Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that Human Rights has a lot to answer for in this obesity related death.

234 replies

meyesmyeyes · 22/06/2015 15:47

A lot people are saying, Well why were people getting him that food? Why weren't they saying No? and why weren't the 'Carers' refusing to give him his takeaways etc.... OK, he would have sworn at them, but he couldn't get out of bed, so wouldn't have been able to harm them for not getting him his junk food.

the human rights act allows him to do what he wants if carers do not comply they are in the wrong and are liable to lose their jobs psychiatrists have to prove they do not have the capacity -- very few people come under this sadly

So surely, this poor man was failed miserably by a system that was supposed to help him?

People should have been in a position where they were able to say 'no' to him. But because of a flawed human rights system, this man has lost his life.

OP posts:
MarchLikeAnAnt · 22/06/2015 17:51

Well lots of severely obese people find comfort in food, don't see why it would be different with him.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 22/06/2015 17:52

It's shocking, BeeRayKay. I used to know a lot of people who worked with people with serious mental health problems of a nature that made them very violent as well. They faced the constant threat of attack. It just seemed to be expected but at least they had training and some support. It doesn't sound as if home carers get much of that.

Trazzletoes · 22/06/2015 17:54

I admit to not having read the full thread but there is NOTHING in the HRA that says you can have, or do, whatever you want.

This has absolutely nothing AT ALL to do with the Human Rights Act or the ECHR.

BeeRayKay · 22/06/2015 17:55

Gasp0de thats the area I work in. And yes, constant threat of violence. And no, no support. You've got to just deal with it "perils of lone working" allegedly.

Which makes it even more outrageous that people on here think we have some level of control over the service users.

Fairy13 · 22/06/2015 18:01

The mental capacity act is very clear. A person has the right to make an unwise decision, if they have the capacity to understand and weigh up the risks of that decision. The reason care workers can't go against the wishes of a person who has capacity is to safeguard people from having decisions made on their behalf because another person deems it to be in their best interests.

The man mentioned above died because he chose to carry on making the unwise decision, in full possession of all the information and risks.

Your beef really is with the mental capacity act, not the HRA, but even so you are wrong, sorry.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 22/06/2015 18:05

I feel very stupid but I still don't entirely understand why we section people who are trying to kill themselves violently but not someone who is killing himself with food.

saintlyjimjams · 22/06/2015 18:07

What RedToothBrush said.

And what's with all the crap that keeps appearing on here about the HRA. Read up properly on it fgs, before the turkeys bloody vote for xmas (again). It is in everyone's interest to keep it. It is particularly in the interest of those reliant on social care as it's a powerful piece of legislation protecting them from the cuts.

IamTheWhoreofBabylon · 22/06/2015 18:08

We don't section smokers and they are slowly killing themselves

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 22/06/2015 18:11

A smoker has a very large chance of dying prematurely from smoking. This man was eating so much it was inevitable he would die soon. I can see you can argue that there is a continuum which includes all sorts of risky behaviour we wouldn't want to section people for but isn't this sufficiently far along the continuum as to make intervention something we should consider? We section anorexics too.

elementofsurprise · 22/06/2015 18:22

Fairy The mental capacity act is very clear. A person has the right to make an unwise decision, if they have the capacity to understand and weigh up the risks of that decision.

How are anorexics sectioned then? Although even that seems to be shockingly too late - ie. after damage done.

Mental health services are dire; there is no way this poor man was getting the help he needed. What would they offer him - six sessions of computerised CBT? Someone to make him feel worse and tell him "it's your decision" like they do to suicidal people? (Really. This has got worse with the funding cuts.) Round here the referral would just be bounced back because he didn't have psychosis.

You know what - mental health services only exist now to stop people hurting others. No one gives a shit if you need any form of help yourself, even if it's lifesaving.

Fairy13 · 22/06/2015 18:24

Anorexics are sectioned under the mental health act, not the mental capacity act.

BeenWondering · 22/06/2015 18:25

I feel very stupid but I still don't entirely understand why we section people who are trying to kill themselves violently but not someone who is killing himself with food

TheCountessofFitzdotterel It's not that black and white or rather as simplistic as 'well we section anorexics so why not the obese.' Sectioning under the mental health act has varying degrees and levels. In that respect, an anorexic wouldn't have the same classification as someone with Schizophrenia, for example.
Generally, sectioning is used only if all other options have been considered, for instance looking at whether support can be provided in the community or if someone would agree to go into hospital voluntarily.

This man still had the mental capacity to eat and order food, in fact the only thing really holding him back was his inability to prepare or go and buy that food. Wanting the food is not a sign of illness.

I don't think the Human Rights Act has anything to do with his unfortunate demise. It's a slippery slope, if we start sectioning people because of various risky behaviours, before long no-one will be able to do anything without a mental health assessment first.

Fairy13 · 22/06/2015 18:27

You are right, mental health services are shocking, better support at an earlier stage would have been best (although we don't know that he wasn't offered support).

Section img everybody living an unhealthy lifestyle is not the answer.

ChickenLaVidaLoca · 22/06/2015 18:36

YABVVVVU. And irresponsible. OP you wrote this:

But it's a sad state of affairs when people are too scared to intervene (especially when it's in a patient's best interests) for fear of going against the person's 'human rights' and possibly losing their jobs as a result.

Do you not realise that by posting scaremongering, inaccurate shit like you have, YOU are contributing to the mentality you mention? You posted about human rights as though it was a fact that HR law was in some way responsible, when it's absolutely not. Never bothered checking or anything. People read stuff like that and it spirals. You could've just asked if you didn't know, instead of coming out all guns blazing.

SantasLittleMonkeyButler · 22/06/2015 18:47

There must be a health & safety implication for the carers, surely, if they're being asked to work with habitual drunks?

A risk assessment form is filled in & Carers will be sent in pairs. Essentially, so that you have a witness should anything happen. Or someone to phone for help. That said, I care for three alcoholics and not one of them is currently violent or unpredictable - although I believe they were as younger men.

RedToothBrush · 22/06/2015 19:18

Here's the thing. Even though mental health services in this country are shocking, I can not reasonably think that this man did not have a mental health assessment and was deemed to have capacity to make decisions himself in the course of his treatment.

With regard to anorexics and being sectioned, it rests with the issue that an anorexic will be delusional with regard to what they deem to be normal and are unable to look in the mirror and see that there is a problem. This man clearly knew he was not normal and knew that there was a problem. That in itself means its very difficult to section him as he had a clear realisation there was a problem in a way that an anorexic might not do. It suggests he had the capacity to understand what he was doing to himself. So I suspect the chances are the very best he could hope for would be to voluntarily have himself sectioned and that would have been unlikely.

As previous posted have said, it perhaps more in common with an addiction than anorexia. And you can't be sectioned purely for alcoholism.

Skiptonlass · 22/06/2015 19:18

"Scrapping the human rights act" is being pushed quite a bit in the media at the moment.

Instead of concentrating on the positives, there's an agenda to link it to all sorts of things (terror suspects not being deported because they'd miss their cats/65 stone men dying ) etc.

Perhaps have a think about WHY this agenda is in the right of centre press? Think about why your government/friendly media oligarch with close ties to said government might be pushing this?

The human rights act is by no means perfect. But it has done a pretty good job of holding the creeping tide of authoritarian legislation in recent years at bay. Alas there is no citizens bill of rights. We have no constitution in the UK. Until we have that, the human rights act is the next best thing.

The powers that would like you not to think about that though. Don't think at all about what kind of laws could get passed if we scrap the HRA in a land without a constitution. Look! Here's a fat man to distract you!

hackmum · 22/06/2015 19:19

BeenWondering: "Wanting the food is not a sign of illness."

But maybe it is? I think that was the Countess's point. After all, if starving yourself is a sign of mental illness, then why isn't eating to a degree that is likely to kill you also a sign of mental illness?

Not sure I have the answer to that one.

elementofsurprise · 22/06/2015 19:22

BeenWondering It's not that black and white or rather as simplistic as 'well we section anorexics so why not the obese.' Sectioning under the mental health act has varying degrees and levels. In that respect, an anorexic wouldn't have the same classification as someone with Schizophrenia, for example.
That doen't explain why someone with anorexia coud be sectioned but not someone overeating to this extreme. Why wasn't this man put under the same 'level' of section as someone under-eating? (And I've NEVER heard of different 'levels' of section in the way you describe, just different lengths of time and different circumstances for different sections. Eg. for forced treatment, or a 'holding' section, etc.)

Generally, sectioning is used only if all other options have been considered, for instance looking at whether support can be provided in the community or if someone would agree to go into hospital voluntarily.
Well, clearly these things weren't working or appropriate.

This man still had the mental capacity to eat and order food, in fact the only thing really holding him back was his inability to prepare or go and buy that food. Wanting the food is not a sign of illness.
So why is not wanting food a sign of illness then? And surely, if it's got to the stage where you can't move and you're going to die, it has got to the stage of illness?

If we can force people to have ECT against their will, why not help someone who's crying out for it? It sometimes seems like asking for help is the one way to make sure you dn't get any...

Fairy Anorexics are sectioned under the mental health act, not the mental capacity act. Ok, so why couldn't this bloke be sectioned under the mental health act? Which involves being considered to lack capacity!

None of it makes sense. We can (in theory) section people who want to kill themselves, but others are told it's their choice. And we can section and force-feed those who starve themselves, but those who overeat - even after begging for help to stop - are also told it's their choice.

There's some weird kind of judgemental thing going on here, I can't quite put it into words.

MiscellaneousAssortment · 22/06/2015 19:24

There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread. And scary assumptions.

Carers aren't put in a position of authority over a 'service user'. Being disabled or elderly does not mean that your status as a grown adult are taken away. That would be disgusting.

Carers aren't jailors, parents, police, nannies, school teachers, etc etc etc. They help people live as independent adults when that person can't do everything for themselves, whether from a physical or mental illness, or old age etc.

People don't become children/ infantilised, or somehow sub human although that's the way they're often treated.

Adults who rely on carers are still people who make decisions for themselves. Just because you could physically force them to submit to your will, in no way means you should.

Adults make decisions other people disagree with all the time. Unless the decisions are illegal, there is no God given right to intervene just because you think you know better. If you want this to be different you either believe disabled people shouldn't have the same rights to govern themselves and futures as non disabled people, or maybe you believe that the state should criminalise certain lifestyle decisions that effect no one but the individual concerned? So, we must criminalise smoking, going to bed after 10pm, not eating 5 a day, eating more than 1g salt a day, and where exactly does it stop?

I know people think they're empathising by setting out scenarios like, 'if my child was in that position'.... But that's thinking about a relationship with dependence already acceptable. What about making it a tad more personal?

What about if YOU were the one needing carers? Not a dependent, not someone who you can imagine needs someone watching over them, but you. And not you in 50 yrs or a different you somehow, but You just as you are now, except you can't walk, or sit up, or maybe you can't get out of bed. Or maybe you can't get out of the house. For example, maybe you've had an accident and broken your back.

You with your opinions, independence, dignity and self, needing to rely on others. Then carers who are not qualified, don't know you, have no idea of your medical history, values, background, profession, family, beliefs, ... Often a different person every day, who is rushed, and doing a low paid job where they get treated badly themselves, and can resent any extra work or effort.

And those people are allowed, perhaps encouraged, to make unilateral snap judgements about you and your needs. And that carer decides your voice, your opinion, your self agency, doesn't matter as much as their own opinion. And they get to impose their ideals and judgements on you, as you can't walk. You can't over rule them, as you are dependent on them. They can physically dominate you. They can control you.

That decision could be theoretically good for you or maybe terribly bad for you. Doesn't matter, disabled people aren't in charge of their own lives anymore. They are no longer equal to other people.

So, You could get a carer who 'doesn't believe' in Halal food, vegetarianism, eating carbs after 6pm, having a drink with a meal, an allergy, alcoholic drinks, soft drinks, or maybe they force you to eat broccoli, though it makes your stomach bloat and hurt all night, etc etc etc, and this happens to you and society is fine with it, because that's who you are now.

