Month: June 2019

Unrecovery As KerPlunk!

3mgi-fpr07_2

We have all played Kerplunk I hope. But as a recap there is a tube with holes, sticks are crisscrossed holding up some balls, and the trick is to remove the sticks without all the balls falling.

Our mental health is like a game of Kerplunk, and our issues are a combination of the balls and sticks. ‘Recovery’ is the ability to remove the sticks without the balls falling. As a slight adaptation to this analogy some of the balls can be removed by moving sticks, and ‘life’ adds balls all the time. The sticks are ‘safety’ adaptations that stop all the balls falling at once.

This game of Kerplunk is mostly played by us alone (in our own minds), so in this analogy the game is played in a room on your own. But we can always hear people telling us which sticks we ‘should’ remove, whilst we are sitting there looking at the problem, even though these people are not in the room with us. Government policy also demands we remove sticks, and moreover can add balls (as can other aspects of life), as well as remove sticks if we don’t keep an eye on them.

Unrecovery practices are an ad hoc practice, that is a temporary solution to keep control of our own Kerplunk game, knowing that a wrong move can send all the balls falling. ‘Bad’ recovery is one size fits all and insists on this or that stick must be removed, and then blames you when the balls fall. ‘Good’ Recovery, and other therapeutic practices, listens to your knowledge of what you can see of the game, and merely supports you with your autonomy whilst you play the game. This latter ideal however from our observation seems to be at odds with current government policy and market/ capitalist needs, as it doesn’t meet the outcomes measures of outside forces.

For those who don’t know the term, that I have added some changes to the games with sticks and balls being added and removed whilst you play, like a Heath Robinson machine, is what is called an assemblage. Unrecovery is an ad hoc practice with which to deal with such an assemblage.

Recovery In The Bin (RITB) is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License 88x31.png

I Won by Sam Ambreen

{CN for suicide, self harm, mental health}

13 months after my personal independence payments were cut, I won my 2nd tribunal. 13 months of crowdfunding my rent. 13 months of reducing my food intake, buying the cheaper brand, going without, and feeling humiliated but on Friday, a panel ruled in my favour. There was no objection from the DWP representative who, I could have sworn, was even crying at one point. I felt bad for scowling at her after that!

I self harmed 4 times during that period, when I absolutely could not comply with the measures I’ve worked at to protect myself. I dissociated more frequently. I got as far as buying the instruments I would need to end it. Drew up a plan. Resisted writing the suicide note because that would make it final, and only because the people around me pulled through when I shared my invasive thoughts (a thing I was only able to do because I’d been taught, by my first therapist). They reminded me I’d managed to survive this long because people wanted to help me. They made me think about the people who look to me for strength and how my demise would impact on them. I didn’t really care in that split second but when the feverish urges passed I felt a bit sheepish I’ll admit. People do take strength from my courage.

When the DWP cut me off and sent me their decision, they said they were not disputing the fact that I had these disabilities just whether or not I qualified for personal independence payments. 13 months on and I’ve just been told I do. So was it really necessary to put me through this? What is its purpose otherwise? Survival of the fittest? It’s not strictly true anymore though is it? I’m nowhere near the fittest but I have recourse; to advocates, to friends who work in the public sector and health professionals who actually listen. Perhaps this mum didn’t?

Even with all the support I have, I came the closest I ever have to ending it. I didn’t enjoy asking for help, again and again, I was isolated and lonely as a result. I might be an anarcho-communist but I still have the hardwiring of a society that celebrates charity as a virtue but not if you’re on the receiving end. The shame still lingers. I didn’t want to die, I felt I had no other choice.

Recently I read about a young woman called Holly Cowlam who took her own life when she was diagnosed with depression. Holly had been studying psychology and so had some understanding of mental health. I get the sense, because she knew her chances in life would be greatly affected, as they are in a society that demonises mental health, she felt she had no other option. I know what that’s like; the shame and hopelessness. I refused to acknowledge my own mental health for 20 years, telling myself I was stronger than those others who had succumbed. In the end, you can’t really prevent it. I am the sum total of all the violence and treachery inflicted on me but with the right support, and freedom, and protection, I know I can get better.

holly-cowlam

What I do not need, and could have really done without, was being treated like I’m making it up. As a repeat victim of sexual and domestic violence, gaslighting is a straight up trigger for my PTSD. Being treated like I am insignificant and somehow asking for more than what is my right, having paid into a system for many years and on an emergency tax code more often than not (I did a lot of temp work because I was sick even then only I wouldn’t admit it) eventually wore me down in a way my mental and physical conditions do not, because I believe I can overcome them (to an extent). I needed time and space to heal not to be hindered by a cruel and abusive process.

