chibamSenior Contributor
Confused About Mental Health Policy (TW: Politics)
With the election looming, a lot of groups that focus on mental health & suicide have been throwing their 2 cents into the ring as to how a voter's interest in mental health ought to be influencing their vote. I'm subscribed to a fair few newsletters, ect. pertaining to mental health, and reform of the mental health system, and what frustrates me is that none of this material really tells you what's going on. They deal only in vagueries, or jargon that, I believe, few laymen would be able to properly understand.
This is a big deal. We need to know where our system is going and what our leaders are planning. Especially since there have been major calls for us consumers to be at the heart of shaping the future of the mental health system. But how can we participate in these conversations if we don't understand them?
One of the big names in mental health reform, Ian Hicke, recently made a statement about how his envisioned reform involves "new ways of coordinating services" and the adoption of resources like "big data... and new technology." But what does that actually mean? "New ways of coordinating services"? What new ways? What, specifically, does he want us to start doing that we aren't doing today? Give us some specific examples, please!
Likewise, "big data"? What sort of data? What sort of information are you going to record from us, and how will that be used?
On the surface, I can see how the ethical usage of recording a patient's needs, ambitions and character into "the cloud" could be an immense asset to the patients. If your going to match your patients with spouses, families, communities,workplaces, ect. that properly reflect who those patients are and tend to their personal needs, you probably are going to need a database that archives the character traits of numerous individuals and locales.
But is that what these leaders actually mean when they advocate for "big data"? There's no clarity to those sorts of ambiguous statements. And when you wade into the lengthier documents that these people publish, it doesn't get any better, because although they explain themselves with more words, it's all jargon, so you end up with no further clarity then you began with.
I'm no genius. But all the same, I can't believe that I would be unusual in my inability to understand this stuff. I reckon it would go over the heads of most laymen. It's almost like the conversation has been engineered to prevent the real, everyday patients from getting involved in it. And that's just wrong.
I just wish these people would talk in plain, simple english, so we all understood what, specifically is happening and what's being proposed for the future.
