The authors note that this is important work to look into those who attempted suicide and that data is tricky because ME (and suicide) is not always diagnosed nor on the death certificate. I would be interested to see data for all deaths but given what we know re: ME diagnosis (and likelihood of severity being noted), autopsy and likelihood of cause of death being attributed then would guess that is another issue. But it shouldn't be. It is relevant when they talk of those being bed-bound as 'protected', to check whether that is the case (given lack of support would have issues on health as well).
Some of the things in this article are powerful:
"I once attended a webinar given by a former [disability benefits examiner] who told the doctors present that their supportive documentation could literally save lives. He had had a few clients die after their benefits were denied."
"I know of several situations where people have died by suicide or considered it, yet they did not consider themselves depressed. Instead, as noted earlier, factors like severe symptoms, decreased function, poverty, etc. played a bigger role."
Psychology in its proper sense should begin with fixing the situational (which is effectively what BPS ideology prevents), taking the hot iron off the hand before you assess if it needs treating. Turn access to those basic needs into sources of threat (maybe you are imagining the iron) and what do you have?
Indeed I think it might be even more 'straight-line' than people might like to pretend. Support system and basic safety and needs being fulfilled (without that hanging as constant threat) is supposed to be one key protective thing against suicide. Along with options. BPS knows this.
This touches on things like lack of these functional and supportive aspects. It also notes a lack of belongingness (which has to be laid at the door of those who push and suck up dodgy ideas). It notes the depression link that has been claimed is more complex than suggested (saying such diagnoses were sometimes made post-hoc, and this data doesn't necessarily bear it out).
I always worry that a well-intentioned suggestion be twisted to send people to the very ideology that underlies these issues existing to such an extent. I worry that the suggested pathways are naive without a significant change to the system and flushing out of misguided ideology (if we are to be required to keep to such polite terms). Without massive compulsory re-education alongside this people will just get churned into it as a back-coverer, probably closing-off access to the identified aspects needed.
Sending people to mental health departments, whatever form, with the current climate would be seen as a threat to many, and for good reason. Such a path has served to remove 'informal support' by making them invalidated/support be told 'they'd better not get involved' (which is the message mind-body and mental health first aid directly send out so is everywhere - and would also need to be targeted).
In the UK IAPTS where most would be sent uses the exact same 'LTC' CBT that was signed off based on using CFS-ME as a blueprint and does not address the functional issues mentioned. How will it be safe? How will such triage not create more problems re: the illness being understood and researched biomedically long-term?
Some of the things in this article are powerful:
"I once attended a webinar given by a former [disability benefits examiner] who told the doctors present that their supportive documentation could literally save lives. He had had a few clients die after their benefits were denied."
"I know of several situations where people have died by suicide or considered it, yet they did not consider themselves depressed. Instead, as noted earlier, factors like severe symptoms, decreased function, poverty, etc. played a bigger role."
Psychology in its proper sense should begin with fixing the situational (which is effectively what BPS ideology prevents), taking the hot iron off the hand before you assess if it needs treating. Turn access to those basic needs into sources of threat (maybe you are imagining the iron) and what do you have?
Indeed I think it might be even more 'straight-line' than people might like to pretend. Support system and basic safety and needs being fulfilled (without that hanging as constant threat) is supposed to be one key protective thing against suicide. Along with options. BPS knows this.
This touches on things like lack of these functional and supportive aspects. It also notes a lack of belongingness (which has to be laid at the door of those who push and suck up dodgy ideas). It notes the depression link that has been claimed is more complex than suggested (saying such diagnoses were sometimes made post-hoc, and this data doesn't necessarily bear it out).
I always worry that a well-intentioned suggestion be twisted to send people to the very ideology that underlies these issues existing to such an extent. I worry that the suggested pathways are naive without a significant change to the system and flushing out of misguided ideology (if we are to be required to keep to such polite terms). Without massive compulsory re-education alongside this people will just get churned into it as a back-coverer, probably closing-off access to the identified aspects needed.
Sending people to mental health departments, whatever form, with the current climate would be seen as a threat to many, and for good reason. Such a path has served to remove 'informal support' by making them invalidated/support be told 'they'd better not get involved' (which is the message mind-body and mental health first aid directly send out so is everywhere - and would also need to be targeted).
In the UK IAPTS where most would be sent uses the exact same 'LTC' CBT that was signed off based on using CFS-ME as a blueprint and does not address the functional issues mentioned. How will it be safe? How will such triage not create more problems re: the illness being understood and researched biomedically long-term?
Last edited:
