Government annouces complusory cancer treatment...

Today the government announced that in order to claim benefits people with cancer will need to have treatment to cure it. Despite the fact that this treatment doesn't actually exist, the government think that people who have cancer need to get back into the work place and stop being a drain on society. It costs the UK alot of money every year to supplement these skivers lifestyles and they can't even be bothered to go and get treated and help themselves.
It is quite simple really. The government dont want to be handing out free cash to those people who simply chose to be ill and dont make any effort whatsoever to get better. Its only a bit of cancer, it doesn't mean your incapable of working.

Shocking news eh? Well, no its not true. However, the government are trying to mandate treatment for those people who have mental health problems. Which as you can tell from the above simply wouldn't be tolerated with any other impairment.

So why mental health? It is easy to blame the person for their mental health problems and therefore make it their responsibility to simply "sort themselves out". However, realistically it is as much or more about the societal pressures that people are facing contributing to mental health problems than the person themselves "deciding" in their own little bubble to become mentally ill. It will take a combined approach to combat mental illness which includes tackling the very stigma underlying this idea. People with mental health problems are not lazy or workshy.

This leads onto another problem. Treatment. Without an effective and timely approach to treating people with mental health problems as individuals who need individual help it just wont work. The standard NHS policy seems to be at the moment a 6 or 12 session of CBT or similar and/ or drugs. These standardised treatments are not a cure all fix for everyone. Sometimes mental health problems are simply more complex than that. Sometimes it takes years of intensive treatment to allow someone to stablise enough to move forward. Sometimes it takes years to even get to a point where someone is well enough to be treated (theres the difficulty there).

The mental health system in the UK is a skeleton service at best. Treatment waiting lists are long which makes the person waiting even harder to treat with the standard 6 or 12 sessions when they finally get to the top of the queue. Whilst these people are waiting they might not be able to hold down a job and may well end up on benefits. It might make sense to get some of these people well in order for them to continue with their life. What is wrong is that for the people who are seeking treatment it is not their fault that it simply isnt available, and the government is attempting to demonise them as oppose to the treatment providers.

I was on benefits for a long time because there simply wasn't any treatment available for me on the NHS. I now fund my therapy through my DLA, and I would love to get this from the NHS but I can't. If the government focused more on fixing the mental health system instead of punishing those who attempt to access it then it might be a good start.

And then onto the final point of my story. People who refuse treatment. There may be many reasons for this. It might be they have already tried the 6 CBT sessions and it didnt work out for them, or the side effects of the drugs they take arent worth the benefits to them. They might not be ready to accept they need help or perhaps even quite happy in their madness. It might be that the person recognises that it is not something wrong in them but in society that needs fixing.

The government wouldnt tell people with cancer to simply get treated and get back to work so why does it think its acceptable for people with mental health problems?

(link to news article here:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10964125/Tories-discuss-stripping-benefits-claimants-who-refuse-treatment-for-depression.html

Accessible?

I HATE the word accessible. It is a non word that is used to describe someones presumptions that their venue or building is suitable for everyone regardless of well, what I don't know. It's sometimes used to mean that there is phyiscal access such as a ramp or a lift or a toilet with a hoist.

As I said, I hate it. It is impossible to make somewhere accessible to all regardless. Where a ramp exists it means that wheelchair users and babies in prams can get in, but seeing as these are longer it restricts those who can only walk a short distance but not up stairs.

What I actually need to know, isn't if a venue is, by the venues standards "accessible" but by mine. How would I judge that? I would prefer information on what the venue actually means by accessible detailed. I can then decide for myself if its accessible or if I still need to make requests for additional information or assistance in accessing it.

Far too often i have been to places where something that i hadn't even thought of as an issue becomes an issue of access and a big barrier to participation because I didn't know, or expect there to be a problem. If there is no lift to the middle floor, but access to all the other floors by lift then it needs to be made clear. If there is a long walk between the venue and the toilets, wouldnt it be great to know this in advance? Or even the size of the lift.

It changes the statement that the venue is making from we think we are good enough for you to are we good enough for you. It puts the power back into the control of the people accessing the venue. Knowing the distance between facilities and lifts, even what sort of lighting there is would be really helpful information.

Although I do have some responsibility to make sure that a venue is accessible for me, how can I ask for adjustments and support in access if i dont know what it is i am accessing in the first place? It is a two way street.