Do people genuinely believe 'you should get her/him sectioned' as some sort of option?

[likelysuspect]

I see this sort of comment quite a lot on here and its cropped up in another thread.

'you should consider getting her sectioned'

And the OP is thanking the poster for the useful advice!!

The issue around sectioning has also come up a lot in the threads about the Southport killer and on threads about children with that sort of presentation

It astounds me that in this day and age people still think that you can 'get someone sectioned' as if you just phone someone and the black Maria comes and gets them.

I think it’s both just plain short English and reflective of the system. When someone has to fight for something it’s quite active and so I think people are more likely to use that phrase.

Ie. I got us all antibiotics (in ref to ringing 111 and demanding a family wide dose to prevent strep b going round when I had it recurrently)
I got his teeth scaled (Hopeful conclusion to my on going battle with dentist to try to remove a bit of plaque of a 4yos tooth)
We got funding for mum (in reference to getting someone full care funding for a care home)

I really wouldn’t take it personally.

And the social care example is quite interesting because it’s very similar to that. To get someone sectioned you really need to be like a dog with a bone and advocate relentlessly like you never advocated before; simultaneously at the same time as practically threatening abandonment or pushing the liability to them. You see this every day on social care threads where they won’t act if they think someone else is going to pick up the liability.

Yes to all of this. Thank you for referencing the past and the diabolical treatment women went through.

And please have my best wishes for you, your daughter and your family. As I’ve said a lot on this thread, I hope you are also getting your own support. It’s really important to recognise what families go through when a loved one is seriously unwell.

Well, someone may have been instrumental in getting services involved that culminated in a section, but their input and observations would be a small part in a bigger picture that saw multiple agencies and professionals examining the patient and making that call.

I got my DH to go to the GP, yes, because that was my aim and it happened; I didn't get him his hernia operation which was a consequence. I got help for my DD, but I didn't get her sectioned.
I didn't know, and am not qualified to have said, that either of these consequences needed to happen.

I think few people seek MH help, for others with the actual aim of a section; it may (but most likely won't) happen, but it's not something most would aim or push for, recognising that it's not their call. If it does happen, they made a contribution, thats all.

As I said I think "getting someone sectioned" is
*offensive based on historical misuse of sectioning
*inaccurate because of the incorrectly presumed power of the person involved, and
*potentially barbed and insulting for the friend/family member. If someone said I got my DD sectioned I'd feel I was being attacked and accused of try to get rid of her.

I think it's important to note that colloquial use of "get them sectioned" has an ingrained association of threat for alot of people, especially the mentally vulnerable. Some unscrupulous people can use it to wield a perception of power. For many gripped by mental health deterioration, trying to keep a perspective is underpinned by fear and knowledge that something they don't understand is going on already. A quick way to "shut them down" is threats to get them "put away" further undermining their feelings of lack of agency, and helping ramp up the fear. It's utterly counter productive.

This is why the language is so important. Maybe it's time to soften the approach somehow, perhaps emphasis on inpatient care to keep you safe or similar. While the technicalities / legalities should be explained transparently, I think there should be an emphasis on the benefits ( which I also appreciate are debatable) to the patient.

Rightly or wrongly, and especially where paranoia features, the implication of being a dangerous problem requiring locking up is incredibly damaging without intensive support and nuance.

I've come across some wonderful MCHPs, and also some brutal ones, so it's not an easy issue to addresss I appreciate.

I'm well aware of the historical use of insanity/hysteria etc to control women, and as I've said, I agree there are other phrasings that are still simple and straightforward that could be used. Such as 'reached out in regards to having x sectioned' or 'alerted the mental health team, who had x sectioned', and so on.

But I do think that pointing out the actual process (the complexity, the difficulty, etc) is generally more useful than correcting people's language in most situations though (not all). If you're looking to inform and educate people, then putting them on the defensive by quibbling over language might not be the best way to go about it.

I mean, we could insist that all miscarriages are called by their proper name, 'spontaneous abortions', but that likely wouldn't be a very useful thing to demand. I think it depends on the context, really.

Sadly so many people who are in a serious mental state are refused any inpatient treatment, even the basic medical treatment isn’t available. They’re left to leave and take their life. It’s a heartbreaking epidemic.

But I do think that pointing out the actual process (the complexity, the difficulty, etc) is generally more useful than correcting people's language in most situations though (not all). If you're looking to inform and educate people, then putting them on the defensive by quibbling over language might not be the best way to go about it.

But that's what people are doing here, though? Saying, "no you didn't get your loved one sectioned, your call was just one part of a much bigger process with an outcome that was by no means inevitable" IS informing and educating.
If that also counts as quibbling over language so be it: inaccurate and offensive language should be challenged, and unacceptable or outdated terms should fall out of use.

The education of lay people starts with language though.

From another perspective, allowing the notion that one unqualified person can instigate a direct section also sets up a frustrating dynamic with professionals. There is already a huge issue with communication within said professionals and constraints they operate within such as the MHA.

It's all well and good if a HCP or psychiatrist has good people skills, but if they don't you get potential defensiveness all round.

"I want my relative sectioned because x,y,z."

