Aah Yes, mental health. Isn't it interesting that after Martin Bryant ran amock with a rifle in Pt Arthur, that everyone blamed the gun. No one blamed the mental health system for failing to protect both victims and perpetrator. No one blamed the de-institutionalisation policy for allowing a very dangerous person to wander the streets. And still, we get them back out the door as soon as possible, it sure is cheaper that way. But it is a pity that we can no longer ensure that the simplest things, like medication, is maintained, without which the entire policy is a failure. But I'm not too sure that the victims families appreciate the savings.

Perseus,
As a survivor {victim} I can assure you that the survivor's family do not appreciate the savings. They would rather recieve proper treatment for their family member.

You draw a very interesting analogy with Martin Bryant, my illness is not of that type, however the specture you have raised could have enormous ramifications.

Could you hazard a guess as to why a government with a projected budget surplus of $17 billion wouldn't deal with Health, including mental health?

Interesting question, Shonga. I suspect part of the problem is that proper treatment of some mental illness can involve the removal of the patient's freedom to act according to their wishes. And rather than develop a clear philosophical position as to exactly when why and how a patients freedom is subordinated to the communities responsibility to care, they just shovelled them out the door in the hope that neither patient nor public will come to harm.

This is probably also driven by legal liability issues. If the person is in the care of a responsible entity then the entity has greater obligations that are easily established. But if they are not in care then there is a much bigger burden to establish that the act of letting the patient go, was negligent.

Again, it comes back to a refusal to confront the issue of when a patients immediate desires are subordinated to the communities duty of care.

This issue also has a city vs regional dimension. In the city, a wrongfull discharge can release the patient into a highly stressful environment with illdefined support obligations, even complete anonymity. But in the smaller towns this is less likely but the release may also mean the loss of privacy for the patient who is returned to the community in a condition that may adversely impact on their capacity to regain their former social and economic position.

Either way it is a cop out and it sucks.

This article seems to be about encouraging us to take an interest in our own health. As I said in a previous health topic, if most of us looked after our homes, cars and businesses in the way we look after our bodies, then our homes etc would be uninsurable.

I'm going to talk about the way I see things and I hope this will be accepted in good faith and not regarded as me being self satisfied, because that is not the case.

I have never smoked, done drugs, been a heavy drinker, or been overweight. [Nothing to do with religion BTW.] Ever since I was a little kid, I have been very physically active. When I was 16, my mother told me that the best way to meet girls was to learn to dance. How true! It's also healthy exercise and improves balance, posture, flexibility and muscle tone. And if you can dance, you don't need a few beers before you dare approach a girl.

I indulge myself now and again with a bit of tasty fast food, but my general diet is mainly healthy. When I was a kid, I loved cakes and biscuits, but I listen to my body and over the years have found myself gradually not wanting that kind of food. I go dancing 4 or 5 times a week and some of the dances include supper. As I don't eat cakes, sweet biscuits, meat pies, sausage rolls and suchlike, I generally do without [unless there's chocolate which I do enjoy]. Some of my overweight friends notice that I'm not eating and ask what's wrong with me.

I also swim every morning and do resistance exercises in the pool. I'm not inclined to put on a lot of weight easily [maybe genetic, maybe lifestyle], but if I wasn't careful I'd have some extra just where I don't want it, around the middle. To me, it's a point of honour that I can wear the same trousers I have worn for years and, if necessary, I modify my food intake.

[cont]

I'm careful what I put on my body and use around my home. Read The Chemical Maze by Bill Statham and books by Dr Peter Dingle of Murdoch University in Perth.

I have also taken health supplements for many years and I know what I am taking and why. Some would say that I am wasting my money, but my GP, a physiotherapist I saw after I tore a muscle in my chest mixing cement and a specialist I had cause to see a little while ago all believe that the supplements are part of the reason for my remarkable fitness level.

When I was working full time, I had term insurance on my life. Because I was a lifetime non-smoker, I got 40% discount on the premium. But there is no incentive to have a healthy lifestyle when it comes to private health insurance, which I prefer not to have. And I have to pay GST on my supplements, so the govt is taxing me for helping to save them money.

I don't believe that we can have a health system based on user pays. But I strongly believe that it should be based at least to some extent on abuser pays. If that meant that I would pay a little more for my wine, pizza and fish and chips, then I would understand and agree.

There are no guarantees in life, but we can shorten the odds or lengthen them. And presumably that's what health funding strategies are based on.

I was born in 1934, so you can figure out my age.

2006 - 1934 = 72 whoopie years!
Good on you Rex. Thank you for your post.
Cheers
Kaay