the poking of blame away from the Government (iii) the public denigration of celebrities (read Jimmy Savile) who denigrate those with Mental Health issues.

A)  Two new posts on LacanianWorks:

1)  Challenges to Government’s principles used to define the care of mental ill-health by Julia Evans on July 15, 2010 or here

This post challenges the Government’s principles used to define the care of mental ill-health.  The principles from which Government policy is derived do not appear to be robust.

Is the government’s systematic provision of risk-free cures with or without human contact in the treatment of mental ill-health justified?

Is the prevention or cure of mental ill-health possible?

Is the undermining of our well-established system of law and justice by the use of Privy Council powers, for example, Health Professions Order 2001, needed or justified by the alleged outcome: the alleged prevention of unskilled and unscrupulous practitioners preying on vulnerable people?

These questions are examined using information from the public domain under the following headings:

Challenge to Anne Milton’s, 2nd June, statement in Parliament

Summary: The statement: ‘There is no doubt that vulnerable people are often preyed upon by unskilled and unscrupulous practitioners’ is challenged.  There is no evidence which supports this allegation.  It must be withdrawn.

Assumptions used in Medical Research Council’s Mental Health Review Group’s research strategy

Summary: Is it possible to prevent mental ill-health?  Are techniques of ‘preventive medicine’ appropriate for use within the area of mental ill-health?  The MRC’s report sets out to eliminate mental ill-health using techniques from preventive medicine.  This paper argues that the elimination of mental ill-health is neither possible nor desirable. Symptoms of mental ill-health have been with us for more than 7,000 years.  Taking steps to make the mentally ill disappear diminishes what it is to be human.

Some of the unfounded assumptions in a recent Lancet article which are challenged:

The numbers game.  There are lies, damned lies and statistics…..

16% of adults in the UK have a common mental disorder such as depression at any one time.

Nearly 10% of children aged 5-16 years have a clinically diagnosable mental health problem which can often persist into adult life.

Mental health problems are also an enormous financial burden to society and the economy.

To ensure an economically competitive and flourishing society, we have to reduce the burden of mental ill-health

An innovative vision for a national mental health strategy

The prevention of mental illness is a long-term aim

Evidence: The probability that paying attention to human subjects is at least as effective as drugs.

Summary: Clinical trials are being abandoned by drug companies in the area of mental ill-health as there is no way to absolutely define symptoms of mental ill-health and there is evidence that giving attention to the sufferers works at least as well as drugs.

The transfer of the industrial definition of risk and use of systems into health care to produce units of wellbeing as defined in the legislation

Summary: Examples from White Papers are given of the inappropriate transfer of industrial definitions of risk to health care.  Examples of how Government gives over responsibility for the treatment of human beings from human practitioners to a centrally defined system.  The use of ‘safeguard’ and ‘wellbeing’ in the Order regulating the Health Professions Council is questioned.  It is inappropriate at best for a Government to promise to safeguard individual subjects from harm let alone bring their wellbeing up to a centrally defined standard by the imposition, from the centre, of multifarious rules, regulations and working practices backed with the weight of law.

Industrial definitions of risk (first written and circulated in 2006)

The system controls practice (Written and circulated in 2009)

B) A further text by Freud is available, as follows:

Introduction to Psycho-Analysis and the War Neuroses (1919) & Memorandum to a Commission set up by the Austrian War Ministry in the following year (1920): Sigmund Freud by Julia Evans on January 1, 1919 or here

C)  More details of the Alliance Conference:

Invitation: The Future of Counselling and Psychotherapy: Sunday 2nd December or here or here: http://www.allianceforcandp.org .  Please let the Alliance know if you plan to be there: info@allianceforcandp.org

Outline:

In the morning, we will look at new thinking for the psy field. How can we organize and finance therapy in response to cuts in NHS provision and its continuing appropriation by private companies? Do we need networks of local practitioners offering low-cost therapy and/or alternative provision to GP consortia? Do we need to radically rethink ourselves away from our professional, regulated consulting rooms into community activity? Should we be identifying ourselves more with the radical resources and wisdom of the psyCommons – the common sense through which people create and manage their everyday lives together.

In the afternoon, we will explore radicalizing the mainstream. Topics for discussion include: protecting and expanding counselling and psychotherapy in the NHS and voluntary sector, developing the critique of IAPT priorities, discussing voluntary regulation under the Professional Standards Authority, challenging the ‘guidelines’ of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and exposing the authoritarian, limited and self-serving assumptions of much of the ‘evidence-based’ approach to research.

