Challenges to and opportunities for improving mental health services for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in Ireland: a narrative account

The views and opinions of people who use mental health services are being increasingly acknowledged in relation to rights-based, socially-inclusive, and recovery-oriented care. However, little is known of the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in this respect. The aim of the present study was to explore the experiences and needs of LGBT people in relation to mental health services. The study was an exploratory design utilizing mixed methods. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using a survey instrument (n = 125) and in-depth semistructured interviews (n = 20) with a sample of people who had completed the survey. This paper will report on the findings from the interview data. The data were thematically analysed, and the main themes that emerged included accessing services, treatment choices, mental health service experiences, and other supports. The findings inform the discussion, and recommendations are made in terms of future mental health practice, education, and research

Exploring concepts of health with male prisoners in three category-C English prisons

Lay understandings of health and illness have a well established track record and a plethora of research now exists which has examined these issues. However, there is a dearth of research which has examined the perspectives of those who are imprisoned. This paper attempts to address this research gap. The paper is timely given that calls have been made to examine lay perspectives in different geographical locations and a need to re-examine health promotion approaches in prison settings. Qualitative data from thirty-six male sentenced prisoners from three prisons in England were collected. The data was analysed in accordance with Attride-Stirling's (2001) thematic network approach. Although the men's perceptions of health were broadly similar to the general population, some interesting findings emerged which were directly related to prison life and its associated structures. These included access to the outdoors and time out of their prison cell, as well as maintaining relationships with family members through visits. The paper proposes that prisoners' lay views should be given higher priority given that prison health has traditionally been associated with medical treatment and the bio-medical paradigm more generally. It also suggests that in order to fulfil the World Health Organization's (WHO) vision of viewing prisons as health promoting settings, lay views should be recognised to shape future health promotion policy and practice

Risk of Suicide Is Insufficient Warrant for Coercive Treatment for Mental Illness

Mental health laws in many jurisdictions currently permit coercive treatment for persons with mental illness who are thought to be at risk of harm to themselves or others. These laws are often used to provide involuntary treatment to persons who are thought to be at risk of suicide. In this article we argue that legislated coercive psychiatric treatment should not be triggered by an assessment of the likelihood of harm, including a likelihood of suicide, but should be available only where a person is found to lack capacity to make their own decisions about their own health risks, after appropriate support has been given. We suggest that current opposition this approach may find its origin in factors including uncertainties about the idea of vulnerability and its relationship to capacity as well as tendency to minimise the real costs of psychiatric treatment and coercion against the aim of suicide prevention. Given the limits of suicide risk assessment, we argue that a public policy that allows involuntary preventative detention of competent persons thought to be at risk of suicide, places too great a burden on all persons living with mental illness to be justified. We suggest that we are better placed to serve the interests and respect the human rights of people with mental illness if we respect and support the right of persons to make decisions, rather than focussing on perceived vulnerabilities and calculations of suicide risk

Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article argues that although policies that aim to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food are welcome, they are only one part of a broader basket of policies that are needed to make progress on obesity prevention and public health nutrition. However, to the extent that food labelling has the capacity to inform and empower consumers to make healthier choices - and to be a catalyst for improving the nutritional quality of commercial recipes - it has an important role to play. Furthermore, given the dietary impact of meals eaten in fast food and franchise restaurants, interpretive labelling requirements should not be restricted to pre-packaged foods.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Food industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation.</p