Welcome to Mind's blog
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.
Mental health legislation:
-
19 January 2010
Will pre-employment health checks be a thing of the past?According to psychologist Cliff Arnall, yesterday was the most depressing day of the year. Well may be so, but there was at least one reason to be cheerful: the government tabled an amendment to its Equality Bill which will ban pre-employment health questionnaires.
PEQs are routinely sent out with job application forms, and ask applicants to disclose information about current and previous health conditions, medications they are taking, and so on. Ostensibly employers need this information simply to ensure that the candidate is fit for the role in question, and a quick Google search will tell you that PEQs are a “vital”, “useful” or even “fundamental” part of the recruitment process.
Frankly, I’m not convinced. PEQs give employers an opportunity to ‘weed out’ the applicants that they don’t like the look of, because they have a mental health problem (or indeed any other health condition). And because it’s done at the application stage, this type of discrimination is virtually undetectable – you may strongly suspect that the reason you didn’t get invited to interview is because of your mental health history, but how on earth will you prove it?
Not all discrimination is quite so deliberate of course. Some employers might assume a person with mental health problems is unsuitable not out of malice, but out of ignorance, or misunderstanding. But the consequence for the applicant is the same – soul destroying, confidence-shattering rejection.
PEQs also deter many applicants from applying for jobs in the first place, because they predict that stigma towards mental health will mean their application form is automatically stuck on the ‘no’ pile. No wonder, given fewer than four in ten employers say they would employ anyone with a mental health problem.
There is simply no reason to include a health questionnaire at this stage of the recruitment process. Applicants should be judged on their ability to do the job, not on their medical diagnosis, and the inclusion of a PEQ detracts from this. If an applicant’s health condition means he or she will need extra in-work support to do the job, then so be it – but let’s ask those questions after the interview, not before. After all, employers have a statutory duty to provide reasonable adjustments for employees with mental health problems, to help them fulfill the role, but PEQs enable many to quietly shirk this duty.
The USA and several European countries already have legislation preventing employers from asking about health until after a conditional job offer has been made.
Thankfully, after many meetings and intense pressure, letters, and briefings from Mind and other health charities, the government has decided to address this loophole. The amendment tabled yesterday (69A* if you’re interested) prevents employers from asking questions about health prior to interview (except in very limited circumstances), and gives the Equality and Human Rights Commission powers of enforcement, to ensure employers comply.
We can’t crack open the champagne just yet; the Bill isn’t an Act and there are some who believe it never will be, due to lack of parliamentary time. But if it does go through, it will be a real victory for untold numbers of people with mental health problems who are trying to return to work.
Louise Kirsh, Parliamentary Officer
1 Comment -
15 January 2010
An end to discrimination in parliament?Politicians made some very encouraging noises on the subject of mental health discrimination this week.
First came the report from the Speaker’s Conference Inquiry on Parliamentary Representation (PDF file). Hidden away on page 101, but no less important for it, was the recommendation that an archaic, discriminatory piece of mental health legislation be repealed. The law in question, section 141 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, stipulates that an MP who receives 6 months or more medical treatment for a serious mental health problem should be removed from his or her seat.
The assumption, of course, is that those who have been affected by mental illness couldn’t possibly cope with, or be trusted to cope with, the demands of being an MP.
In 2008 the cross-party parliamentary group on mental health published a survey which found that one in five MPs had experienced a mental health problem. So what message does section 141 send to them? Does it encourage them to speak openly about their condition, to deal with mental illness in a calm, grown-up fashion, and to seek help where necessary? Or does it scream, “whatever you do, don't admit to it or you'll never work again”?
The Speaker’s Conference inquiry decided S141 is more likely to send out the latter message, and that “it embodies attitudes which stigmatize and sap the confidence of people with mental illness.” Well said.
Such a law would never be tolerated in relation to debilitating physical illness, as Lynne Jones MP pointed out at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday. That the Prime Minister then acknowledged the importance of the issue bodes well for a repeal of the legislation.
On a less positive note, ministers have turned their backs on a 2004 promise to review the jury service rules, which currently exclude those who are receiving treatment for mental health problems from sitting on a jury. The rules are based on the same unacceptable and outdated assumption as S141 – that people with mental health problems just aren’t capable of taking on this level of responsibility. These are exactly the sort of assumptions that our politicians should be fighting against and it's disappointing, to say the least, that in this case they have chosen not to do so. Still, Rome wasn’t built in a day….
Louise Kirsh, Parliamentary Officer
1 Comment -
8 December 2009
Cats to set up therapeutic centre?