D) Some comments arising from Ed Milliband’s intervention into the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Monday 29 October, 2012, available here.

(i) The categorisation of Mental Health as different to normal

I have commented many times of the impossibility of separating out those with mental health issues from those without. The following are some of my attempts:

1)  Challenges to Government’s principles used to define the care of mental ill-health by Julia Evans on July 15, 2010 or here

In particular the section: Assumptions used in Medical Research Council’s Mental Health Review Group’s research strategy and The prevention of mental illness is a long-term aim.

2)The following section of Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence : Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 : available here

Section 9.  Prevention

a)  Mental Illness

b)  High quality services

c) Promote prevention

d)  Recovery

e)  Social inclusion as a Government aim

f)  The Prevention Paradox

3)  This examines our origins as human beings, so works from the bottom upwards.  It is not the imposition of a standard (top-down). : Further comments on ‘perverse jouissance’: Seminar VII: session of 18th November 1959 by Julia Evans on October 22, 2012 or here

5) This analyses that if you define from top downwards as Mr Miliband does, you are comparing with an manufactured standard or ideal.    Mental Health: as standard or other… by Julia Evans on October 22, 2012 or here

If you speak, as Mr Miliband does, as the protector or saviour of those with mental health issues, you automatically put an ‘us and them’ in place.  Mr Miliband is speaking from a power position of being ‘normal’ or up to Government Wellbeing standard.  Those with mental health issues cannot be separated off as a distinct collection of human beings from the rest of you.

(ii)  the poking of blame away from the Government towards a hapless celebrity

1)  Strongly recommend section 12 of  Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence : Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 : available here :

I have many times explained how the Government’s rules by which a clinical judgment is formed work.  They are the top-down imposition of a standard onto human beings – a bit like Mr Miliband can protect those with mental health issues by the imposition of his superior judgment.  This classification is based in the ‘experts’ judgments which, as there are no physical markers (see section: Evidence: The probability that paying attention to human subjects is at least as effective as drugs. In Summary: Clinical trials are being abandoned by drug companies in the area of mental ill-health as there is no way to absolutely define symptoms of mental ill-health and there is evidence that giving attention to the sufferers works at least as well as drugs. In Challenges to Government’s principles used to define the care of mental ill-health or here )  These systems are used to further segment the category: mental health so we can group human beings together and then Mr Miliband can offer them his protection.  So the Government having created taint then tells us not to treat them differently.  Much better if the Government eliminated NICE clinical guidelines from its domain of governance.

Here are a few of the references:

1) Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence : Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 : available here

Section 12.  The Government produces and supports stigma by its discriminatory regulatory processes

a)  The mechanism which categorises conditions of mental illhealth is inserted by the Government-invented NICE

b)  The Government-sponsored myth that using centrally-defined systems mental illhealth can be eliminated

c)  ADHD as case study – remember NICE classifications have no biological markers. Where is the stigma coming from if not the Government’s classification systems known as NICE?

2)  NICE guidelines as taint is also noted in the following as given by Critical Psychiatry: English context of Autism in relation to medical and other political formulations or here

So Mr Miliband is pointing the finger of blame away from the Government towards one celebrity.  He has yet to realise this means that at least three fingers are pointing towards the Labour Government which enabled taint to come into place by placing NICE clinical guidelines among their library of standards.

(iii) the public denigration of celebrities (read Jimmy Savile) who denigrate those with Mental Health issues.

Mr Miliband’s linking of Mental Health with the celebrity culture is to be deplored.  It is a very cheap jibe.  Jimmy Savile was seen as normal throughout his life.  He did enjoy protection, from the law, as he was a celebrity.  He has, however, caused many questions to be asked of the celebrity life.  Many celebrities who did not act on information they had during his lifetime are running for cover to Max Clifford.  This is a culture built on abusive power and fear, just as is Government’s actions over the last 15 to 20 years.   To overtly link this abusive power structure to mental health is deplorable and irresponsible.

The difference between these two systems of control are examined in ‘Principles based in trust and relationships versus Sadeian absolute control’  Recently, it has been discovered that police action in arresting all last summers’ riot leaders has made the situation worse.  There are consequences of using manipulative top-down power even if it only in a speech to the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

See also:

The Government as Sadeian experimenter  by Julia Evans on August 17, 2011

Principles based in trust and relationships versus Sadeian absolute control by Julia Evans on August 14, 2011