Advocates for humanity must ramp up the pressure on this government and demand justice for all those who’ve needlessly died in our country. The architects of social cleansing must be tried for their crimes against our humanity.

You can judge a country by the way it treats its animals/poor/prisoners/women/disabled folk.

Republished (23/02/19) by kind permission, Sam Ambreen blogs at Left At The Lights

If you need help dealing with the DWP see our Advice Links page.

Note: PIP application processes generally require disclosure of diagnoses, medication, and supporting evidence, making it significantly discriminatory and arduous for many people. Professionals are often uninformed about how best to help people, this is a good guide.

Recovery In The Bin (RITB) is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License 88x31.png

The unRecovery Excellence Framework #uREF2019 – A request for peer reviewers.

81109FCE-0EE6-4E84-9912-EEFCAEEFA0BA

Recovery in the Bin would like to invite allies and peers to review a list Rita Bins has collated of publications that reference Recovery in the Bin!

What did Rita do? (Methods)

Rita collated a reference list after making a public request on Twitter and after systematically searching google scholar, google news and google search.  These tools were chosen as they are freely available to all on the internet – they are not hidden behind paywalls and do not need to be accessed via membership of an academic institution.

Rita decided that she would include all types of publications in her reference list, respecting and privileging all forms of publication democratically.  This included peer reviewed journals, books and textbooks, theses, reports, magazine and newspaper articles, blogs, presentations and posters.

To be included in this list, all publications were required to reference Recovery in the Bin OR explicitly name Recovery in the Bin (via a secondary citation or without providing a reference).  All publications by Recovery in the Bin were excluded.

What can I do to help Rita?

Please contact us via email recoveryinthebin@gmail.com or by Twitter DM @RITB_ if you notice that your publication has been omitted from Rita’s work.  Or indeed, if you have any corrections.  The full reference list can be found here.

What will Rita do next?

Once we have received feedback from our allies and peers, we will publish the unRecovery Excellence Framework #uREF2019 as a blog in due course.

We will also be working behind the scenes, under Rita Bins’ leadership, to synthesise and analyse what people are saying about us.  We will be publishing the methods and results of our survivor led scoping review in a journal.  Rita Bins is an unacademic with some impressive methodological and literary skills.

Rita would like to thank all translators who have supported this work:

Andreas Vedeler – Danish and Norwegian.

Recovery In The Bin (RITB) is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License 88x31.png

Neopaternalism – New Wave Paternalism In UK Mental Health Services

neopaternalism

Artwork by: @JADEELIZB

Neopaternalism refers to the practice, often seen in MH services, of professionals imposing their versions of ’empowerment’ and ‘independence’ etc. on individuals in their care regardless of the individuals own views. Typically, ‘independence’ in this context is near synonymous with discharge or cuts to care provision.

Neopaternalism prioritises the professional’s worldview, agenda, values and goals. As such, it mirrors traditional paternalism, but the content and language used is different. Emphasis on independence in neopaternalism is often framed as contrasting to traditional paternalism in which providing care is perceived as restricting a person’s liberty and autonomy. However, this obscures the fundamental similarity in which both approaches impose the powerful’s agenda on the less powerful.

Neopaternalism is in some ways worse than traditional paternalism, which at least resulted in some care. Traditional paternalism involved helping by ‘doing to’ an individual in their perceived best interests, whether or not the individual found it helpful. Neopaternalism involves ‘helping’ by not doing anything (supposedly ‘empowering’), whether or not the individual finds that helpful. Neopaternalism is oppression skulking behind an empowerment façade.

Neopaternalism pervades the co-opted neoliberal recovery approach which is every bit as coercive as other models: there is an obligation to recover, find certain things helpful & failure to do so is pathologised by both services (PD) & alternative models (sick role). Underlying neopaternalism is pressure on individuals to fulfil neoliberal policy outcomes, conflating individual/citizen needs with government agendas.

 Example:

“We’ve decided for you that you must not be dependent on us. Your opinion doesn’t matter because we are doing this for you, in your best interests. We are empowering you by discharging you to promote your independence. You must take responsibility. Nb We will not admit it has anything to do with neoliberal ideology or cuts”

Recovery In The Bin (RITB) is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License 88x31.png