Return to: Home | Culture | Television

10 comments from readers

Rosemary Moore
24 April 2008 at 16:56

Quite! In addition, why did Dr Trevor Turner involve himself in this? Who was shown the programme before it was broadcast ? The East London MH Trust where Dr Turner now works and where Rufus May was treated 20 years ago and the Bradford MH Trust where Dr May is now employed)?

Knowing something of Rufus May, I was most interested in the part of the programme where he revealed that his problems are not with psychiatry but with his own profession, psychology. It is in psychology that Dr May is the maverick.

It should also be noted that much of what Dr May was saying, mimicked R D Laing's attitudes forty years ago.

Rosemary Moore

Surrey UK

www.mentalmagazine,co.uk

v01ce5
24 April 2008 at 22:25

I just wish that Rachel had dome some basic research before giving vent to this over the top reaction to what in my opinion is a refreshing and constructive response to assisting someone who is hearing overwhelming voices.

If she had she would have learnt that the methods employed by Rufus have been well researched and have been practiced not only in the UK but throughout Europe and beyond, The hearing voice movment is well known in the UK with over 150 self help groups in England alone, the work has been applauded and developed in 19 countries most recently in the USA and Australia,

What did he do that was so outrageous. He simply sat down and talked to a voice hearer about herr experience, validated the reality of what was happening to them and worked alongside them to better understand the messages of the voices then helped her deal with these issues. He showed a person can start to live their life again.

Rufus is only one committed expert by profession, imagine if whole services worked in the same way? This approach is not controversial or dangerous, it is based on over 20 years of research and action. It represents a major challenge to the approach used by psychiatric services. We urge professionals to listen to what their patients are telling them and help them understand their experiences.

Paul Baker

www.intervoiceonline.org

johannine
25 April 2008 at 10:49

If we see insane people in the street we ignore them, but movie makers see it all as their next movie, and perhaps worse someone to write about them [so yet others can go see them]

as if people wont watch such garbage , if onlt because it is being talked about, we then pick the worst of movies to talk about ,what [arnt there any positive movies out there]

ok mental illness seems all pervasive [the drugs arnt helping], plus those suseptable to hearing voices get tipped over the tipping point by the clear guidence such rubbish presents as enter-taint-ment

if we are what we eat [we become what we consume as entertaintmeant] ,who is helped in this media that makes this rubbish into movies [if medical boards arnt doing their jobs ,doing a movie certainly wont make them do it either

it is bad enough our tv is covered in murder , cop shows , sport and cooking [now the print media gives publicity to the insane as amusment ,or worse regards it as news worthy

by all means give those cursed by voices info ,but please its not entertainment [is it not strange the other two respondants are in the medical industry, their names are very telling [so on topic] but then again they are trying to help

in this spirit i will say voices come in bad and good voices [if its bad it comes from demons [yes they are hooked into a real hell, drugging them down only weakens them more , so when they die they get drawn into hell

[and the do gooders didnt realise they helped send them there , because they should have been told to ignore the bad [and to focus on the good ,

they should have been sent to school to learn more about the why of the voices and what it all means [that they can resist the evil voices within ,

by knowing why they have attracted them in the first place [evil loves vile ,flees from good ]

simply reject all evil by knowing its only as real as they allow it to become, thinking love drives them out ,avoid stimulants and negative stuff [like rubbish movies and booze/drugs]

Jay
25 April 2008 at 14:27

The knee-jerk reaction of Rachel Cooke to 'The Doctor Who Hears Voices' is a disappointing read in the pages of the New Statesman. I would like to add to the encouragement of the other postees that Rachel Cooke look a bit further into the issue. She could start by reading Rufus May's own 'Making Sense of Psychotic Experience and Working Towards Recovery'. She might also like to compare and contrast Rufus May's 'experiment' with the experiments being committed every day on hundreds and thousands of people in the name of 'helping' and not being commented on in the press with any irritation let alone 'fury'.

Dave Harper
25 April 2008 at 19:08

Rachel Cooke’s review is both misinformed and prejudiced. It’s misinformed, because psychiatric medication and inpatient hospital care are not risk free. These medications have toxic side effects (I know as I once received them as part of a research study) which is why many people prefer to try to recover without them. The recent National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness showed that 856 people actually killed themselves whilst they were hospital in-patients. Only 14% of suicides were related to people not taking their medication. Indeed a quarter of people killing themselves actually used psychiatric medication to carry this out. Voice hearing is more common than many people believe (studies suggest 5-10% of people will hear voices at some point) and, often, these voices can be hostile but, as we saw with Ruth, the vast majority of people do not act on them. I don’t know on what Cooke bases her claim that lives have been put at risk by community care. Homicides by people with mental problems, for example, have been falling over the last 50 years. Over the last 15-20 years there has been an increasing amount of research into a range of successful psychological therapies for helping people with psychotic experiences. Cooke could have engaged with the issues in the programme by referring to this but she didn’t even appear to be aware of it.

