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.
UK Government:
-
4 March 2010
Do you Mind?Right, well this is my first venture into the blogosphere so be gentle with me, fellow bloggers.
Get involved: Do you know what to say if a candidate knocks on your door?After what seems like a lifetime of talk about elections, we are now only 10 weeks away from the general election, expected on Thursday 6 May 2010. To mark the final countdown Mind has launched our Do you Mind? general election campaign.
If opinion polls are to be believed, this election will be the tightest in recent memory. Last week polls put the Conservatives at a nine point advantage over Labour, but a recent poll over the weekend closed that gap to a mere two-point lead.
Over the past year, I’ve been in meetings with representatives from the three main political parties who have all agreed with Mind that mental health is on a tipping point which could see a permanent and lasting break through into mainstream public policy and politics. We’ve also had lots of nods of agreement about the need to make sure the lessons of the past recession are not repeated and we don’t see another generation consigned to the wasteland of long-term unemployment.
While these developments and nods of support are to be welcomed, now is the time for us to see the meat on the bone and for politicians and the plethora of candidates pounding the doorsteps up and down the country to essentially put their money where their mouths are.
With so many MPs standing down and marginal seats likely to change hands, this expected intake of new MPs will be huge. Rather like us campaigners, most people enter politics to change the world for the better – we simply choose different routes. We don't always agree, and it can take years and millions of people like you speaking up and making yourself heard. But when we do come to see eye to eye, those agreements can bring about real and lasting change to society and for individuals.
So when those candidates come knocking at your door, take the time to really press them about their own attitudes and views on mental health and what they will do to make a positive difference. Let’s make sure we elect a group of MPs who will lead the way in challenging stigmatising and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours to mental health, not add to them. It’s not much to ask for is it?Novice blogger Vicki Nash is Mind's Head of Policy and Campaigns
6 Comments -
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 -
18 November 2009
Social care: saving the state moneyOver the past month I've been interviewing people about their experiences of social care services, to inform Mind's response to the social care Green Paper.
It's really opened my eyes to how vital these services are to supporting people with mental health problems to stay well and live independently in the community, and to preventing crises.
But at the moment far too few people with experience of mental distress are entitled to access social care. Those who do receive services often find they are not flexible enough to fit round their needs, or they are not offered a choice of services, due to pressures on the public purse.
One person I spoke to was refused an art therapy evening class costing just £80 for the whole term, because she was already doing a vocational training course for two days a week, and her social worker said she could only have one thing at once.
To me, this approach is misguided. We all know that because of the recession there are greater pressures on public spending than ever before. But investing in preventive social care services now will save the state money in the long run, helping people with mental health problems towards recovery and reducing the need for expensive crisis care interventions. A smart Government will take this forward in its proposals for a future social care system.
Amy Whitelock, Policy and Campaigns Officer
Read more on Mind's response to the Green Paper
Start the discussion -
6 November 2009
Mental health services for refugees and asylum seekers - a messy pictureFor many years, Mind has stood up for (and with) people who are marginalised in our society.
We stood up for people in institutional care in the asylums, we stood up for people who faced a loss of liberty because of their mental health, and we continue to tackle the stigma faced by 90 per cent of people who experience a mental health problem.
But it is the plight of people who are seeking refuge in our country which has been highlighted by two new Mind reports (A civilised society: mental health provision for refugees and asylum seekers in England and Wales and Improving mental health support for refugee communities) which were launched yesterday. The product of two years of research seeking to understand the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers who experience mental health problems, the results make for interesting reading.
And it's a pretty messy picture. There's a lack of joined up policy between the Home Office and the Department of Health. Refugees and asylum seekers are entitled to access very limited services, and evidence shows that even these are being provided in a patchy way. There are cultural and linguistic barriers, and in many cases there is a lack of expertise and understanding.
Perhaps this quote from an Afghan refugee best summarises what we found:The relationship with mental health services is one of extremes - from nothing being available on one hand, to overreaction and sectioning on the other. It is often difficult to find the appropriate middle ground.
Many people arrive in this country fleeing war and persecution because of their beliefs - they may well arrive without having had a chance to seek help for their mental health, because at home they feared for their lives. And so they may well arrive with an existing mental health need.
