Oh Look, A New Disorder…

The number of people in the UK who have a previously little-known eating disorder, in which those afflicted avoid many foods, has risen sevenfold in five years, figures show. The eating disorders charity Beat received 295 calls about avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (Arfid) in 2018 – comprising 2% of its 20,535 inquiries that year. However, it received 2,054 calls last year, which accounted for one in 10 of its 20,535 requests for help. Many were from children and young people or their parents.

Hardly surprising, mental illness appears to be Britain's sole growth industry these days. 

Arfid is much less well-known than anorexia or bulimia. It is “an eating disorder that rarely gets the attention it deserves”.

I can't help but feel that 'getting attention' is critical here, though maybe not as the experts would have it. 

The disorder can be especially challenging to diagnose because it has such a wide range of symptoms that include:

• Feeling full after eating only a few mouthfuls and struggling to consume more.
• Taking a long time over mealtimes or finding eating a chore.
• Sensitivity to the texture, smell or temperature of foods.
• Eating the same meals repeatedly or eating food only of the same colour, such as beige.

Coincidentally, another 'Guardian' article on the same day has this: 

Young people are more likely to be out of work because of ill health than people in their early 40s, a report calling for action on Britain’s mental wellbeing crisis has found. People in their early 20s with mental health problems may have not had access to a steady education and can end up out of work or in low-paid jobs, the Resolution Foundation research revealed.According to official data, 34% of people aged 18 to 24 reported symptoms of mental disorder, such as depression, anxiety or bipolar disorder in 2021-22. It is a significant increase on the 2000 figure of 24%, with young women one-and-a-half times more likely to be negatively affected.

Shocker, eh? 

Who'd Be A Cop These Days?

Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales.

ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest.

So he died of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD)? Not so, Reader, not so... 

In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”.

What else could the police do with someone who was not open to reason for two distinct causes - mental illness and illegal drugs? Of course he had to be restrained! Syill, at least this jury saw sense. 

Not so the coroner: 

Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent (Ed: Yes, Reader, she has form...), said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress.

Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.”

But he didn't die from ABD! He died as a result of taking illegal drugs! And you yourselves called the police... 

On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help.

And the police came and immediately helped by restraining him from smashing up the family house. How is it their fault that he died? Even with the threat of ABD death or extreme cocaine intoxication, they had no other choice.

In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk.

Of course not; the immediate threat had to be dealt with to stop other lives - yours, theirs - being put at risk. They did their job the best they could under the circumstances, and are you grateful? No.

Headlines For Our Times...

Melissa Mathieson was strangled by Jason Conroy at Alexandra House, which provides residential care for adults with autism and Asperger's syndrome, in Bristol in 2014.

Yes, Reader, that's right. Nine years ago... 

Conroy, now aged 27, was jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum term of 19 years for the killing. Bristol Crown Court heard that Alexandra Homes (Bristol) Ltd was charged with an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 last year following a lengthy investigation.

They aren't kidding with that 'lengthy'... 

Hours before her death, Miss Mathieson had complained to staff that Conroy was stalking her. Mr Sapiecha told the court that the company had failed in its duty to keep residents safe after being given information about the danger Conroy posed, including a report from psychiatrist Dr Hilary Grant. 'It cannot be said there was no warning at all,' he said.

In almost all of these cases, that's the case. There's plenty of warning, it hardly ever comes out of the blue. And yet, these supposed 'professionals' fail time after time.  

Andrew Langdon KC, defending, said the company had been trading for nearly 20 years and had an enviable reputation in the industry.

Yes, the key there is 'had'. 

A Locked Room, This Time..?

Ahsan Zia, 33, was suffering from delusions and hallucinations involving the late Queen and that there was a plot to rape and kill him, Newcastle Crown Court heard.

He launched a 28-second attack on Michael Matthews, 55, in his victim's room on the acute Fellside Wing of Newcastle's Hadrian Clinic in April last year.

If the races were reversed we'd be seeing this a bit further up the webpage, I suspect... 

Mr Dry said Zia had used cannabis the day before the attack, but there was no evidence that this had any influence on his behaviour when he lashed out.

No, just a stunning coincidence. Like all the other cases.  

Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Pablo Vandenabeele, via videolink, told the court Zia suffered from a treatment-resistant form of paranoid schizophrenia.

We put down rabid dogs. We don't send them to an animal shelter.  

Zia will be treated at the maximum security Rampton Hospital, the judge said.

Another triumph for the mental health advocates, no doubt.  

Wait, Isn't This A Good Thing..?

Britain is returning to the era of asylums, a top doctor has warned, after figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday show the number of mental health patients locked up in psychiatric hospitals against their will has spiralled over the past four decades.

Why is this considered a 'warning'..? We should be celebrating!

Experts say the situation is at least in part a symptom of a wider problem in the NHS: the practice of defensive medicine. This is when doctors offer treatment or an intervention that may not be warranted, simply in order to avoid the possibility of a complaint or legal action should something go wrong.

I'm not sure why they should be so worried, since they are hardly ever face any consequences... 

Retired consultant psychiatrist and Care Quality Commission reviewer Dr Duncan Double said: ‘When I started working on an acute psychiatric ward in 1984, we used to pride ourselves on having an open-door policy.

‘In the 1960s and 1970s there was a drive to close old psychiatric institutions in favour of supporting mental health patients in the community, but, if anything, things have become more bureaucratic and more restrictive.

‘Doctors have become more fearful of public safety or being blamed, so may be more likely to section patients inappropriately. We’ve returned to the worst aspects of the asylums era.’

No, we've returned to the best aspects of them - they kept people safe from the mentally ill and the mentally ill safe from themselves. 

Of particular concern to doctors are people with personality disorders, who make up almost half of mental health patients detained in out-of-area placements. These include borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder, in which patients are unable to control their emotions and behave impulsively and irrationally. They can also harm themselves or others, meaning doctors might feel sectioning them is the safest option.

But Dr Jorge Zimbron, consultant psychiatrist at Fulbourn Hospital in Cambridge, says this can have disastrous consequences.

‘The majority of patients with a personality disorder have a history of abuse, so restraining them is traumatic and won’t be beneficial.’

It'll be very beneficial to those members of the public who'd otherwise be assaulted or murdered by them, though, wouldn't it?