Each week we'll be posting items on a whole range of topics relating in some way to mental health. We hope to stimulate debate and get you thinking about mental health and Mind's work in a new way.
We welcome comments and questions on our posts, but have a few ground rules to keep the site welcoming and interesting to every body. The first rule is the most important: be respectful of other commenters and bloggers. Read the rest of our comments policy.
Please note that some blog posts may not reflect official Mind policy.
By Marion Janner, founder of the Star Wards campaign
Note: this post was written before the transmission of the Why Did You Kill My Dad? documentary.
This is a very difficult blog to write, stimulated by the programme on BBC2 tonight, Why Did You Kill My Dad? (follow the link to watch it on BBC iPlayer).
Firstly there’s the unusual problem of it being inappropriate this time to rabbit on about my dog, Buddy. The issue is inescapably complex, fraught, widely debated and relatively well-researched. Balance is crucial, and this blog post's contribution will probably be through irritating or infuriating people with highly diverse opinions, equally.
Some might think that it’s not very balanced to comment on a programme I haven’t seen. Very Mary Whitehouse (for those of us old enough to remember the excitement of electric typewriters being invented.) But I’ve read a long and multiply-upsetting article in the Daily Mail by the film-maker, Julian Hendy, about his father’s killing; an understandably highly emotive, provoked and provocative piece, so I’ve got a rough idea of what’s to be unleashed.
Before even getting to looking at anything substantial, there’s the language hurdle. Referring to people as ‘service-users’ is generally OK, but in the context of mentally ill people killing ourselves or others, it’s ridiculous.
As Paul Farmer says in Mind’s press release: “The common thread in all the cases in this programme is the failure of mental health services and other agencies to work together to engage people who have complex multiple needs…”. Because Paul covers the most important factors around safety so well, I won’t duplicate these within the three aspects the blog covers: substance abuse, stigma and sense of self. (So nothing about sun, sea or sausages.)
Research in 2009 about the relationship between schizophrenia and violence revealed that it was the additional element of substance abuse which was the primary factor. Why then is this crucial aspect so under-represented not just in media accounts but also within the mental health field? (Interestingly, the newspaper article by Julian Hendy did say that the mentally ill man had a history of excessive use of drink and drugs.)
Statements about ‘the media’ are almost as problematic as those about ‘the mentally ill’ or ‘the Middle East’. The Daily Mail is not The Guardian, blogs are not the BBC. (Er, unless they’re the BBC’s blogs.)
How ‘balanced’ is it reasonable to expect different media sources to be? Is there a difference between the responsibility within a short news piece and a lengthy article in a colour supplement? Should journalists and broadcasters be conscious of the stigmatising impact of concentrating mainly or exclusively on the exceptional? Or is putting each story into its own immediate context without sensationalist language and images sufficiently professional and ethical?
And what degree of responsibility, if any, do those of us with mental illness have in challenging stigma? It’s hard enough just getting through each day, trying to access the services we need and cope with medication side-effects we don’t need. (Oh. And bringing up our kids, earning a living, trying to get our dogs to eat out of a bowl rather than insisting on being hand-fed. She’s such a scamp, that Buddy.)
There’s an interesting issue with anti-stigma campaigns arguably over-looking or denying the legitimacy of concerns about the behaviour of mentally ill people. Many of us who spend time on inpatient wards talk about how unnerving it can be when those around us (and we ourselves) are behaving in a highly ‘unconventional’ or unpredictable way. These extremes of behaviour don’t switch on when we’re admitted and off when we’re discharged so there are plenty of times when people see us in a disturbed and disturbing state.
Perhaps there’s a parallel between the disproportionate, stigmatising effect of the media concentrating on the exceptional and newsworthy, and anti-stigma campaigns avoiding the painful reality that mental illness is often characterised by some of us being irrational and behaving in ways which seem or are highly risky?
A fundamental marketing rule is to start where your ‘consumers’ are. This applies at least as much to ‘social marketing’ campaigns. So if the majority of people you’re hoping to persuade have a particular view (eg mentally ill people are worryingly unpredictable), however unreasonable this may feel, it’s essential to recognise and address it in all its complexity.
Explaining that mental illness is very common and that only a tiny minority of us are dangerous is analogous to telling smokers that cigarettes could kill us. That’s certainly true, but health promotion has moved way beyond that in recognising the complexities and individualities of people’s addiction.
Finally, how do programmes like tonight’s affect our sense of self? I’ve absolutely no idea because there’s four hours to go until it’s inflicted on me. But I’ve seen similar programmes and, beyond the obvious about the gut-wrenching tragedy for the individuals left bereaved, they make me feel a bunch of very painful things about my own illness and about me.
My naughty internal twins, Guilt and Inadequacy, usually start dominating, and their companions Despair, Distress and Frustration tend to soon join in. It’s shame by association, helplessness by overwhelm.
I do have murderous compulsions but because of my particular illness, borderline personality disorder, I am fortunate that it is entirely self-directed. People with gentler conditions (and of course others with BPD), will between them have the full array of responses but it’s very hard not to internalise the stigma that the whole ‘mental patients are violent’ imposes.
Perhaps the programme will turn out to have at least elements which are both factual and constructive.
Marion Janner
Why Did You Kill My Dad? was shown on BBC2 at 9pm, Monday 1 March. You can watch it on BBC iPlayer.
22 CommentsThe tragic case of Fiona Pilkington highlights what a mountain we still have to climb to tackle crime, harassment and victimisation against disabled people. Following seven years of abuse at the hands of a local gang, Ms Pilkington set fire to her car while she and her disabled daughter were inside.
At the inquest, the jury found that she killed herself and her daughter due to stress and anxiety about her daughter's future, and the ongoing abuse they were experiencing. The jury foreman said the police's response had an impact on Ms Pilkington's actions, and records show that she had contacted the police on more than 30 occasions, but no one had ever been prosecuted.
In a similar case, one woman recently told Mind of the daily harassment she and her son face, which started when their neighbours found out about her family history of mental distress. Like Fiona Pilkington, she has reported the crimes against her to the police on a number of occasions, but no action has been taken. She and her son continue to live in the shadow of constant abuse, with no expectation of it going away.
To me, the Pilkington case is a clear example of disability hate crime, and many others agree. Courts have a duty to treat these crimes more seriously and increase the sentence for any offence where there is evidence of hostility based on disability.
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, is quite right to criticise the "ludicrous" attitude expressed by one police officer at the Pilkington case inquest, that anti-social behaviour is "no longer a police matter". Anti-social behaviour can be a serious threat to all of us and it should not be left to local councils to deal with. The police must take lessons from this about the importance of responding promptly and effectively when people report "low level" incidents.
But in characterising what happened to the Pilkingtons as merely "antisocial behaviour", Alan Johnson implied that these are not serious crimes. And it is not right to place the blame in allowing the harassment to continue solely with the police. Ms Pilkington was known to the police and to social services, but many people also knew of the crimes. In our communities, we all need to take responsibility for the people around us, and be prepared to speak out against crimes and offer support to the victims.
Mind will be sharing good police practice from around the country, to ensure police responses to so-called "low level" incidents improve and everyone is granted their fundamental right to equal access to justice.
But equally, we need to improve community relations, dispel myths about mental health and disability, and challenge the "just ignore the abuse and the perpetrators will get bored" attitudes that still exist, and suggest disabled people should expect to encounter victimisation and deal with it as part of their condition.
Amy Whitelock, Policy and Campaigns Officer
1 CommentToday, the influential Justice committee has published its report on the CPS. It highlighted current failings of the justice system in providing support for people with mental health problems as victims of crime.
I gave evidence to the Justice Committee in February and debated the issue this morning with Keir Starmer, Director Of Public Prosecutions on the Today programme. He accepted that the CPS had failed people with mental health problems in the past but that the CPS were now addressing this.
For me, access to justice is a basic human right in our society. We all expect that if we are the victim of a crime, we will be taken seriously by the criminal justice system and that we will be supported as a witness. It is extraordinary that so many people find themselves excluded from that system simply because they have had a history of a mental health problem.
The testimonies Mind continues to hear are shocking. A victim of serious physical assault saw his case dropped because he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, despite identifying the assailants and having physical evidence of the extent of the crime. An out of control vehicle mounted the kerb and ran into a woman walking along the pavement, but the case of dangerous driving was dropped because the pedestrian had attempted suicide in the past, and it was suggested she may have put herself in the way of danger intentionally. A mother and her teenage son have endured years of abuse at the hands of their neighbours after disclosing family history of mental illness, and continue to live in fear because the police will not take the case seriously.
But the tide is now turning. The Justice Committee and the DPP himself accept that it can't go on like this. The CPS policy, newly released this week with input from Mind, is welcome. But now we need to see a culture change from top to bottom. A change in attitudes, towards a system that treats someone with a mental health problem as an equal citizen with equal access to justice.
Our work in tackling stigma and discrimination at all levels, through Time to Change and many other activities within Mind, is crucial. But we won't make any difference unless others act. Here's a great opportunity for the DPP and the CPS to lead the way and help transform the experience of people with mental health problems.
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive, Mind
Start the discussion