Benefits & Treatment

[Effort]

Simon Wessely involvement in withholding benefits from patients not following NICE guidelines treatment the icy grasp of psychiatrists on ME in a country where patients are sectioned under the mental health act.

theguardian.com/commentisfr...

[slowmotion]

Ethical question how a morally bankrupt profession justify the Hippocratic Oath.

[Ian123]

Begin with obese and drug users as with Martin Niemöller poem

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Moonlightshadows]

All obese people aren't addicted to food. I'm overweight and because I have ME, and can't keep up the level of activity I need to keep my weight down. I watch what I eat, but the days of being able to exercise extra weight off are gone. I do miss meals because I can't cook when my hands are bad, so that should help.

[readerlist]

In the UK, we have some of the best medicine in the world for physical health. But when it comes to mental health we can make no such boast. In fact the system is in crisis with cutting many young lives short. Treatment is unavailable with inadequate support when sought mandatory treatment could not be supplied with current resources.

[Ian123 in reply to readerlist]

The charity sector does seem as though they are the only viable hope for those requiring support as austerity removes other options readerlist.

ps welcome

[readerlist in reply to Ian123]

Co morbid diagnoses contained within a heterogeneous patient group are outwith framework functionality of service users.

Flexibility within service provision considerations are secondary to budgetary constraints within mental health management.

[KMC442]

Is there any information about suicide rates I have heard they are high because support is replaced by disbelief.

[Stormchaser in reply to KMC442]

Very little research usual CFS does not kill ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/168... old data when NIH shows suicide as third major killer 19% of all deaths in the US.

[ringading in reply to Stormchaser]

Thanks Stormchaser

[budgiefriend]

While I have absolutely nothing good to say about Simon Wesselly, I feel it is only right to point out that the article which bears his co-authorship, says the opposite of what you are accusing him of saying.

It was David Cameron who instigated this idea that there should be a way to stop people receiving benefits if they do not follow a prescribed treatment plan, etc.

Wesselly and the other author are pointing out that this is illegal and beyond that, it violates the hippocratic oath so that any medical professional who were to treat a person who was only willing to undergo treatment because of the threat of losing benefits, would themselves be liable under their own medical ethics regulators and under the law.

It is important to carefully read things rather than supposing that such a horrible doctor as Wesselly is in fact saying something here that he is not saying.

This article makes an important point, regardless of the author's other absolutely *evil* things he has done and is doing that make our lives a continual battle for proper treatment.

I hope you understand why I am posting this reply, as I think it's important that we look at the facts and information in the article, and not just who wrote it.

[Effort in reply to budgiefriend]

Using involvement as a descriptor contains reasonable grounds as co author

acknowledged becoming an allegation once some doubt exists surrounding factual evidence presented.

Simon Wessely cloaked in medical ethics my irrational beliefs in moral standards are severely challenged by such assumptions of a reformed character championing a cause from charitable convictions.

[budgiefriend in reply to Effort]

This whole article is not promoting or advocating for any patients' rights to accept or refuse treatment to be withheld in order for them to claim benefits. This article is saying the opposite of that.

I am in no way defending Simon Wesselly. I agree that his ethics and probably his heart too, are black as coal, when it comes to all he stands for and all he does. And I am well aware that he has been trying for the past several years to come across very strongly in the public eye as a compassionate and wise defender of patients' rights and particularly a champion of the rights and needs of the mentally ill.

That is what he is doing in this article. He is saying (with his forked tongue, as it were) that what David Cameron is proposing to do to benefits claimants who have addictions or are obese, by making their compliance with medical treatments offered them a condition for receipt of benefits, is both ethically wrong, and would not be possible to do legally under current laws and practices.

This really does not have anything to do with ME patients, as he is writing the article, but of course the larger issue does have.

I do not believe Simon Wesselly can be trusted to work on behalf of anyone; however, to say that he is involved in trying to force patients to accept medical treatment as a condition of benefits receipt is the exact opposite of this article.

While it is useful to see what the snake is up to, seems to me that it is not useful to misinterpret what the article says or infer actions that are actually Cameron's. I don't see any evidence in this instance, that Wesselly is trying to make Cameron's wishes come true in the case of the mental health patients he has been convincing people he wants to help and protect.

He's only talking about the patients Cameron targeted... addictive issues and obesity, that's all the article actually says.