Is it helpful or horrid?
I realise that in between my starting this post and getting this far Laura has written more and probably already answered some of the questions I'm about to ask, but here goes anyway. I will read her comments afterwards!
It's obvious to me that those who coined the term think it is extremely helpful, necessary even. In his work on the subject Prof Paul Robinson describes how he fought for his patients who did not qualify for life enhancing, and sometimes even life saving services because they "did not have a "severe and enduring mental illness"". In an atmosphere where those most qualified to help often don't even see patients as ill but as "bringing it upon themselves" surely a label which both stresses the severity of the problem and accurately, dispassionately, marks it out for treatment is to be welcomed?
But others see it differently. They see the label as consigning those to which it is attached to a half-life of no, or inadequate treatment, doubly terrible because it is so often the lack of, or inadequate treatment that lands people in the position in the first place.
I would really like to debate this.
Probably in order to do so really well I should read the books. I have an Amazon token for my birthday. Maybe I should spend it on the main textbook, but I'm going to buy fun DVDs instead, starting with that film famous for the label given to its central character, Paddington Bear.
1 comment:
I am hopelessly and inexcusably late here, and of course we've discussed it elsewhere, but on catching up on blogs i see this and so agree that we all need to be talking about it. How we see this depends on what it means, practically, in our lives.
This is another case, I think, of worlds divided by a common language!!
Post a Comment