Ship of Fools: How does God meet mental health issues?

Thread: How does God meet mental health issues? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023157

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

On a day when the House of Commons had a debate on mental health elsewhere a doctor was slapped on the wrists for crossing the boundary of faith and mental health care.

BBC report here , and through links to previous reports

Where can the church place itself as having something to offer to in this area in the face of this kind of publicity?

Was it persecution and a faith based comment taken to an extreme that was not intended as claimed?

Or is this simply a loose canon Christian?

What is an 'expressly Christian' medical service - and how does it differ to the norm?

A patient's faith can be seen by some parts of the mental health care professions as symptomatic. (And pyschoses do tend to express themselves in whatever 'beyond the tangible' reference points people have, so religion can be part of the language people reach for to explain what is going on for them.)

Where and how can faith and mental health be in conversation in a positive way without the extremes of faith being offered as a fix it all, or dismissed as a pathological symptom?

What good examples have you encountered?

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Here in the US we have a field called Pastoral Psychology, which trains clergy for clinical practice in a way that integrates mental health counseling with insights from religion. It's quite successful. And of course there are Christian counseling centers everywhere.

The sense I've gotten (and I'm a trained social worker) is that many, if not most clinical psychologists and psychiatrists see a person's faith as something that can be used to promote their mental health. Even therapists who are themselves agnostic or atheists will say that. In fact that crusty old atheist Albert Ellis co-wrote a book on the topic with a Mormon and an evangelical shortly before he died. I recommend it.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
BBC report here

Wow - that is a very interesting report.

Sorry if this isn't directly relevant to your OP but exactly what happened in this case is far from clear.

Obviously someone would need the record of the hearing to make a fair comment but the GP seems to be claiming that he has been found guilty on the testimony of his accuser alone.

If that is true then it is disturbing. My initial impression was that the GP got what he deserved, but now I'm not so sure.

If this all happened as the GP shared his own personal world view after the man had asked him to and if the quotes given are how the man interpreted what the GP said rather than direct quotes from the GP himself then that is a very different situation.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If this all happened as the GP shared his own personal world view after the man had asked him to and if the quotes given are how the man interpreted what the GP said rather than direct quotes from the GP himself then that is a very different situation.

"After the man had asked him to" is not how I would describe the situation.

The problem, judging from the last part of the report, is that on the GP's own testimony it still seems to have been the GP who started the faith discussion. He did start by asking the patient's permission to go into the topic of faith, but it was still the GP's idea and not the patient's.

Even if the patient said "go for it", the patient couldn't possibly know just what the GP was planning to say. It seems very, very dangerous territory for a GP to initiate the topic in those circumstances.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

PS I have to say I am struggling mightily with the notion of an 'expressly Christian' medical service. Medical science doesn't depend on the faith of the doctor. Medicine is not the ONLY method of dealing with a mental health issue or any other problem, but if you're providing medical services then surely you're doing that within the sphere of medical science.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I sometimes find something of a 'blame' culture in Chritian attitudes for things which are not of the sufferer's choice. 'Sins' and 'demons' can sometimes be blamed for neurological, mental and psychological problems.

Jesus did it didn't he? He assumed things like epilepy were cured by 'casting out demons'. No fault there, he was a person of his time and knew no different.

But bringing 1st century attitudes into medicine today is perverse imo.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem, judging from the last part of the report, is that on the GP's own testimony it still seems to have been the GP who started the faith discussion. He did start by asking the patient's permission to go into the topic of faith, but it was still the GP's idea and not the patient's.

My point was that (from the BBC webpage at least) it is not clear exactly how this conversation started.

I agree with your assessment that it doesn't look good but I'd like to know the context of the entire consultation before passing judgement.

I'm just saying that it doesn't look good but I could imagine two scenarios (at least) from this report - one which would be damning for the GP and one which would be okay.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Words cannot express the wrongness of this consultation, as presented. It is as wrong as liturgical dance. It is as wrong as flag waving. It is not better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick.

So where does Christianity enter a medical consultation? Only in Grace. The Grace to listen, the Grace to précis, and the grace to shut the hell up about your own beliefs and prejudices.

If you want to spout your own brand of heresy, the consultation is not the place. Join the Ship praps.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

And if a patient asks about faith, then you still shut the hell up. The power differential calls for nothing less. Particularly for the vulnerable.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
And if a patient asks about faith, then you still shut the hell up. The power differential calls for nothing less. Particularly for the vulnerable.

From what I've read I disagree with the GP.

However, I was going on the comment that the Bethesda Medical Centre was "expressly Christian" and assuming that it was an independent Christian ministry and the guy happened to be a GP.

Having said that, I've just googled the medical centre (while composing this post) and it is just an NHS medical centre. Nothing "expressly Christian" about their webpage at all.

So, I take it back. [Hot and Hormonal]

Orfeo and Patdys continue your rant.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

quote:
Having said that, I've just googled the medical centre (while composing this post) and it is just an NHS medical centre. Nothing "expressly Christian" about their webpage at all.

JohnnyS - I don't know what you were reading on the Bethesda Medical Practice web page but the quote below is from their "Ethos" link.

Looks specifically Christian to me.

quote:
The six partners are all practising Christians from a variety of churches and their faith guides the way in which they view their work and responsibilities to the patients and employees. The Partners feel that the offer of talking to you on spiritual matters is of great benefit. If you do not wish this, that is your right and will not affect your medical care.

Please tell the doctor (or drop a note to the Practice Manager) if you do not wish to speak on matters of faith.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Thanks for pointing that out, Nicodemia - I only got as far as the front page.

I don't think it changes anything though. They are a local NHS GP clinic. Surely speaking about matters of faith should be an opt in rather than opt out thing in such a context.

But then, I am such a wishy-washy liberal.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, but it's still a medical centre with staff who are Christians. NOT a Christian centre that offers medicine as a service.

[x-post with Johnny]

[ 15. June 2012, 08:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Please tell the doctor (or drop a note to the Practice Manager) if you do not wish to speak on matters of faith.

Talking about matters of faith should definitely be opt-in, not opt-out, Christian health centre or not.

From the article:

quote:
In an 11-page finding, the GMC committee said the GP told the psychologically disturbed patient, known as Patient A, he was not going to offer him any medical help, tests, or advice.

This is completely out of line and very frightening. There is absolutely no way that any patient - let alone someone vulnerable with mental health problems - should be treated in this way.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

I agree that the report doesn't give us enough detail of the case in question to act as judge. And yet I find the medical centre's 'expressly Christian' ethos disturbing.

It feels like a disclaimer identity - such as notices telling you the shop takes no responsibilty for your car in the car park. It is there simply to say that if anyone tries to sue us on this we can say that we told them at the start. And the fact that it is tucked away on a back page about how you opt out of that is a bit like hiding in the small print.

I wonder how big the notices are about it in the surgery itself???

Away from the specifics -
In the face of pubilicity like this, and the stigma of mental health issues at the best of times without extra religious guilt labelling, how can the churches offer support to those affected? And how do we make it safe spaces for them to come?

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

My GP is a Christian. I can't remember how this came up in conversation but she's never tried to bother me about it. I remember once I attended her surgery in a seriously psychotic state and utterly mental. She gave me the usual antipsychotics and contacted the usual people and then said she'd light a candle for me on Sunday. I can't explain how much that meant to me at the time. It would be an altogether different thing if she'd said that I needed to believe X or Y to be cured.

As to other mental health professionals I've seen, and over the years there have been many, they've all accepted my faith as being part of me, sometimes it's been discussed as when I'm psychotic it takes a religious turn but they've never tried to make me believe in anything.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

The key is that you were asked about your faith and supports and these were bolstered or encouraged. This is entirely appropriate and entirely different to the doctor pushing their belief. On any day, I can encourage involvement in the church, the bowls club, the quilting group or the local drifting car club. If I were to push my religion, everyone would be riding bikes, drinking Shiraz and diving as well as doing churchy things. The lycra alone could make you shudder.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If this is accurate: "... the GMC committee said the GP told the psychologically disturbed patient ... that if the patient did not "turn towards Jesus then he would suffer for the rest of his life"." it is absolutely appalling. It is third rate psychology and fourth rate 'evangelism'.

God meets my mental health issues by embracing me unconditionally with them.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I work in the NHS and quite a few of the people I work with have disclosed to me they attend churches. I've only ever responded by saying that if that helps and is positive for them then it's great. I've also told one or two I attend church but left it at that. Anymore and it's registration losing territory.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

My doctors surgery is Christian, but I think in an admirable way. Is it chance that in one of the most mixed up areas of the city a group of Christian GPs runs a medical service that not only deals with the normal people but also deals with the street drinkers and people on the margins and has done for over twenty years. I suspect the largest single faith group amongst patients is Muslim.

Do I talk faith with my GP? Yes, always have done but it is me who started it, right back at my first consultation, I picked it up from the handout much to his surprise. Has he ever given me advice about my faith. Yes, to not be so involved in the Church and to take things more easily.

Can a Christian practice be a good thing. On the basis of my local GPs surgery, the answer would seem to be yes.

Jengie

p.s. afaik they tend to be evangelical Anglican, originally doctors from Christ Church Fulwood but they definitely recruit wider than that.

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

I think there is a time and a place to talk about faith. For me I do not wish this to be in the doctor's surgery. I think that the doctor's faith should be their personal business, and my faith should be my personal business. I don't mind my GP praying for his patients if he so chooses, but personally I would rather not be informed as it is not really my place to know.

