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.

This is how I understand it.

If someone says, "I got my sister sectioned" I understand them to mean that they were the one who reached out to the appropriate authorities with serious concerns about their sister's mental health and safety, which meant they thought she needed in-patient care, and that triggered a process that resulted in her eventually being sectioned after a proper assessment.

I would never think they literally signed the forms and had their sister detained on their say-so.

It's a very simple, concise way of communicating a difficult experience, and while accurate language is always good, when people are discussing things in a more casual format I don't think they can be expected to be perfectly up to date with the most appropriate terminology.

It seems fair to point out the issues around attempting to seek to have a family member or friend detained for their own safety or others, due to mental health issues - like the fact that it's not that simple, it's not easy, the threshold to reach can be very high, there aren't enough beds, etc etc.

But it seems a little pernickety to ask, "Oh, are you an AMHP? Did you personally section them?" when it's abundantly clear the person just means, "I'm the one who contacted the appropriate people to say I thought my family member needed to be sectioned."

Several posters have said "I got my family member sectioned" on this thread with zero context.

There is a very recent poster who is adamant that family members can section.

Combine the two and you have a problem.

Either way, it's lazy, sloppy and downright incorrect use of language

And never overestimate general intelligence/knowledge.

With zero context, as it is literally impossible for people to have their family members detained without going through the proper processes, it's quite obvious they mean "I triggered the process happening," as it can't mean anything else.

I don't think people believe that a family member can sign a piece of paper and have someone dragged off at their say-so - that's not even what's shown (inaccurately) in media, where there are always mental health professionals involved, making the decisions.

I'm not sure what you think the danger is in people using that shorthand to refer to an experience they had?

Although again, I agree that there is value in pointing out that flagging up concerns - aka 'trying to get someone sectioned' - is a very difficult process, and educating people on what it actually entails and how high the threshold is, is also valuable. I imagine most people are very ill-informed on those kinds of things.

@OtterlyAstounding exactly yes! Well said. It's just ease of language to explain the process isn't it, not meant to be taken literally. Honestly I can't be doing with this policing of language constantly when people are not trying to cause offence and it's not hard to understand what they mean.

Right so how do these doctors know about these patients? Their crystal balls?

Fair enough - let's agree to disagree on the first point; I'm really not convinced that most people understand it to be an expression rather than statement of fact.

I do feel concerned by incorrect phrasing because:

• family members are at risk for thinking that they CAN section and it was their fault they didn't.
• it has the potential to negativity impact a family's relationship with the team ("what do you mean you can't section Tom? We asked you to do that".
• it could prevent someone from seeking family support if they thought this was an option the family might take
• okay, I've said this before. It's sloppy and inaccurate language. If I have to ask follow up question to that statement, you haven't been clear.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding increasing general knowledge.

Off the top of my head, via the GP, CMHT, 111, police, college, uni and family and friends.

And I'm going to highlight the last example as it shows how important they are in facilitating support.

Note that I said facilitating. Not sectioning, which you specifically said that family members can do.

And please, let's keep this polite, courteous and respectful.

Yeah and who is contacting GPs, CMHT, 111, police, etc etc?

Desiring accurate wording when referring to a legal framework is hardly policing language.

I would call that basic competence in English.

I can understand why it might make people bristle, as simple, plain language often isn't exactly correct, and I do think there needs to be a lot more education about how severe mental health issues are dealt with in the system (generally not very well, without a lot of support, it seems).

But quibbling over the specific phrase 'get him sectioned' rather than pointing out that actually, it's very difficult for someone to qualify as needing sectioning, and the family may get no real support, seems contrary to purposes.

@Youthinkyouareaniconoclast makes a good point about it being inaccurate and potentially misleading in their last post though.

Although I do think, "we can't get Tom sectioned, but we can flag him to the appropriate authorities in the hope that they will section him" is just a longer phrase that presents pretty much the same problems. Tom might still be afraid to seek family support lest they take that step, the family still might feel guilty they didn't flag him up to authorities, and the family may still feel angry and frustrated that Tom isn't being sectioned when they think he needs it.

But if "we reached out to the mental health team about having Tom sectioned" feels more appropriate, then something like that is still pretty simple, I suppose, and places more emphasis that the family are raising concerns, not actually doing it.

My answer is as before. Most people like are known to a GP surgery, who can refer without consent.

Family and friends, as per my earlier post, are also valuable.

I don't see your point?

And please be polite as your phrasing is somewhat discourteous.

Half the country is not competent in basic language.

I am yet to see a replacement phrase for ‘get/ got them sectioned’ which states in plain English what people are talking about.

Get them assistance does not indicate clearly what we are talking about.

There’s a particular problem in this country with certain ethnic groups coming up really poorly for schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. This is not an inate racial difference as it does not show up in countries of people with similar ethnicity. I can only suspect that people do not get help fast enough, either because they do not understand the symptoms, there’s a language barrier or information barrier of somekind, or that people do not know that you really have to fight to get someone sectioned.

Unfortunately with most things in this country those who shout the loudest get to the front of the queue. So I am not sure why on earth we are having a thread trying to convince people their shouting is fruitless and pointless because you cannot possibly ‘get someone sectioned’.

YES YOU CAN! SHOUT LOUDER! DO NOT GIVE UP!
KEEP SHOUTING!

Because with serious MH, you really have one shot. You need to act fast and you can’t be getting fobbed off. It’s possible and don’t let anyone tell you it isn’t.

Even more confused now...no-one suggested not seeking help for a relative. Can you reference that please?

Those are your words.

You mentioned that it is possible (I assume to section a family member, happy to be corrected) and "don't let anyone tell you it isn't".

Family and friends are CRUCIAL in obtaining help.However they are not part of the panel that makes a decision about involuntary admission post assessment.

I would refer you to the NHS link further up

No offence but I am not really posting on this thread to have a convo with you as you are not really talking with me. Just trying to police my words. I know clearly what you are saying. And frankly I think it’s just nonsense.

I am here posting to state clearly that FAMILY CAN GET SOMEONE SECTIONED!

And thank fuck my family understood and knew that.

I had classic onset FEP in female to the exact age most typical for schizophrenia. I got treatment fast thanks to my family not giving up. Fully recovered and no relapse so far a decade later. Not medicated. A house, two kids, two businesses, full social life. People would never know. It could have been SO different. And I will never know if I was someone who could have had full blown schizophrenia, (or even did have because doctors don’t know if people are being cured in early stage because they can’t prove a negative).

Early intervention for FEP in this country is world class. It often includes section 2 for assessment as psychotic people do not believe they are ill. So will not cooperate in community and will not take medication.

So if anyone is reading this and think you have a relative with first episode psychosis… Please act fast. Don’t give up. Fully recovery is possible but only if you act fast. You can get them sectioned. But your going to need to shout loudly, being annoying and leave your dignity at the door.

There are thousands of potentially dangerous people but they can’t all be detained just in case. Hindsight and all that.

You can absolutely report criminal behaviour which results in professionals deciding to section though. My schizophrenic brother sent me sexually abusive messages, photos and videos of himself masturbating overnight after I had visited him and my parents one afternoon. I reported this to his outpatient psychiatrist and they did a home visit but took no other action.

He lives at home with my parents and my sister and I were concerned he would sexually assault our mum. It’s only when my sister called back and pointed out this risk, and that if anything were to happen to her she would sue them that they decided to act. Two psychiatrists attended the property after her call and he spent 3 months in a private hospital including 8 weeks in PICU as there were no public funded beds, at an eye-watering cost.

This was after 18 months of escalating behaviour that his out-patient psych basically ignored, violence towards my dad and things like attempting to open the passenger car door at 70mph on the motorway so he could walk home.

He has been on clozapine for over ten years and was still on a starter dose despite massive amounts of weight gain, the in-patient psych told my Dad it was obvious from the bloods he was having as an out-patient that it was nowhere near therapeutic levels and hadn’t been for at least 2 years.

This was 2 years ago and he’s been much better since.

If Axel’s parents had persistently reported the Ricin, terrorist manuals or weapons buying I believe it would have resulted in some action.

No not at all. If you are following the enquiry which is ongoing, it really wasn't that simple.
In fact it looks like it should have been dealt with MORE as criminal & less as mental health.

He is an extremely violent & dangerous man who also has schizophrenia which was a contributing factor.

There was clearly serious police & NHS failings, but one thing is certain and that's Schizophrenia was not 100% to blame.

I wonder why that terminology is used though rather than 'she was sectioned'

Or 'I contacted MH services and she was sectioned'

I suppose to indicate that they're the one who initiated the process?

ETA: But yes, saying "I contacted mental health services and she was sectioned" would make sense!

It's also important to point out that psychiatry care of both these killers has been heavily criticised by official enquiries & the courts. CAMHS were incompetent in the Southport case - they accused his school of being racist when the school raised serious concerns.

I appreciate psychiatry is under a lot of pressure but that's no excuse for incompetent safety assessments.

Personally I think the father should be prosecuted in the Southport case - he was obstructive to services, funded the purchase of weapons and ricin - an illegal biological warfare agent. He knew weapons were in the house - requesting a police callout and disclosing the presence of large bladed weapons could have prevented the killings.

Yep. In my professional opinion people with severe mental health illness are some of the sweetest, kindest, deep and empathetic people I’ve ever come across. Yes, even the ones in the throes of psychosis. Even the ones who are acutely suicidal. Even the ones who have had a meltdown and got angry five minutes before.

Why do they need to take ownership of this process though? To boast about their involvement?

I encouraged DH to go to the GP, then later drove him to the hospital he was referred to. I didn't not "get him" his hernia operation though; I took my children to the dentist's, but I didn't "get" their teeth filled or braced, the dentist did that.

My DD is in an MH hospital. She was a initially a voluntary patient, but sectioned whilst there. She's now on section 3 and has been for some time.
I've never once said "we got her sectioned" even though it would never gave happened without my and DHs constant bothering of HCPs, social services, police, the MH crisis line and centre.
She was, and is, very unwell and is in hospital; I don't need to boast that I initiated it.

All that said, I think the most important reason not to use language like "getting" a friend or family member sectioned is because it did actually happen in the past, for the most spurious of reasons, and particularly to young women on the say so of a man.
Young women who had been sexually assaulted, were independently minded, and for general non-conformity were locked up, often for decades, after a father/FIL/DH has a discussion with a doctor friend over a glass of whisky.
Maggie O'Farrell wrote a book about this "The Vanishing of Esme Lennox" - fictional, but based on real events.

We do not "get" people sectioned anymore, we have no power whatsoever to do this; we help and guide our loved ones, and seek outside help for them. If the appropriate bodies decide at any point that our lived one should be sectioned, then it is they who do so.

And walking into the GP surgery any time and getting seen immediately by the doctor!!

Been watching this thread with interest, having some experience of "the system" and broadly agree with the OP.

There is alot of misunderstanding of how things work in practise and threads I've seen about, for example, people vanishing down conspiracy rabbit holes often elicit the response that "sectioning" is the answer. Given the bar for that, generally speaking, is that a person is a danger to themselves and / or other people, what is apparently being suggested is detaining people whose controversial thoughts are inconvenient and discomfiting to others. Detainment under section is, rightly, a last resort these days, and rightly deserves clinical precision in its application.

I can see both sides of the argument, we have thankfully moved on from locking up people who might be considered "inconvenient" to family or the wider community. At the same time, the safeguards that legally protect us all from potentially spurious attempts to do so also create frustrating barriers for those who genuinely see a loved one heading down a mental health spiral leading to catasyrophic fall out all round, in getting meaningful support or intervention.

Much of the problem is due to lack of funding I think, and little understanding of how and why people do have mental health crises which can be organic, environmental, down to trauma etc etc. Complex cases can be box ticked in a way that complicates the issue, and in my experience, family do get a rough deal, especially with regards to the elderly where rights afforded by "having capacity" can be used to over-ride evidence that a persons behaviour is escalating to cause direct harm to others, but as it's not "criminal" they have the right to make those unwise decisions. If medical professionals are not allowed, at the patients request, to discuss their treatment or condition, it leaves people in a terrifying limbo.

"Getting someone sectioned" is not within the remit of anyone bar the appropriate professionals. One can suggest it might be a solution to an immediate crisis, but the process is vastly misunderstood and often seems utterly counter-intuitive to a lay person.

It's all a very fraught, often frustrating and sometimes tragic process and certainly not a quick and easy fix as some seem to think.

I wouldn't say it's taking ownership, just regular casual English (so, not exact, quite colloquial.) But if so, I would presume because it was upsetting for them, and they may feel guilt for doing it and as though it's 'their fault' because they set it in motion, worry that it was the wrong thing to do, or perhaps wish they'd done it sooner.

I'm not sure why anyone would 'boast' about that. I'm surprised that's the conclusion someone would jump to, but fair enough.

ETA: I think people tend to use that phrasing for something that wouldn't have happened without them initiating the process. So, "I got DH to go to the GP yesterday," or "I got the kids' teeth sorted" to someone who knew they needed a dental check up – even though the dentist did the work on their teeth.