Listen(ers) again.
If you'd like a second chance to hear some of the interviews with iPM listeners featured on this week's programme click on the players below:
Listener Jen Johnson worried about the disappearance of her son after he was discharged from hospital:
Listener Heather Howells wants Cheryl Gillan MP to hold a public meeting about MP's expenses:
Listener and former police officer Mike spoke out against compensation culture:
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I just wanted to say that it's easy to attack social workers and community-based psychiatric staff, who are vastly overworked and under-appreciated and who carry levels of personal responsibility for their clients' lives which journalists seem not to appreciate. It may be that a mistake was made in Leeds, and if so that is of course regrettable. But nobody is ever released back into the community following sectioning without close professional support which is regularly re-evaluated. Needless to say those charged with the care of an individual cannot possibly discuss his or her case in public, which makes stories like the one raised today so potentially misleading because so entirely one-sided. By all means discuss a fault that has occurred, but with the client concerned centrally involved, as well as experienced psychiatrists and community-based psychiatric nurses working in the hard-pressed NHS mental health sector who can explain something of the nature of decision-making which may result in decisions which not be acceptable to close family members, although entirely in a vulnerable client's best interest.
Complain about this comment
The above text is interesting. As was the programme itself. It does start with its listeners doesn't it? iPM?
Todays programme screamed "personal responsibility" to me at least. I chuckled when someone wanted their MoP to hold a meeting - about the expenses business - or stand on a soap box? - as "promised" by ones Party's leader. An offer of a one to one? Take it - take it!
That wish is even more "amusing" if you knew which constituency my family live in. Take the one to one. lol
I listened to Jen Johnson's story and sympathised with her. You do not have to take sides - praise or condemn anyone. I was pleased she verified her son's safety after a week of doubt.
Subject: tippy toeing around
Anagram: GOP painter - I on duty
Take the one to one. Now to make peace with the missus. lol
Complain about this comment
simonpete121,your comments remind me of a friend who became very defensive when I related a very similar story, as that of Jen's son. It was the psychiatric staff however that supported us, which lead to the social workers accepting our assistance, after we found a solicitor.
He not busy being born
Complain about this comment
Simonpete121, I can understand how frustrated it must make you feel when colleagues appear to be criticised for something that is either not their fault or out of their control. However, as the person being interviewed, I can assure you that at no time did anyone from either social services or the hospital contact me, as "nearest relative" to let me know that my son had been discharged. This was more than "regrettable", it was extremely distressing for me, and very upsetting for my son when he discovered I had not been informed.
More importantly, it potentially put my son at risk because no-one knew where he was after his discharge! Those charged with his care were legally obliged to discuss with me, as his "nearest relative", the decision to discharge him and what aftercare he was to receive. It was telling that in the Trust's statement they said nearest relative's MAY be consulted. I think that speaks for itself.
The client concerned, in this case my son, WAS involved in the discussion, even though he did not speak on the radio. He is intelligent and articulate, please do not assume that at the stage of the interview he was unable to make rational decisions. It was agreed that the interview would only go ahead with his permission.
As for the journalism in this case I believe you are entirely wrong. The journalist in this case, Chris Vallance, was bringing a very important matter to the public's interest and, in my view, cared about the subject he was reporting on. And it is in the public interest that we get our systems right in the NHS so that vulnerable people are protected. And as someone has already pointed out, iPM is about the listeners' stories.
Instead of being defensive you should be prepared to "listen" and take on board the issue that was raised. I cannot go into the absolute detail of this case but I can tell you that your statement in incorrect in more than one area! Who's responsibility was it to get things right in this case?
Jen
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS