UESP Forums

I just found my new screen saver for my phone

*sees picture*

OH HECK NO! You did not just tell me.....


*Unleashes Ultimate Dovah Form and inititates epic boss battle*

.....

I've been playing too much Dragon's Dogma of late.

*grabs Serious Pack, Super Health and Super Armor.*

Health - 300
Armor - 300

I've been playing too much Serious Sam of late. My flaming fists of fury will destroy you fiend! Ha ha ha...ow God, who writes this stuff!?

Public Policy Presentations: A Guide

Emissions charges: 10 minute presentation; 0 minutes questions.
Drug decriminalisation: 10 minutes presentation; 0 minutes questions.
Prostitution Reform: 10 minutes presentation; 0 minutes questions.
Mental Health Screenings: 10 minutes presentation; ~25 minutes questions.

My favourite question was the borderline-religious objection to mental health care for U18s, as shouted at me 6 times.

^Do explain more, pls

Including the proposal in hiders.


This proposal generated about 25 minutes of questions ranging from reasonable if irrelevant to the point of the actual proposal - i.e. pressure on our already underfunded system - to some really stupid ones - i.e. enthusiastic opposition to the idea of under-18s meeting with mental health professionals. This is mostly problematic because of my professor's aforementioned scepticism around mental health issues; every time someone made a comment suggestive of it being no big deal, commitment to his biases was probably strengthened.

But a number of questions are notable because no other presentation received a single one that day, despite them being - what I would have thought - a lot more controversial. Now, I think I handled the questions which got asked well* but, like, what the [&@%!]. On the brightside, we did get a substantial amount of support from portions of the class I wouldn't have expected it from. I am also still glad I chose the topic, even if I will probably get marked less than if I'd decided to go for transitioning pensions or social-security to private accounts or something more wonk-Y.

---

* Minus one asked in a weirdly awkward way about 20 minutes into the Q&A session, since I completely forgot that not only did I have a certain statistics but had mentioned it 3 or 4 times during the course of the presentation, and already used it in a response to at least 2 or 3 other questions. Though I did recover and mention the statistic, so all's well with my marks there, I hope.

Ah, but about the borderline-religious objection you mentioned earlier?

I mean, all the other stuff you listed above is pretty sound, early screening for pre-existing and treatable conditions are sort of a no-brainer, even if it's on the subject of mental health(Tho really, the cost there will come in quality issuance in the screenings and minimalizing a mis-diagnosis) Tho such a system could just as easily be integrated, at least in the initial phase, with treating autistic and genetic deficiencies.. And unfortunately on that front, alot of professions/facilities aren't yet able to accommodate to the long term post-pediatric care. But that's a tangent for another time

But ya, early screening and intervention with mental health can prove vastly beneficial, so much so where early intervention and treatment can be that much more successful(especially prior to adulthood). It can also have the unattended side-effect of reducing pediatric social stress and suicide rates, namely in the 13-17 range. And even in regards to some of the more chronic and serious conditions, starting treatment/observation early can objectively reduce the impact upon their overall adulthood(I.e a +5 year treatment plan is less detrimental starting at age 15 than it is at 20)

Btw, if it isn't obvious, I have a vested interest in psychiatric care, namely in the medical side of things. It's part of my job and experience. I tend to see the worst of it, or of those where the system has failed them(which unfortunately, happens alot)

Her argument seemed to be based on the idea that it was more harmful to children to have to deal with mental health professionals and mental health institutions. The reasons for this were not explicitly stated though despite encouragement but were apparently unaffected by the fact that children interact with health professionals all the time. In fact, the argument was framed more in terms of 'no parent would let that happen to their kids'.

If there are long-standing issues - something she seemed sceptical of - then it should be dealt with within families.


Yeah. I agree here. In estimates for the UK which I based my own estimates off, this seemed to be about half the cost.


I am not sure if you picked this up through professional observation or read it in a journal but if it was the latter, and it's no great bother (because I'm sure it won't take too long to google-scholar me up some literature), would I be able to get a source? I still have to write a report detailing this proposal and this (which I was unaware of) would certainly strengthen my argument.


By the time I had gotten to the end of this post I wasn't surprised .

She'll be happy to know that in a few years time, there will be nothing in the UK as our government is secretly trying to run it into the ground thus jusitifying turning it into a private organisation that runs for profit and the poor people will know their place. Or the person who is supposed to improve/run/maintain it is awful at his job.