The review is also prejudiced -- given Cooke’s views about people with mental health problems, it isn’t surprising that so many people choose not to disclose they have a problem – something which is not unlawful according to the Disability Discrimination Act. People like Ruth can and do occupy responsible jobs but employment discrimination on the grounds of mental health exists, even in the NHS sadly, so much so that half of the Disability Rights Commission’s legal cases are on this topic. The answer is to create a safe and trusting environment so that people do not hide their problems.

Developing alternatives to the hospital-and-medication approach does involve difficult choices and a balancing of risks but we need a range of compassionate alternatives rather than defensive practice driven by moral panics.

Boo
25 April 2008 at 19:21

I am saddened to see Rachel Cooke's narrow minded review of " The Dr who hears voices" in print. It is views like hers, based not in research, open mindedness and a connection to individuals stories, but, instead based in stereotype and fear. It is precisely these things that set up a situation in the first place where it is not possible for people labled as "mentally ill" to be honest about their experiences. As someone who has been on the recieving end of forced psychiatric treatment, had my experiences pathologised, labled and my life written off. Then with the help of organisations like the Hearing voices network and individuals outside of the "system" and off medication have been able to re-gain that life, and with it a sense of value once more for myself and my abilities. I have nothing but admiration for Dr Rufus May, his methods make perfect sence to me, and are based on values like equality, choice and empowerment. He and Leo were not undertaking a risky experiment, but allowing us to witness a challenging, but successful alternative model of treatment. It is not the right approach for everyone, but, I believe for some, including Ruth, it actually poses less risk in the long run and definately a brighter future and should be an option open to all. I am not in the slightest bit concerned about Ruth's abilities as a Dr, I believe this experience will have only served to make her more compitant, not less, she has a level of personal awareness and insight now that many will never have. It is the unwillingness of people like Rachel Cooke to re- think their views on people who hear voices or have a mental health diagnosis that, for me, pose the greater risk in our society.

Rufus May
25 April 2008 at 22:23

This film seems to have provoked strong reactions in viewers. I have had hundreds of messages of support saying how inspiring the film was; there have also been lots of people I have met who are unsure which approach they would prefer mine or the traditional medical approach; others like Rachel Cooke have expressed much anger and criticism. I would like to explain several matters. Firstly, I made a judgement that Ruth once she had got through her crisis would make an extremely competent clinician and that she had an immense amount to contribute to society in that role: If Ruth lost her medical career, we as a society would be losing out on the contribution of a deeply compassionate, intelligent and able clinician. Secondly, it is important to explain that I believed Ruth would only ever be a risk to herself. Given training, destructive voices can be as easily resisted as destructive thoughts. Unfortunately the media perpetuates the myth that this is not so. I was completely confident Ruth would never respond to her voice’s destructive suggestions towards others.

Suicide was a risk at one point because Ruth feared her career was over. There is a high suicide rate among junior doctors. If I had told her employers or doctors about her voice hearing, such is the prejudice toward this expression of distress in the health professions, she would have been almost certain to lose her career. Her career was her life. Because for Ruth it was so important to her to help others as a Doctor I believed that if she lost her career, we may well lose Ruth as well. Therefore I assessed that the risks to Ruth were far greater if either of us communicated her distress with mental health services or her employers. I did this work supporting Ruth in an independent capacity outside of my NHS work. However I still did this in consultation with (international) experts in the field.

The film which was made for television, focussed on the more dramatic aspects of our work making sense of Ruth’s experiences, and not much theoretical discussion was possible. Nevertheless Leo’s film manages to convey a compassionate approach to a fellow person undergoing a psychological crisis. As Dave Harper has pointed out there are huge risks in allowing mental health services to intervene in people’s lives in a traditional manner. Many people have lost their loved ones to the impersonal dehumanisation that so often takes place in institutional treatment. I know I get hundreds of letters from families desperate for an alternative to a medical approach to their son or daughter’s distress. These risks of psychiatric intervention are seldom acknowledged in our society.

National Mind has recognised the value of the film. They have said: “The doctor who hears voices” challenges the stigma and prejudices that so commonly surround mental health problems…and shows that it is possible to lead a full life and a demanding job while managing your mental health issues. “Mind congratulates Channel 4 on tackling one of the most unfair taboos of modern society. This is an eye-opening documentary that challenges traditional perspectives about the treatment of mental health problems. Rufus' pioneering approach gets remarkable results and shows that people can recover to lead a full life. It's excellent that Channel 4 has dedicated a primetime programme to this controversial subject and we hope it will raise public awareness and understanding about what it's really like to live with the experience of hearing voices." Professor Phil Thomas in his review in the British Medical Journal States that “Risk has come to represent a particular set of values that are tied to the belief that rational thought can solve all our problems. But there is no place in such a view for the human ability to heal through compassion, kindness and love. Our preoccupation with risk makes it almost impossible for us to work with our patients in ways that are genuinely healing. I only hope that Ruth's courage (for whoever she is, she has great courage to have allowed this film to be made) will encourage those psychiatrists and doctors who have experienced madness to continue their work. We could make it that much easier if only we could follow the moral within this film, and learn to value the wounded, sick, mad parts of ourselves”.