How you feeling now? Forced to submit to someone else's regime just because your back don't work (for example).

Well it doesn't matter how you feel anyway, your opinions are nothing. You have no voice, no independence, no self agency. And that's because you aren't a 'proper person' anymore, you are dependent. Your carers can make you live anyway they want. And that's the way society wants it to be, glad someone else is taking care of the problem.

And that's just food, what about other things, like taking medicines that give you side effects, or that the doc has changed but the carers don't know this? And you want/ need to come off them. But you can't as no one wants to hear your opinion, you do as you are told. We know best. Be quiet. Be good.

You want to decide when you go to bed? When you need to use the loo? What medicines you take? When you sit up, or stand up, when you're naked, or clothed, when someone spends your money, or not, when you're allowed your phone, or any tv, when the lights are on, or when you have to sit in the dark... All these things 'normal' adults get to decide. They have self agency, independence, their bodies, homes, resources belong to themselves.

And what about choices that are central to your sense of ethics, or self identity? A carer may decide it's not important to them, so you don't need to do it anymore. Or maybe they disagree, and once again you are in no position to get anyone to do what you want, as you are over ruled. So.., no you can't wear a veil, or vote, or talk to a doctor on your own.... It could be anything, as it's not you who matters anymore. Maybe you're lucky and the carers ideals align with yours. Or they care how you feel. That tgeyre not rushed, stressed, under paid, put upon. But maybe they won't be like that. And it doesn't matter as you cant insist on it.

But in the world you seem to want, as soon as you get ill or disabled (or have one too many birthdays)... All these basic things get taken off you, in favour of at best an infantilising paternalistic type of indulgence. Or a hideous living death.

And that scenario, is only ever ok from one side, that's from the position of power.

I became disabled a few years ago and I am bloody glad my rights to be allowed to be a 'proper person' are enshrined in law. There are many people who would like disabled people to vanish, other people's rights are inconvenient, and get in the way of efficiency as well as other people's desire to make the world the way they want, in their own image for instance. I know as I have experienced first hand, that if I didn't have the same human rights as anybody else, I would be abused, violated and stripped off dignity, humanity and anything good.

elderflowerlemonade · 22/06/2015 19:27

excellent post miscellaneous

elementofsurprise · 22/06/2015 19:37

Red With regard to anorexics and being sectioned, it rests with the issue that an anorexic will be delusional with regard to what they deem to be normal and are unable to look in the mirror and see that there is a problem.

This isn't always the case though. In fact I thought people with anorexia often know it's got out of control but can't stop by that stage.

That in itself means its very difficult to section him as he had a clear realisation there was a problem in a way that an anorexic might not do. It suggests he had the capacity to understand what he was doing to himself.

Hmm. So we have a system whereby people who know they have a problem can't get any help. Hmm

MrsTerryPratchett · 22/06/2015 19:40

OP, if you really care about these issues, can I suggest that the HRA is not the thing to target.

I have worked with people (through SS) who have been eating, drinking and taking things that were bad for them. I have managed to work with some of them to facilitate a change. It takes time, it takes patience and takes a massive amount of respect for people. You can't just come along and change things in people's lives.

You do meet people are are essentially killing themselves slowly. Some of them manage to do it. It is heartbreaking and sometimes the choice is between two awful outcomes. What would you do if you had to choose; force someone into residential care who hated the thought, had told you they would kill themselves if this happens and you know will not be happy there. Or leave them independent where they refuse carers and eat themselves into an early grave?

SS need more time, money, resources, support. They get financial cuts and a total lack of community, public and personal support. The HRA doesn't cause these problems, a lack of funding and staff can.

elementofsurprise · 22/06/2015 19:44

YY MrsTP

Gnomic · 22/06/2015 19:49

Rights and responsibilities of caregivers are very interesting. I hold power of attorney for health and welfare for a relative, and there are very strict guidelines on what you may or may not do.

One of the guiding principles is that you should question constantly whether your actions on their behalf are removing or reducing their freedom to choose. Removing freedom of choice from someone can only be done if they are legally deemed not to have capacity on that issue, even when you hold power of attorney for them. And rightly so.