I hate this country sometimes.

Just via experience, observation, and intuition

I mean, the earlier to treat any condition, especially if it can have a larger impact later in life, it only makes sense to treat it earlier, and more so if treatment is going to be time consuming

Plus, alot of mental health complications seem to be more apparent or worsen in adulthood. I say this BC by then, most people are now independent and dealing with a multitude of stress factors. You lose the luxury and benefits of an early intervention when the effects are already influencing your livelihood.

Hence why I gave the age range for similar duration of treatment. Somebody who's 15 is certainly going to be better off by age 20 than a 25year old by age 30.. Not just BC of the end result, but by how much of a burden and influence was removed by that early intervention(I.e the 25 year old will still have at least 10years of untreated mental health)

Also, tho I can be proven wrong, pediatric mental health seems more manageable than those diagnosed in adulthood. Especially so with behavioral issues and potential rehabilitation/correction(though that's a loaded question in of itself)

This is all of course taking into the assumption the medical and various psychiatric facilities are optimal and unambiguously beneficial to both patient and community, and not just indirectly/unintentionally causing undo burden/harm in either(see any early mental health treatment/misunderstandings for a good example, with the worst being the lobotomy)

Text wall incoming later.

Oh [&@%!].

Fix'd

I gotta ask a couple quick questions about early screenings for folks under 18: How young is too young to treat a condition in a child? What does 'early screenings for pre-existing and treatable conditions' entail in the mental health field?

My text wall revolves around this.

NB: My major is Economics and not Psychology or Medicine.


The Beck Youth Inventories (BYI) can be administered from the age of 7 and upwards (Williams 2014, BMJ).

As for treating the condition, I wouldn't be able to answer with any sort of confidence. Though I am going to let the first statement stand as - perhaps ignorantly - some sort of road-guide.


I would mean - at it's most basic level - having the child engage with a diagnostic aid such as the the BYI in order to assess risk and susceptibility.

I imagine BetaB might be able to offer an informed and substantial response.


This aligns with my basic intuition, yeah.

Thanks, BTW.

Depends on the type of screening and how intensive they will be.

A bare bones basic screening, for any form of test(psychiatric, learning disabilities, heretical, cancer, lead levels, urinary, metabolic, CBC, ECT ECT) Not so sensitive enough to lead to a diagnosis, just enough to pick up any suspicious signs or abnormalities. Things, that if triggered, any medical professional would insist on further, more selective screenings/tests

But limiting that to just mental or behavior health, such a basic screening would be so less intensive, even a program most schools do/can provide.. Tho more so aimed at learning and speech disabilities across all grades(namely targeted at the younger demographics)

For the more accurate and genuine screening, the type that I(and presumably Velv too) are referring for, that would be something where nationally an age standard would occur. Maybe during middle school or the age of 10 meets the average desire, or maybe younger if that nation wants it so, and equally true for much older(but by then you gotta ask what's the point then) Such a program is not something any school could properly supply. This is something the medical field has to provide, and one that insurance(universal or private) must be willing to accept without gutting the program. It's basically a 2nd doctors visit for all pediatrics. So much so that it could see the implementation of a Primary Care Psychologist (I.e mental health equivalent to a Primary Care Physician I.e your main current doctor)

If any of that makes sense that is

Text wall warning now entering DEFCON 3

Let me preface everything I'm about to say with I'm not attacking you. It may sound that way at times but I'm really not - it's hard for me to tell how I come across via internet. I respect your intelligence 100%, if I didn't I wouldn't be quoting and replying.

I am of the opinion that if you don't know how conditions are treated (especially in children) who can't articulate emotion then frankly you shouldn't have an opinion on the matter. I'm trying to articulate this in a way that's less [censored] but I just can't haha sorry. I mean no offense.




What happens after said assessment?

I don't know what BYI is but I consulted google (this right?: https://d1pbog36rugm0t.cloudfront.net/- ... n-2012.pdf )

How much do you know about the BYI? How much faith do you have in it? You already admitted you don't know what the treatment entails (maybe you do and I got that wrong?), then why do you stand by it?


I'm speaking solely on mental health.


