We all should support Una Butler

[disability student]

By all means involve the family if both they and the patient agree, but what Ms Butler called for wasn't voluntary involvement, it was mandatory involvement. That's why her call will, and should be, rejected.

I am in favour of mandatory requirement especially when it comes to protection of children which HSE have failed to do so in case of Butler.

[Troubleshooter]

52 deaths/ murders in 3years do I need to say more

[Baron von Biffo]

52 deaths/ murders in 3years do I need to say more

What you can't say, nor can anyone else, is how many there might have been if people felt they couldn't seek help because their privacy would be destroyed and their families informed of their condition.

[barrym]

At last we have class in this sad country

+1 for that bit, she is VERY brave, especially as anything labelled 'mental' in this country has been swept under the carpet since for ever.

However, how could/would we manage what she calls for? Mandatory is impossible, it smacks of Orwellian selection.

More open interaction between medical personnel and their clients as opposed to the ten minutes and out the door methodology might help. With more and more people moving about and having so-called 'flexible' lifestyles the continuity of contact between medical personnel and their clients is reduced.

It is an unfortunate reality of modern life that stress is a recognised phenomenon. How it manifests itself may be manageable but there are a minefield of privacy, confidentiality and personal space issues in the way.

[fluffybiscuits]

What you can't say, nor can anyone else, is how many there might have been if people felt they couldn't seek help because their privacy would be destroyed and their families informed of their condition.

The medical personnel could advise on the approaches to take without divulging the condition the person has.

Eg- If someone has a heart condition (I know we are talking about mental illness but Im talking about something I know a little about!) the doctor tells the family to ensure they eat a low fat diet, plenty of greens, exercise etc. The doctor does not have to divulge the patient has a heart condition. Does this approach make sense as regards mental illness?

If there is children involved aswell perhaps Una Butlers recommendations could over ride patient confidentiality if there is a chance children could be hurt or murdered. Childrens safety far outweighs patient safety when it comes to their safety.

[Baron von Biffo]

The medical personnel could advise on the approaches to take without divulging the condition the person has.

Eg- If someone has a heart condition (I know we are talking about mental illness but Im talking about something I know a little about!) the doctor tells the family to ensure they eat a low fat diet, plenty of greens, exercise etc. The doctor does not have to divulge the patient has a heart condition. Does this approach make sense as regards mental illness?

No it doesn't. We have a right to treatment in privacy regardless of our afflictions.

If there is children involved aswell perhaps Una Butlers recommendations could over ride patient confidentiality if there is a chance children could be hurt or murdered. Childrens safety far outweighs patient safety when it comes to their safety.

If there are grounds for believing that someone is a danger to themselves or others they can be detained under current legislation.

What Una Butler wants is mandatory risk assessments and the involvement of families of all mental patients. It can hardly be disputed that apart from all other considerations, such a move would lead to people refusing to look for treatment.

Is it reasonable to believe that people with untreated mental health problems would be less likely to harm themselves or others than those who get appropriate professional help?

[fluffybiscuits]

No it doesn't. We have a right to treatment in privacy regardless of our afflictions.



If there are grounds for believing that someone is a danger to themselves or others they can be detained under current legislation.

What Una Butler wants is mandatory risk assessments and the involvement of families of all mental patients. It can hardly be disputed that apart from all other considerations, such a move would lead to people refusing to look for treatment.

Is it reasonable to believe that people with untreated mental health problems would be less likely to harm themselves or others than those who get appropriate professional help?

We have a right to treatment in privacy but does this outweigh the threat to a child who is in danger?

[disability student]

Baron von Biffo;288446]No it doesn't. We have a right to treatment in privacy regardless of our afflictions.

Unless under the discretion of medical doctor who may decide otherwise.

What Una Butler wants is mandatory risk assessments and the involvement of families of all mental patients. It can hardly be disputed that apart from all other considerations, such a move would lead to people refusing to look for treatment.

Especially those, who have kids as there are 23 similar cases to that of Butler case. Butler was correct to higlight this because of the possible dangers to any partner/spouse's kids. Prevention is safer than sorry in my view.

Sometimes mental health doctors are so clinical and leave out important clues as un important. Surely they haven't considered the impact on kids when there is a danger present to them.

Is it reasonable to believe that people with untreated mental health problems would be less likely to harm themselves or others than those who get appropriate professional help?

Are you an expert on mental health which is unlikely? There is no right or wrong in all of this, Sometimes people with untreated mental problems get by, other times they committed suicide. Sometimes, people who got professional help and committed suicide. There is no way of knowing this as it all takes experience and knowledge and lot of luck as well to spot this.

[Baron von Biffo]

We have a right to treatment in privacy but does this outweigh the threat to a child who is in danger?

There's already a process for dealing with cases of people with mental health problems who are a danger to themselves or others.

[disability student]

There's already a process for dealing with cases of people with mental health problems who are a danger to themselves or others.

Yes, that was where they were locked up or detention in a mental hospital but you haven't looked at the other picture, whereby a partner or spouse who was suffering from mental health and he or she isn't locked up for some reasons or another or out with medication. That is where the real dangers lies there when it comes to their own kids.

Since 2000 there have been 23 cases of filicide (the killing of one's child) in Ireland, with 32 children murdered by one of their parents, 15 suicides and five spouses or partners killed. That is where Una is tryng to bring this out into the open forcing changes in the mental health legalisation if possible.

[fluffybiscuits]

There's already a process for dealing with cases of people with mental health problems who are a danger to themselves or others.

The assessments may show that inhouse care is not necessry but for those for whom live at home, are they vunerable? Are they at risk of doing harm to themselves or others? Doctors differ and patients die, we need to cover all eventualities...

[Baron von Biffo]

The assessments may show that inhouse care is not necessry but for those for whom live at home, are they vunerable? Are they at risk of doing harm to themselves or others? Doctors differ and patients die, we need to cover all eventualities...

What impact do you think a mandatory requirement that the families of people with mental health problems be contacted about their illness would have on individuals deciding whether to seek treatment?

[disability student]

What impact do you think a mandatory requirement that the families of people with mental health problems be contacted about their illness would have on individuals deciding whether to seek treatment?

You aren't interested in prevention of filicide or save children's lives at all, which are paramount especially when it comes to any partner's mental health problems.

Your comments above said more about yourself. Typical govt supporter which excelled in avoiding the real issue or at best deflector. You are better off flying your own plane fighting verbal gymnastics battles.

[fluffybiscuits]

What impact do you think a mandatory requirement that the families of people with mental health problems be contacted about their illness would have on individuals deciding whether to seek treatment?

It would make a lot more sense for the family. If people are going to be interned under Mental Health Act their families are going to ahve to get an explanation anyways arent they???

[Baron von Biffo]

It would make a lot more sense for the family. If people are going to be interned under Mental Health Act their families are going to ahve to get an explanation anyways arent they???

What I'm trying to get across is that removing confidentiality from people with mental health problems will very likely lead to people not seeking treatment. That's not something that will help the problem that Butler is trying to address.

We should also remember that only a tiny minority of people with mental health problems will be a threat to anyone else. The idea that everyone who presents for treatment is potentially murderous contributes to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of people with mental illness.