|
OUTCRY
Conference Report: Summaries Of Points From The User/Survivor Workshop Relationship between service users and the Mental Health Alliance One delegate pointed out that their organisation (represented in MHA) did vote in favour of canceling the march because they were told there was a risk there would be health and safety troubles - similar to the poll tax riots where vigilantes were attacking people. There was also little time to consult and a decision was needed quickly. It was also highlighted that great effort has been made by service user(s) in MHA to ‘build a bridge’ between MHA and other service users. The criticism of only having ‘at least one service user present at every MHA event’ slated the effort made by the service user(s) who attended MHA events. Following this point, the integrity of individual service users in MHA was acknowledged by the speakers. One delegate emphasized that there should be common agreement against the Government, not the Mental Health Alliance. There wasn’t much time and in opposing the draft Mental Health Bill we needed to think tactically. The proposed service user/survivor alliance and the draft Mental Health Bill One delegate suggested that forming a long-term alliance is a good idea, but many service users currently feel very strongly about the draft Mental Health Bill. “I’ve already written, I don’t think my letters are compact enough, I’ve learnt today that we need to incorporate different groups who will be affected by the Act (e.g. ethnic/racial minorities), we need to get a joint letter out, a petition and organise a demonstration before this Act is out”. If a group can get together now to work out how we can stop the bill then we must. Another pointed out that we already have a Mental Health Act and there is a new one coming in, however, the deeper problem was that the authorities who are there to implement it are ‘not doing their job’. “I’ve met four people today who are currently in complaints system regards mental health care”. Ethos and funding of a user/survivor alliance It was highlighted that an alliance should be formed because “on your own you can’t achieve anything”. However, an alliance should not just come from a few of us, as this been a major problem in mental health in the past. Jan Wallcraft discussed her collaborative research ‘On Our Own Terms’ (published recently by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health) She highlighted that this report concluded that the user movement does exist but is lacking in a national network. Hence, a national forum was needed to bring together user networks, ethnic minorities (to include or support) and to make links with the disability movement. She went on to highlight that most of those involved in the report were against increased compulsion but there were disagreements about funding from pharmaceuticals. She outlined her work with NIMHE (National Institute for Mental Health in England) representing service users and carers. She highlighted that recently her and 4 other colleagues came up with a ‘mad plan’ – ‘what we thought the movement should be doing’. Funding was available from NIMHE and Sainsbury Centre for a group of meetings to discuss this. Some of the principles outlined in the ‘mad plan’ were; to oppose an act which does not put service users first; to have a common values base; to build alliances with other organisations (e.g. disability organisations) and to have user centered services and involvement. Symon Price (one of the organisers of Outcry and a member of PAB) stated that it would be to our detriment if we had something funded by NIMHE and Sainsbury Centre. NIMHE are a statutory body, and are the very institute in control of implementing the government’s legislation. The Sainsbury Centre also supports compulsory treatment in the community as the `least restrictive option'. "To me, forced medication would not be the least restrictive option, more like a punch in the face" Symon suggested. It was highlighted that there are a number of other options for funding, an example given was money gained from the national lottery community fund (£130,000) for a recovery guide project in South Warwickshire. Comic relief was also mentioned at a later stage. One speaker from the floor stated, “we do not want to take money from anyone who dictates what we do” A Green party
representative highlighted that successive Governments have put
mental health high on political agenda. In the current political
situation, and from the results of focus groups, it has become
tactical to appear tough on any law pertaining to "non-conformism".
Under this ill-informed broad banner comes anti-social behaviour,
aggressive begging, homelessness and by a step of breath-taking
ignorance, mental health issues. Due to the tabloid press the
public often only read about mental health when something very
bad happens. Therefore when politicians question the public on
their ‘fears’ they find an inaccurate association
between crime, tragedy and mental health. As we in the mental
health service user movement have little political voice it is
expedient to ignore us and pander to the ignorance and scare stories
peddled by the media who sell several millions of papers everyday.
"Do not invite the Government down to a alliance. It is crucial
that survivor views are heard as we are under attack from the
media as well as the political and pharmaceutical establishment"
|
 |
