Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I agree with he author on the statistics of homicide and the risk
posed by those with mental health problems are small in comprison to the
bigger picture of homicide. But the fact remains that public perceptions
have altererd little over the past 100 years regarding the risk that the
mentally disordered/offender poses to them. Yes media pays a major part in
that, but as health practitioners we must look at what role we currently
play in this issue of stigma.
Professor Taylor who is cited is correct in identifying that new
neuroleptic medication is effective...what isn't is the aftercare and
general support sysytems in place to supervise this already
disadvantaged group. Non-compliance of medication and accessing community
patients can be problematic, particularly for generic services, who have
little resources to effectively manage care. This said, risk to the
public is negligible, but one publicised case is enough to undo any good
work that may be taking place in this field.
On a more moral note a high percentage of compulsory detained patients
are being detained because they are percieved to be dangerous. This can
mean years of unnecessary detention. In the well cited Baxtrom case
New York(1966) a legal land mark was achieved when Mr Baxrom appealled
against his unlawful detention. I won't go into details other than to say
that he won his case. His case meant the 699 other patients who were
similarly detained had to be released. This allowed a unique apportunity
for scientists to study the rate of reoffending.. The follow up study by
Steadman and Coccozza (1974) showed a very small rate of recidivism within
that population...Which begs the question that risk prediction currently
is flawed, and that we would be better of discharging most of our detained
patients...How do you think the public would react to that?
We have a specialist section that works with people who have special
needs ,over a hundred of these have Mental Illness.
The general Housing staff and the maintenance section are particularly
worried about assessing those who maybe violent.
We realise that contact with social & health services as soon as
possible is vital and do this so that we can be prepared if we are dealing
with clients who maybe verbally or physically aggressive.
My research time is very limited but I wonder if anybody could send me
info about assessment forms used to assess the likelihood of a person
becoming violent ,which professions are most at risk and methods of
prevention and management.
Devil's Advocate
I agree with he author on the statistics of homicide and the risk
posed by those with mental health problems are small in comprison to the
bigger picture of homicide. But the fact remains that public perceptions
have altererd little over the past 100 years regarding the risk that the
mentally disordered/offender poses to them. Yes media pays a major part in
that, but as health practitioners we must look at what role we currently
play in this issue of stigma.
Professor Taylor who is cited is correct in identifying that new
neuroleptic medication is effective...what isn't is the aftercare and
general support sysytems in place to supervise this already
disadvantaged group. Non-compliance of medication and accessing community
patients can be problematic, particularly for generic services, who have
little resources to effectively manage care. This said, risk to the
public is negligible, but one publicised case is enough to undo any good
work that may be taking place in this field.
On a more moral note a high percentage of compulsory detained patients
are being detained because they are percieved to be dangerous. This can
mean years of unnecessary detention. In the well cited Baxtrom case
New York(1966) a legal land mark was achieved when Mr Baxrom appealled
against his unlawful detention. I won't go into details other than to say
that he won his case. His case meant the 699 other patients who were
similarly detained had to be released. This allowed a unique apportunity
for scientists to study the rate of reoffending.. The follow up study by
Steadman and Coccozza (1974) showed a very small rate of recidivism within
that population...Which begs the question that risk prediction currently
is flawed, and that we would be better of discharging most of our detained
patients...How do you think the public would react to that?
Competing interests: No competing interests