Most people with mental health problems are routinely subjected to physical and sexual abuse or theft by their neighbours, a new study indicates.
Nearly three quarters of those suffering from conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have been victimised in the community at least once in the past two years, with one in ten being sexually assaulted, according to a report by the mental health charity Mind.
A survey by the charity found that 41 per cent of respondents complained of persistent bullying, 27 per cent of sexual harrassment and 10 per cent of sexual assault. Just over a third – 34 per cent – said that they had also been victims of theft or financial crime, and a quarter had their homes targeted.
Comparisons with previous studies suggest that the problem is increasing, with the latest figures showing that people with mental health problems are far more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violent crime. Yet the study suggests that many crimes go unreported, with vulnerable adults feeling stigmatised by the police and legal system because of their illness.
The last study I read of victimisation in the community was published ten years ago and painted an equally bleak picture. It seems like there has been a failure to meet standard one of the National Service Framework: -
Health and social services should:
* promote mental health for all, working with individuals and communities
* combat discrimination against individuals and groups with mental health problems, and promote their social inclusion.
What’s to be done? Attempts to cast mental illness as a biological entity, in the same vein as diabetes or asthma, seem to have done little to reduce the stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that biological explanations make negative attitudes worse. The study linked to there suggests anti-stigma campaigns focus on ways of increasing contact with the users of mental health services. How do you think this could be achieved?
Loading ...
*hides*
6 Comments
I think abuse of the vulnerable is wholly unacceptable, I’ve been involved in 7 POVA cases in the last month alone.
What I don’t get is if this study is reporting an association or a causation. Is it that mental illness is an indicator for the sort person who’s likely to be abused, but the real reason isn’t the illness itself? Some of it will be, but I’ve no notion what proportion that might be. Too, what’s the background rate? If you asked all their neighbours who didn’t have mental illness would you get similar rates from responders (since those most likely to respon are those who’ve had such negative experiences so in surveys we know are most likely to respond, having something to respond with).
This sort of study is useful but I rather feel it is selling itself short. 1 in 4 people will have mental illness at some point in their lives. For this quarter of the population to reckon on persistent bullying (11% of total population), 27% to have sexual harrassment (7% of the total population including children and elderly), 9% of the UK to have been a victim of theft or financial crime, 6% of folk having their home targetted, 3% of our total population having experienced sexual assault . . .
. . . is it that this is significantly above background rates for these things, and if so, is it that you’ve simply got responses from victims who, obviously, will say they’ve had a bad experience but this shouldn’t be as widely generalised as MIND suggest?
Maybe I’m just getting simpler, but I find studies harder to suss out nowadays unless they tell me in plain terms, this is x percent more common than with their neighbours/other control group, and we suggest this is because of blah.
Still it is very good that they’re highlighting the issue of vulnerability and a need to get better at stamping this out.
POVA Protection of Vulnerable Adults ?
How does the legislation work for people in the community ? If it does not apply are people left with recourse only to agencies like the police and the council etc ?
Sorry, POVA is indeed Protection Of Vulnerable Adults, yes.
And happily it does apply in the community. In fact, thankfully, it’s vanishingly rare for it to be needed in hospitals. Sadly, it is needed in residential and nursing homes. Ho hum.
A combination of POVA and Guardianship can protect people in the community and ensure they get the care they need and deserve without recourse to police or Council. Most of the tim.
Survey respondents are a self-selected sample, and open to all sorts of biases. They capture the views of people who have something to say in the first place (those who are ambivalent or who haven’t had any particularly bad experience being more likely not to respond); the questionnaire may be such that only those who are able to read it and understand how to fill it in will respond, adding another bias - it goes on.
However, having said that, they can provide a snapshot of what’s going on out there. And frankly, I think that if 27% of any other section of the population was being regularly sexually harassed, we would have heard about it by now
This is purely an anecdotal impression, but my own experience is that the most common form by far of abuse of the mentally ill is financial abuse.
Funny how the local schizophrenic always suddenly becomes Mr Popular with the neighbourhood junkies when he’s just had his benefits come through.
Aside the community statistics (and sorry beakie for the critical analysis of the Mind report - I feel like I ’stole the thunder’ of the real issue, that being ‘abuse of vulnerable people’), there does remain for me some concern regarding the covert (as well as overt) in-patient abusive practices where I have worked.
Many times this is subtle and rarely becomes a noticed issue, usually because the patient becomes or is disempowered by the service and often by the (misinterpreted) provisions of the MHA.
I’m talking mostly of ‘controlled care’ issues in mental health institutes where we apply ‘duty of care’ principles to restrictive practices we use. I still see places where cigarettes are rationed (or sometimes denied to elderly patrons) even tho they are part of that persons life choices. Denied on the basis that someone believes, because they are bad for you, that we have a right and responsibility to stop it. Same thing goes for anything where ‘risk’ might be involved. But if it is risk to the person and not to others (which does not include risk to the health care professional - that’s part of their job) then it should be facilitated.
The other abuses identified are equally important and there is a need to address the causative factors (as discussed in me other posting) that face mentally ill people in the community. My guessing is it is mostly to do with housing people in cheaper places which inherently accommodates other forms of vulnerable or disadvantaged people. The ‘inner-city’ developments (USA aka Skid Row) are no better than the old asylums when they seek to place people in isolated and deprived areas.
But here we are again with the Nimbys. Hands up who wants to build a safe place for the ‘mentally ill’ in their cul-de-sac?
One Trackback
[...] a good thing we keep so many mentally ill in hospital - just think how high the Mind report for community abuse figures would be if we [...]