I did at one point go for faith healing and it turned out to be not what I needed. I do believe that faith, and prayer, can bring about healing but is not a cure for a medical condition. I also have refused treatment in the past because I was convinced that my issues were actually demon possession, which eventually led to me going for the faith healing.

Thing is, I think that for any other illness, faith wouldn't come into it. But often mental illnesses affect behaviour, and that behaviour can be seen as a lack of faith or the result of demons.

As for how does God meet my mental health issues, I would hope that he sees the person underneath all the strange ideas and the behaviour that follows.

Apologies if this makes no sense. I am having a lot of trouble expressing myself lately.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Chaplains in hospital are considered a good thing.

Are there any incidences of having chaplaincy at primary health care level?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

A doctor always gives his or her opinion, it's what people want. If a doctor advises a patient to believe in himself that's OK, but he's not allowed to advise the patient to believe in Jesus, even though in this case the doctor made it very clear that it was his own faith perspective and the surgery was openly Christian.

He didn't suggest demon possession, but did make a connection between the devil and the illness. Is this unreasonable, given that illness is a bad thing? Some people may find the externalisation of evil a helpful way of identifying and rejecting it.

What niggles me about this case isn't talk of Jesus or the devil, although a very cautious tread is necessary when bringing either into the conversation. What I find uncomfortable is the suggestion that without faith there could be no respite from the illness. This could lead someone to despair.

Belief in Jesus may help some people to filter out harmful thoughts and tendencies over time, to hand over heavy mental burdens to God, and to cast our fears and anxieties: all of which are beneficial to mental health.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Speaking in general and not specifically to this event (since, like Johnny S, the facts of the case don't seem clear to me from the news article), most of the mentally ill people I know tend to get easily tangled up with religious thoughts. That being the case, I'd expect responsible medical personnel would hesitate to dive into religious talk, particularly religious talk, which could so easily be construed as pressuring or manipulative... [Frown]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Obviously someone would need the record of the hearing to make a fair comment but the GP seems to be claiming that he has been found guilty on the testimony of his accuser alone.

Here's the text of the Investigation Committee's decision, which describes the testimony given during the hearing.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Obviously someone would need the record of the hearing to make a fair comment but the GP seems to be claiming that he has been found guilty on the testimony of his accuser alone.
Here's the text of the Investigation Committee's decision, which describes the testimony given during the hearing.

Fair enough. He got what he deserved. Seems like the judgement was spot on.

Thanks Dave.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Agreed, carried ! Yet we will see another mythic Christian martyr extolled elsewhere I'm sure. I'm sure there were good Christians (...) on the GMC, God bless them regardless.

I wonder what Adrian Warnock, damnationist psychiatrist has to say?

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

I think the thing that most irritates me is the divide between mental and physical illness. It would appear this doctor thinks Christ is the sole answer for mental illness. That is fine if he believes the same for diabetes or asthma. And then, surely this practice should be a church and not a surgery. Why have a surgery? And then to fight it like he has according to that report. The most important healing words are 'I am sorry'.

I am sick and tired of the artificial divide and resulting prejudice between physical and emotional health at every level from consumer to provider.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I have a very big problem with any "Christian" doctor blaming a patient's persistent symptoms on the devil/attempting to scare the hell, more or less, out of the patient by telling them they're running headlong into hell by not taking the doctor's subjective, un-clinical, unprofessional spiritual advice. At the risk of offending some readers, it smacks of witchdoctor. And I don't think that, "Well, it's a Christian clinic, so the patient should be prepared to hear a Christian point of view," is a justification for this sort of nuttiness and religious aggression.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I didn't read the whole thing, & didn't catch that he was trying to scare the patient or tell him he was running into hell. If true, of course it was to be condemned as it would do nothing but harm to the patient's mental health.

If it was the case that there was no other treatment offered than the advice to believe in Jesus, I agree that every other avenue should have been explored as well.

While emotional and physical health issues inevitably run into each other, there surely is a real divide in the way they are and should be treated by medical professionals. I fully agree that there should be no stigma attached to emotional health issues, which may be as debilitating as any other health problem.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

My GP is a Christian as are most of the doctors in the practice, but he only talks about faith if I raise the subject (which I often do as I find his views helpful in my Christian journey). I find it disturbing that yet again a professional person is discriminating against the mentally ill. I'm sure he doesn't refuse to treat an ear infection unless the patient turns to Jesus. I find it quite appropriate that the GMC found against his unethical behaviour.

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

I also hate the distinction between mental and physical health issues. As far as I am aware my brain is connected to the rest of my body. And I have physical symptoms when my anxiety is bad, plus chronic pain definitely puts a downer on my mood. I take medication for physical issues and I take medication for mental issues. I do exercise to reduce my pain levels and I do talking therapy to work through my anxiety.

So where is the difference?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0