Madam, – We welcome the inspector of mental health services’ report. which for the first time collects data on medication prescription patterns and highlights in particular the overuse of sedatives in mental health units.
This finding is a reflection of a general increase, over the last 25 years, in prescribing psychopharmacological products as the main response to human distress. Similar concerns about overuse of such medications have been expressed over the years by groups and individuals affected by psychiatric treatment. Such concerns were again emphasised at a recent mental health recovery conference in University College Cork.
We note that lack of resources, such as understaffing due to cuts in budgets, have been offered as key explanations for the overuse of sedatives.
While no doubt resources play a role, there are much deeper issues which sustain the pharmacological approach as the almost exclusive response to people in distress. It is obvious that human distress continues to be framed primarily in biomedical terms. What is required is a paradigmatic shift from this narrow biomedical concept towards a much broader understanding of human experiences of distress.
We welcome the “urgent review” but we would argue that any review needs to be all- embracing in its remit rather than narrowly focusing on the over-use of sedatives.
Any review needs to consider the education of mental health professionals and identify good practices beyond pharmacology. It also needs to examine service-user experience of involvement in decision-making about care and treatment, as espoused by the Vision for Changemental health strategy.
What is ultimately required is a radical review in the way we understand, respond to and engage with human distress. – Yours, etc,