Sunday, May 16, 2021

Comments by mecarlym

Showing 14 of 14 comments.

  • Yeah, so when I first saw this title “How Can Mental Health Research Become More Relevant to Those it is Meant to Serve?”, I thought Gee Maybe ask the people who are actually physically impacted by mental health “treatment”, instead of gathering into echo chambers, congratulating each other on drug research about pills you will never be forced to take
    Because if you’re talking about the research as being meant to serve the “consumers” then try asking the “consumers”
    And then I read the article (which yes it took me this long to get in the mindset to read through it) and, besides thinking ‘Why did I read that…’, the comment by ‘oldhead’ here under this comment section perfectly sums it up and reframes this article in a more accurate light – “Who IS such research “meant to serve?”
    Because, speaking as someone who has personally been in the MH system and works in the MH system, it definitely seems that the “consumer” of those services in the MH system is not part of the group which the research is meant to serve, even though the “consumer” community is the one who is directly/personally/physically/and in every way impacted by the results of that research and how providers use and interpret that research. Why?
    But if you’re talking about how the research is meant to serve everyone else besides the “consumer”, then no questions need to be asked because that’s the reality already

  • yeah – I’ve seen in and experienced this myself through the various jobs I’ve had as “peer supporter” – and the funny thing I’ve noticed is how the “peer supporter” staff had that ability for introspection way more so than the clinical staff, gee maybe because we’ve actually done the hard work of introspection…
    anyway, that’s why I do not share details of my story of crap-diagnosis history with my coworkers because its hard enough to be known as the “peer supporter” and seen as less “professional”, less important because I don’t have those silly letters after my name, knowing my history/diagnoses will only change the way they see me and I know they’ll just start assessing me

  • Maybe the “peer” supervisor position was getting really bad support from their supervisor. That’s a lot of stress to endure with no support
    Mental Health problems are not only going to happen to “peer” staff – all employees should be thought of the same – just because you have a “peer” position does not mean that you are more susceptible succumbing to the stress of the job (a job which is often overworked and under appreciated) – just that the spotlight is on the “peer” staff because everyone knows about their MH issues – and a “peer” coworker struggling at work is not necessarily because of their MH issue, and it does disservice to the other “peer” staff to immediately think they’re struggling because of their MH issue

  • Yes agree with “No, those who realize that psychiatry is a criminal enterprise should refuse to lend it legitimacy with their presence. And the “hospitals” should be razed.”
    Just like every system built on torture and death, psychiatry is inherently flawed/evil
    What I mean is while things are the way they are (psychiatry trying to and in some places successfully co-opting “peers”)I think its important for “peers” to be present everywhere, and try to fight the system from within, although the longer I do that the more frustrated I get. But it won’t work if the “peer support” training and supervisor is through the medical/clinical model.

  • This article highlights the problem with the mental health system co-opting the peer movement and creating the position of ‘peer support workers’ –
    The problem is not the make-up of the peer support role or the peer movement itself – the problem is the mental health system tokenizing this role and throwing peer supporters in dangerous situations like the one stated in the article with clinical-based peer support training (but in the article context I don’t know what their training was like) and no support or supervision from peers and not clinical people.
    With real support and training based in the “peer” movement, peer supporters can work in “acute” hositpal settings and should definitely be present there

  • “The first is called the “Action Over Inertia” (AOI) initiative, which is a manualized treatment encouraging individuals to reflect on the meaningful change they want, followed by “supporting individuals in activity and participation experiments and longer-term commitments aligned with their personal preferences and performance needs.” The AOI also emphasizes connecting people to service organizations.”
    I really hope that “manualized treatment” actually stays true to what the “service-user” wants, and not what the agency thinks they should want. And I really hope that last sentence “…connecting people to service organizations,” doesn’t just mean ‘you, service-user, need case management in your life so we are going to connect you with that type service organization.’
    If this is meant to be a real shift, then I hope it is not filtered through the lens of narrow scope of the system already in place.
    “The authors state that peer support models may be a useful avenue for implementing these kinds of interventions into existing services, given that peer support can promote community-based opportunities for engagement and mutual care.”
    That sentence just reads ridiculous to me. “…may be a useful avenue…” May be?
    If what this article is saying is ‘Here’s a great idea for a way to re-define and reshape the way “service-providers” approach and practice with the people they work with’ then of course peer support is part of that – that is what peer support is, that is how peer support functions – not as an extension of pre-packaged treatment, but it offers the unique perspective of someone who’s been there/is there and who understands the importance of holistic approach and the importance of community, in all the ways that that can be defined

  • Thank you for writing this. I’ve been throwing that thought around in my mind for years. When first introduced to the peer-support world and heard about this ‘story thing’, I saw it for good and I saw it for the damage it does. Sometimes, people telling their story (which is where the battle in my mind begins, because after all it is their story and who am I to tell someone how or in which context they should tell their story), mostly the way and the context in which it was being told, resulted in ‘Ehhh, something seems not okay about this’… So, I realized its not about their specific story, but how it was being used or how its not being told through their voice… In my current role in life, I talk about this whenever I can and what sharing means

  • I don’t like these online comment things, and rarely do them. I’d rather have the in-person conversations because it’s such a chore to try to communicate in the first place…too much is lost in this platform – So, Sera Thank you for all you do. What you write and your perspective gives me hope in what I do – because it makes sense to me and i think “yes, that’s what I mean, those are my thoughts on the subject too!”. I am employed as a “Peer Support Specialist” in the state of Maine. It is difficult to be very aware of the serious cracks in the foundation of the mental health “system”, and its flaws and the murder and the pain and the life-ending damage and hypocrisy etc, and yet to be employed and working in/for the “system” at the same time. But dammit I need a job and part of my job is to not compromise my principles, and reading your stuff reaffirms and validates….this.