However it is also possible that the asylum process can add to this distress, and exacerbate poor mental health, as this Iraqi mental health advocate explains:
Family and other support systems may have been left behind...people can become very isolated.
Yet, our reports suggest it doesn't have to be like this. A Somali Advocacy Project, run by Mind in Harrow, works with the local community to ensure that people get the help they need, that interpreters (both linguistic and cultural) are on hand. Funded and evaluated by the King's Fund it offers hope of a long-term sustainable model.
Abdi, who runs this project, describes passionately the help he offers:This sort of self sustaining model is what we have been looking for and it's giving people their life back.
So where next? Our own funding for this work, from the Lloyds TSB Foundation and Department of Health has enabled us to map available help, develop a training course for refugee community organisations, and recommend ways forward. It's a great start, and a unique piece of work but there's much more that needs to be done.
The issues around immigration are often politically sensitive, and it's not always a popular cause, but Mind is committed to helping refugees and asylum seekers find the help and support they need. We need to stimulate debate and discussion, through this blog and beyond.
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive, Mind
Mind's reports
A civilised society: mental health provision for refugees and asylum seekers in England and Wales
Improving mental health support for refugee communities
Start the discussion -
9 October 2009
The Conservatives Get MovingAnd so to Manchester for our third week of party conference work, this time with the Conservatives, the current favourites to form the new Government at the next general election.
This week is of course Get Moving week, and up and down the country hundreds of events are taking place to encourage people to improve their physical activity to improve their mental well being.
The Conservative conference was no exception. Mind pedometers were the must have item of Conference, and once we'd explained to some slightly bemused delegates how they worked, many were to be seen frequently checking them to find out how many steps they'd taken.
The theme of work and worklessness was a major one at this conference, and David Cameron set the ball rolling by announcing that all people currently on Incapacity Benefit would be reviewed and many would lose some of their benefits as a result.Mind was quick to respond to this, reflecting the concerns voiced by many of this approach. So we were heartened to hear Theresa May qualifying their position on Channel 4 News and recognising the importance of providing the right level of support for people with mental health problems. This message was also reinforced by Tory Disabilities Minister Mark Harper.
There's no doubt that whichever party wins the election, change is coming, and the main question seems to be around the pace of change. We continue to call for a system which puts people with mental health problems at the heart of its approach and recognises their needs.Paul Farmer, Chief Executive
2 Comments -
7 October 2009
Thousands sign Disability Living Allowance petitionUPDATE: Disability Living Allowance will not be scrapped!
Over 12,000 people have now signed the petition on the Number 10 website calling on the Government to protect Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA). The petition was launched by Mind in partnership with other disability charities and it's really great that so many people have signed up in just a month! It just goes to show how incredibly important DLA and AA are for people with mental health problems and other disabilities.
Now we really need to hammer home the message to this Government - and any future Government - that DLA and AA must never be scrapped as part of any reform of the social care system.
Please sign the petition now if you haven't already. You can also have your say on this issue, and the wider social care debate, by responding to the Government's consultation which runs until 13 November.
Please campaign with us and add your voice to the thousands already calling for the protection of these vital disability benefits.
Amy Whitelock, Policy and Campaigns Officer
7 Comments -
30 September 2009
Is this discrimination of the first order?On the second part of Mind's journey to Party Conferences, we landed in Brighton for the Labour Conference. The question on our minds was simple - can Labour achieve a joined up approach for mental health - however everyone else wanted to talk about Andrew Marr's quizzing of Gordon Brown about his health and whether he was taking "pills to help him get through".
Marr put the question to the PM after a number of bloggers had speculated that as Gordon Brown restricts chianti and cheese from his diet he may be taking MAOIs, an outdated category of antidepressant. The PM denied taking any pills and focussed on policy. End of story? Not quite, as the interpretation of the issue raged around the Conference floor.
I was amazed by this. There are almost 36 million prescriptions for antidepressants in the UK, so by definition thousands go about their daily work while on antidepressants.Winston Churchill, voted the "greatest Briton" in a national poll, struggled with his "black dog" of depression for years (for more on this, see the Time to Change campaign's A World Without report). And former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik took a sabbatical to recover from his mental health problem and then went on to win re-election. Why should this be such a big deal?