Philip Thomas (former consultant psychiatrist and current Professor of Philosophy Diversity and Mental Health). Philip Thomas is right, coming through mental health problems can make you a deeply compassionate and able practitioner, not weaker as is implied by some commentators. Lets hope the film represents a beginning of shift in the way the media covers mental health away from paternalism and fear mongering to something more compassionate, that acknowledges that the answers to people’s crises are complicated and deserve more dialogue and less knee-jerk judgement. For more information about my ideas and work visit www.rufusmay.com

Jay
26 April 2008 at 17:22

Just like to say that I support Rufus May's statement. Keep up the good work.

yasmin
27 April 2008 at 00:31

It is really hard to sit with suffering, one's own or others'. Much easier to try and "fix" a person, or to ignore or write off, or to numb, or simply to frame a person's suffering in "rational" terms and call it "mental illness". All these approaches allow the individual called on to help another to separate themselves from that person and their distress, to see them as "other", different from oneself, from a different gene pool perhaps or even a separate, lesser species.

The modern psychiatric "service" that Trevor Turner represents is deeply severed from the emotional reality of the individuals it is meant to serve. It is sterile, cruel, cold, and univiting. This documentary showed a mental health professional with real heart daring to step out of the box, who was prepared to risk so much personally and professionally to show the world that there really is another way, one that has already been of value to so many people who mainstream psychiatric services have blatantly let down - I've met many such individuals at conferences of the "Hearing Voices Network".

May accompanies Ruth on a journey, is guided by HER agenda - to recover and work again as a doctor - and never presumes to already know what is going on or what is best. His is a truly person-centred apporach, in contrast to the organisation/ procedure/ professional - centred approach of mainstream NHS mental health services, where it is the medical agenda that unquestionably dominates. That is: - to identify "symptoms" without regard for the meaning of strange or unusual experiences in the context of a person's life story, to diagnose with a pseudo-medical psychiatric label based on a flawed, scientifically unreliable and invalid diagnostic system, to "contain" and "manage" the crisis by detention in noisy, chaotic and frightening inpatient wards and with tranquilising drugs to quell undesirable emotional displays, and to "treat" with pharmacological interventions that, frankly, often do more harm than good. And to do all of this regardless of the wishes of the person concerned or their families, and all in the name of so-called "evidence-based practise" and "risk managment".

May gives people like Ruth a chance to frame her own experience in her own way, and is her ally in finding her own understanding and, finally, her own resolution. This is true empowerment, with Ruth taking ownership of her life and her struggles, eventually coming to a place where she feels secure enough in her relationship with herself, her voice and the world to go back to work. She makes a recovery from the effects of the trauma of losing her beloved brother and from experiencing bullying at school without having to become freshly traumatised by coercive psychiatric treametent and unhelpful labeling. It is a remarkable healing journey that she undertakes in the course of this film, and so different from the story she might have had in the absence of a mentor like Rufus. Ruth could be at the start of a life-ling, revolving-door, numbed-out career as a psychiatric patient today; instead, thanks to the willingness of another human being to keep believing in her, to keep trusting in her ability to come through a difficult time stronger and wiser, and to sit with her in her pain, she is continuing what I sincerely hope with be a long and very wonderful career as a doctor. I'm so grateful to her for allowing her story to be shared in this film.

I would like to thank Rufus and all professionals, advocates, carers and random members of the public who go out on a limb and swim against the tide in order the enter the worlds of people in mental and emotional distress and really Be with them in their suffering....I'd like to thank all these people - for there are many, though few so brave as to speak out on national television of their excellent though often necessarily subversive work, for their commitment, their compassion, their willingness to look deeper, and their humble respect for each human being's right to experience, live and share their own unique version of reality. This documentary has warmed me; I would like to call on all those who truly care to look and work towards a future where such alternatives to the psychiatric model are no longer the exception but the norm.

Hannah Crew
30 April 2008 at 12:51

I am aware that this journal has a strong link with the drug company Pfizer as can been seen at www.policyforum.co.uk I question therefore Rachel Cooke's bias in writing this artical? The company Pfizer produce various different drugs used to treat "mental illness" including the drug Sulperide (marketed as sulpitil by Pfizer) an anti psychotic! Knowing this for me sheds a whole new light on the Heading and sub heading for this article "A dangerous experiment" "This documentry was exploitative and irresponsible" The promotion of new ways of working with and defining mental distress without the use of drugs must surely be both those things to a leading supplier of those very same drugs!