Todays rant - 26th February 2008 Mental Health

Here we are again, a week on and I am in a hotel again, actually, I am in my usual hotel up North. Here I am quietly sat here "ranting" away and pondering on all that I have heard today or read in the Times!! My VOIP is fine, my mobiles are turned on and so is the television, and yet, now I am pondering. So here it is..........

According to the media anti-depressant pills are generally no better than a "sugar pill" and whilst last year saw 16 Million prescriptions given out to "depressed" people now most of these were no better than handing out Smarties instead.

The cost to the NHS was around £291 Million and a staggering £120 Million of this was spent upon SRRI type of medicine that this survey states is "useless".

Figures would say that as many as 1 in 5 people suffer from (or at some time have or will) depression requiring drugs. That really shows that at some point we will ALL know a number of people who are suffering.

So in reality what is really needed as a help for all of us?

The NHS currently has plans to train around 3600 therapists in an attempt to boost the levels of counselling available to the "man on the street". This additional assistance will cost around £30 Million extra in costs of therapy. Is this extra money going to help? Is the extra therapy available going to offer assistance either alone or in tangent with medicine?

SRRI medicine (Prozac, Efexor etc) is now seen as a placebo, however, is eveything potentially a placebo. If Strawberry liquorice helps ease the symptoms of depression is this not as viable as Prozac. So should the patient be prescribed a non-pill working on the assumption that for most people they believe they are being cured so they are being cured.

SRRI medicine helps a large number of people. Medically these inhibitors actually do somewhere along the lines provide some sort of assistance. If a person who is suffering sees their doctor it is that GP's aim to provide a solution to the problem, quickly, as in most cases the aim of the doctor is purely to ease the pain and suffering of the patient. And in a short term crisis, placebo or not, medicine offers an aid.

What if a doctor prescribes a "bread pill" ? they know it does nothing medically, but potentially as a patient feels they are being helped it is a win-win scenario, and a patient is not polluted by medicine.

But what if the placebo actually provides no help, what if the "bread pill" has no effect and the person being treated gets more ill, actually dies or as a result of the illness performs a hideous crime.

A doctor could argue that obviously the medicine has not worked, but, if the medicine is a non-medicine it will never work. Whilst the GP may well make the decision to go the placebo route can this be defended? is it fair on the doctor to have this responsibility on their shoulders solely?

I say NO. It cannot be right to allow a doctor alone to be forced to make this potentially life threatening decision. And maybe, just maybe, I can offer a solution -

The NHS are spending a lot of money making sure they have therapists and counsellors in place to provide assistance to "ill" people. These are trained professionals who in theory can help the patient and also provide feedback and concerns to the doctor.

I suggest that on initially seeing a suffering person the doctor needs to solve this problem without leaving themselves wide open to any recourse from a victim or their family. Physical medication may do very little, but, inhibits something and, possibly more importantly, (and I apologise for this thought) protects the GP from legal action as a result of the placebo solution being discovered either by the patient or a possible victim or family.

The patient then needs to see a therapist as a matter of urgency in order to fully evaluate the actual requirements of the indvidual.

Only through this combination of treatments can the true needs be evaluated and then delivered. Succesfully now rather than merely as a text book describes and to the best of the abilities available.

There is another possible success from this course of action. By providing a combination therapy the cost of solution should lessen. Currently the use of prolonged medical therapy is costly, then add this to a limited number of therapy sessions and the cost becomes greater.

An action where the need for long term medicine is reduced, effectiveness is increased and as an added bonus cost is lessened can only provide a winning situation.

It may be asked why can I rant on such a subject as a result of merely reading the Times and hearing the news?

I am one of the people classed as one of the 1 in 5. I cannot hide the fact that I openly "lost the plot" over a number of issues, my nature, ability to sweep matters under the carpet and my complete inability to ever admit anything was wrong.

I am lucky I have a fantastic GP who recognised what I needed, provided a medical solution and therapy through the CBT method of counselling. I have been ill, I am recovering. I still wobble and I still struggle to verbalise to my wife everything I should, which leads me to "clam up" when I should try to explain what is needed or happening.

I still see my GP a lot and she also makes sure I make appointments regularily to see her. I used my prescribed CBT not always in the best manner. Often I used these sessions as a sounding board for my personal issues and to advise upon questions or problems I may have had. My counsellor also was able to update my doctor on issues she saw and felt relevant. I could not ask for more.

So I suggest that the NHS actually spends some time looking at what is really required and not what is most pleasing to everyone. Maybe then a true solution to the problem can be delivered.

I will welcome the comments of others..................