A while ago I wrote a blog post about the fact that Derek Gale, an arts therapist found guilty of multiple and varied malpractice, is still legally entitled to continue to practice as a psychotherapist because counselling and psychotherapy is not statutorily regulated.This means that anyone can practice as a counsellor or psychotherapist – you don’t need any basic training and there’s no code of conduct that you have to adhere to. In my blog, I pointed out that Sorcha, my cat, could technically set herself up as a bona fide therapist.
Little did I know that an adventurous feline in Cumbria was soon to make that great leap into the psychological professions. Chris Jackson, presenter of Inside Out in the North East and Cumbria, decided to register pet cat George as a hypnotherapist in order to demonstrate the lax regulation of hypnotherapy.
Although I would be very surprised if one of the professional counselling or psychotherapy bodies would actually register a furry friend, the point is that you don’t even need to be registered with a professional body in order to practice as a counsellor or psychotherapist.
With hypnotherapy, counselling and psychotherapy all lacking proper regulation, it looks as though nothing will prevent George and Sorcha from setting up the first therapeutic centre to bill clients in milk and mice.
Admittedly, people do not need protection from rogue feline therapists. But they do need better regulation to prevent untrained or abusive therapists from continuing to practice. That is why Mind is campaigning for the statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors.
Mind is currently looking into what type of regulation and complaints processes users of mental health services would like to see in counselling and psychotherapy. Comment below or email Mariam Kemple to give your thoughts on the issue.
Mariam Kemple, Policy and Campaigns Officer
9 Comments -
7 December 2009
The coming decadeToday sees the publication of not one but four separate Government documents on mental health - a type of "Super Monday" for mental health policy.
Most are lengthy pieces of work, but they are all important reading. For the first time we have a cross-governmental strategy for mental health - this is a vital symbol of a change in approach. We know from the work we've done in recent years such as Another assault, on employment, and on men and mental health, that people who experience mental health issues need support from across the state - to find work, and to be treated as an equal citizen.
New Horizons and the Department for Work and Pensions commissioned the Perkins Review to focus on a more positive, recovery oriented approach to mental health and employment. For too long, we've just assumed that equality is not realistic, yet there are many people who work while managing a mental health condition. It's important that the basis of services should be on what people can do, rather than what they can't do.
We are now starting to see a recognition of the need to address wellbeing and mental health promotion. The early signs are promising - the Time to Change campaign is already having an impact, and work in schools on resilience is a step forward.
Together, they form a chance for people to be more empowered, and to change the way the state treats people with a mental health problem.
So here's the challenge - how does a vision for the next ten years become a reality when there's no money, fewer targets and an election looming?First, mental health services need to continue to improve. People's experiences of them are still too patchy, and speedy access to effective care is still vitally important.
Secondly, cross-governmental strategies need momentum to keep going. There is now no turning back from this and whoever wins the next election will need to ensure this works.
Finally, it needs resources - not necessarily new ones but a reprioritisation. For example, better mental health training for frontline workers and use of public health and communications budgets to tackle stigma and discrimination.
People with mental health problems have been marginalised and excluded for too long, we must seize the chance to change this.
1 Comment -
17 August 2009
Why a therapist struck off for malpractice can still 'treat' clientsIt was recently reported that Derek Gale, an arts therapist and psychotherapist, was struck off the Health Professions Council's (HPC) register of arts therapists for abusing the people in his care. The list of claims made against him is huge and some are truly shocking. I think we can safely say that the HPC made the right decision.
However, what really concerns me is the fact that nothing is stopping Derek Gale from continuing to practice as a psychotherapist. Arts therapy is statutorily regulated by the HPC and as such their rulings have the backing of law.
Derek Gale cannot legally carry on as an arts therapist. But psychotherapists are not statutorily regulated. In fact, anyone can be a psychotherapist - you need no basic training, don't have to adhere to a code of conduct and have no obligation to join a professional register. Technically, my cat could practice as a psychotherapist although I admit it's unlikely she could gain any clients!
Yet, things are set to improve. The Government has promised to make the statutory regulation of psychotherapy and counselling a priority, and Mind supports this. Ultimately, the public deserves better protection and statutory regulation sends a clear message that abuse by mental health professionals will not be tolerated by the public, the profession and, most importantly, the law.
Have you ever been treated by a therapist you suspected of malpractice? If so email us and find out how to join our campaign.
Mariam Kemple, Policy and Campaigns Officer
3 Comments