See, now we're getting more specific. This is also an issue with mental health: mental health specialists sometimes aren't synced with patients. Meaning, "who gives a [&@%!] if you're happy, we need you to hold down a job."


What does the more accurate and genuine screening entail? Apparently this is something I missed in the argument? I just saw reference to the BYI program. I poke at this question not to be a dick but to some degree expose ignorance on your part (you know I love you you [&@%!], again friendly articulation fails me).



Yeah that whole thing there is swiss cheese but frankly we are in some sort of an agreement.

My overall point to both of you is I'm specifically against medicating children. If BYI only calls for counseling aka talk therapy or something similar then I'm all for that. But that being said, like I said earlier in 95% of the cases, little children (under the age of 10) shouldn't be given prescriptions.

Sorry if I seem broad by any sense, by I'm just more accustomed to the medical side of things. Hence why I keep throwing seemingly unrelated examples or references. Like this: A basic screening could would include a simple urinalysis if it was an urinary screening. If the Doc knew the condition or a abnormal result, a more specialized or less-vague test would be done. Same is true with drug screenings I am too, pediatric or not, but namely so when it's unnecessary or not an avid solution to the condition.. Only the symptoms(spoiler alert, that's not treating the underlying problems)

Hence why I specify the need to minimize mis-diagnosis and a rise in quality of care. Heck, in the ideal solution, most patients would be able to be treated early and without medication, all the while you'll see a decline of mis-use for medications(especially those for ADD, ADHD, and clinical depression)

On the plus side, any solution is still better than Sibyl(Points toward Kerr over sly reference)

I contribute to three rowdy debating forums. Even if you were I wouldn't mind .

I am, of course, approaching with the same attitude. Though, I think it will probably save you time reading if I said that I don't have an opinion on what treatment should be provided, and the policy I proposed was entirely agnostic to this, too. That question, I feel, should be left to mental health professionals, of which I am not.


You'll need to be more specific as to what I should not have an opinion on.

Since you respond to a point where I said I couldn't offer any advice on treating the condition I will highlight that the policy I proposed does not express an opinion on that at all - and neither do I have an opinion. It merely provides a means for mental health professionals to inexpensively identify those that require treatment.

I also don't have an opinion on the manner in which the diagnostic should be achieved. I use the BYI as an example because it is the standard in Ireland and from both anecdote and raising the issue with a psychiatric professional (MSc Mental Health Science) it's been to suggested to me to be a powerful diagnostic tool.


I'm not sure what happens if you come up as having no incidence of mental illness. Otherwise, it is followed up with a scheduled meeting with a psychiatric professional who provides a formal diagnosis.


I can only refer to the BYIs popularity as a diagnostic tool in Britain and Ireland as well as the esteem it seems to be held to in the literature.

I also never said I have no idea what the treatment entails, though I only have an idea when it comes to late teens and early adults. Though the policy I suggested was intended to allow mental health professionals to inexpensively identify those who required treatment and doesn't express an opinion on the treatment design itself except to presume that the treatment by professionals is an unambiguous good.

This may be untrue, though the reason we presumed this was on the basis that (i) half my team had a moderate or serious mental health problem and agreed that treatment positively affected them [small sample but I thought it was worth mentioning], (ii) the mental health literature seem pretty consistent in that mainstream therapies tend to positively affect young people [whatever they entail]. Nevertheless, what sort of treatment should occur, or whether treatment should occur, period, is an issue that is left to mental health professionals who, pursuant to your first point, you seem to implictly agree should have an opinion.

In other words, the policy I proposed is leaving the question as to whether treatment is positive and what sorts of treatments are positive to people who are mental health professionals.


BYI is merely a diagnostic tool. Its use doesn't suggest a preference for either drug-therapy or cognitive-therapy. In fact, I don't have an opinion on this at all. That is something that the policy I suggested is entirely agnostic towards.

Most woke post in this conversation.

For real.

Dovah does not understand post. Dovah has wares to sell that is not stolen from Aarah's list.

It better not be or I'll have ye head.

Fresh Aarah's head. Dovah brings fresh Aarah's head from Eslwyere. Dovah has wares to sell.

Spoiler alert, the merchandise on sae is said lists

Dovah wares is closed for a while. Dovah will destroy SAE. Dovah is ruthless and there will be no competition. Dovah has bigger axes and will smite SAE into the pits of oblivion.