"Woah, you're not qualified to make that call, and we have to assess things and factor in your possible motivation, sectioning is a last resort"

As opposed to:

"I'm really worried about mu relative because x,y z how should this be addressed"

"These are the steps, possible routes to support and until deemed otherwise, your relative has the right to be involved which by law must be respected, however we'll try and help as best we can".

The OP has highlighted quite rightly, that the immediate jump to "sectioning" as some kind of one size fits all solution to mental health crisis has become embedded in current thinking, and I do think changing that is important for all those involved in mental health care, be they patients, professionals or understandably distressed loved ones.

I had a full psychotic episode, removed from the home by police. Taken to the hospital, ranting and completely out of my mind. The doctors declined to section me when I really should have been sectioned!

Agree with PP, it's unbelievably difficult to get someone sectioned

This.

That's why I think it does depend on context.

If someone is talking about their experience with a loved one (as has been mentioned on this thread), and your focus is just swooping in and correcting their language in regards to a process they are familiar with because they've been through it, or if the person who was sectioned uses that language as shorthand because they feel comfortable with it (as has also happened on this thread), then I think it's probably not helpful to argue with them over language they're comfortable with to refer to their experiences.

But for people who seem to have no experience of it, and are just saying, 'you should get her sectioned' or 'they should've had him sectioned', then yes, it seems like they need a lot of informing! Including language.

You are right about how hard it is to get someone sectioned, @likelysuspect.

I suspect that what most people really want is for help with mental health to be more easily accessible and available, so that, if someone sees that a friend or loved one is becoming mentally ill, they can make sure someone knows about it and that something will be done. Sectioning someone is the last resort, but I think many people feel that there is so little support for people with mental health issues, that the last resort may be the only one.

I saw it as a response to a male poster who was complaining that his once "sweet" (his word) wife had become a "mega bitch" (also his words) who had self diagnosed as either autistic and/ or with ADHD and now wasn't being nice to him and was asking him to do dreadful things like bevthe one to book hotels. Oh yes and she was "claiming" to be perimenopausal, but had been prescribed hormones several weeks ago so it couldn't be relevant.

More than one separate poster told the man to "get her sectioned" - I think this might have been what husbands did under these circumstances 100 years ago, when an asylum was somewhere you could have inconvenient women put away...

Some people will look for offence anywhere no I’m not looking anywhere, I’m looking at you. The person who clearly has no experience whatsoever of the stigma that people with SMI face. Kindly please go away and do some research.

I would hope that they would be following the process to properly assess the patient & then use their professional judgement based on that.

Collateral evidence from someone that knows them well is often relevant but they would have to show some respect for confidentiality of the patient. The patient may well ask that certain people are not involved, the AMHP would have to consider those wishes & have very good reason to go against those.

The AMHP should contact the nearest relative if a decision is made to detain under section but does not have to discuss details with them.

The irony that theres people here with serious mental illnesses like schizoaffective disorder who are having an intelligent & articulate discussion about complex matters.

Meanwhile theres one who is being offensive, derailing the discussion & seems to know everything but at the same time coming across as quite ignorant

Yep, this is what set me off!!! I think the thread was deleted in the end

Thank you to those posters who are far more articulate than me at making my point for me!!

My brother's had schizophrenia since I was eight, please explain what I even said wrong to get jumped on!

Oh I see. How come he got diminished responsibility then? Thank you for explaining in a nice way rather than jumping on me though! I literally was going by the ruling I'm not meaning any offence...

If you follow the enquiry which is currently taking place & read some of the commentary of that you can see that there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that shouldn't have happened. There were significant failings in the police decisions that led to the charge of manslaughter. They were under public pressure & tried to avoid criticism by bringing about a quick charge.
There are many leading experts that think he should have been charged with murder. That's certainly what seems to be coming out of the enquiry.

@Serencwtch ok I will read up thanks. That's very strange though because diminished responsibility has been a thing for centuries. I won't ask any more questions about it here though.

Manslaughter on diminished responsibility is definitely a thing, it's just probably not the correct decision in VC case.

If you're on twitter/X then have a look at Dr Sanjoy Kumar & Emma Webber who are the parents of the 2 students killed. Also MentalhealthCop who was a former police inspector & widely regarded as the leading expert in the complexities of mental health, policing and criminal justice. He's been following the enquiry (and the Southport enquiry also currently taking place). Its eye opening & shocking reading

To be honest it was this:

"I'm sure the "that's stigmatising" crowd will successfully manage to shut anyone up who actually wants to have a genuine discussion about this subject"

The people you were referring to are people like me with schizoaffective disorder who were articulating the reasons why changing stigmatizing language is important & explaining how that stigma can often be more harmful than the illness itself.

It did come across as very dismissive of people's experiences.

To be fair, people do get sectioned - someone I know, for example. But you have to be "danger to yourself or others" - and its not just empty words. The person I'm talking about had an episode and did not eat or sleep for several days.

No one gets sectioned for being a bit weird or nasty. Or even very weird/ nasty.

You don't need to be a danger to anyone else or even yourself. Many people sectioned aren't either of those things.

People are mostly sectioned to receive treatment (s3) or assessment (s2) because they don't have the capacity to consent to the treatment or assessment.

Most people under a section will have section 17 leave to be out in the community, at home or with friends or family.