We still want our politicians to be strong and superhuman. Yet it's a stressful job. We found that 1 in 5 MPs had experience of mental distress, but very few have talked about this openly. There is still stigma on this issue, and this is something the Time to Change campaign is tackling.
Our mission at the conference was to encourage Ministers and their departments to fully engage with the Department of Health's New Horizons consultation, which I urge you to comment on.
At first the signs were not good. Many MPs we spoke to were unaware of New Horizons. But as we discussed this with Ministers in the Department of Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Justice, Department of Communities and Local Government and elsewhere, it became clear that mental health policy already goes way beyond the Department of Health and mental health services. Now there's a chance for the government to follow a more joined up approach, with departments working together to create a clear sense of purpose for putting mental health at the heart of society.
As we head towards an election, we'll carry on pushing for a better chance for all.
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive
4 Comments -
22 September 2009
Gordon - keep your prescription promise!As the country begins to gear up for the Labour Party Conference, it's a good time to look back at what's happened since the last conference in 2008. Exactly one year ago, Gordon Brown vowed to scrap prescription charges for all people with long term conditions. This was received as a great step forward.
For years, charities, pressure groups and service users have been calling for this very thing. With the prescription charge constantly rising, many people find their burden just too much. In fact, around 800,000 people a year fail to collect their prescriptions simply because of the cost. As one Mind supporter says:
I've often had to stretch out medications or self-medicate because I can't afford another prescription. Or I don't take medications designed to off-set the adverse effect of other medications because I can only afford one prescription.
Obviously, medication is not the best treatment for everyone, but when a person does feel it will be beneficial it is simply unjust that they can be prevented from doing so because of the cost. That's why Mind is part of the Prescription Charges Coalition that is calling on prescription charges for all those with long term conditions to be eliminated as a matter of urgency.
A whole year has already gone by and the hundreds of thousands of people with long term conditions still have to pay an ever rising prescription charge. Visit Prescription Promise website today to sign our petition asking Gordon Brown to keep his promise.
Find our more on this issue by visiting our Prescription charges page.
1 Comment
Mariam Kemple, Policy and Campaigns Officer -
22 September 2009
The Bournemouth effect?The party conference season traditionally kicks off with the Lib Dems, this year in Bournemouth. This is a good conference venue - sea air, pleasant walks and friendly people. Or so we thought....
The Time to Change roadshow was in town talking mental health to conference delegates and members of the public, in the main shopping area just outside Debenhams. Many people the team spoke to were happy to see us. But some just scowled, and a few came up to the stand to tell us why there isn't enough discrimination against people with mental health problems. If ever we needed a reminder why we have to stand up for mental health, and the work still to do, here it was.
Inside the Conference, we had a friendlier welcome. This year, all parties are preparing for a General Election, and our job is to ensure that mental health gets a high profile as manifestos get written. The Lib Dems have a good understanding, and their Shadow Health Secretary is a terrific advocate for mental health. Norman Lamb is also a rock music impresario-he mortgaged his house to invest in his son's music business, and they've now signed up cool grime artist Tinchy Stryder. Norman is now seen as an unlikely equivalent of Simon Cowell and disappeared after our meeting to review Mika's new album.
But there's a catch - there's no money. Even Vince Cable, Britain's most trusted politician and hot favourite for Strictly Come Dancing 2010, warned in his speech that some of the issues he's campaigned for, including mental health, may have to wait for new investment.
So the word of the Conference is reprioritisation. We (and others) will have to make a strong case for the prioritisation of mental health over other issues. So where do we start - Trident, ID cards, other parts of the NHS? Your thoughts are welcome-it's going to be a bumpy ride....
Start the discussion
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive -
9 September 2009
Protect benefits for disabled peopleUPDATE: Disability Living Allowance will not be scrapped!
Mind, in partnership with a number of disability charities, has launched a public petition to make clear to the Government the vital importance of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance, and how strong feelings are on this issue.
Please sign the petition show your support!
14 Comments
The petition reads as follows:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise the vital support that Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) provide to disabled people, and to ensure that these benefits are secured and are not removed as part of any future reform of the social care system in England.