The new (Liberal) Australian Government's Health Minister, Peter Conlan, has just announced a $500m spending package on mental health reforms. The reforms are said to make it easier for sufferers to better manage their lives, such as by reducing the steps needed in seeking adequate accommodation. One immediately has to ask, though, what happened to the then record $1.8b that the previous Liberal Government spent on Mental Health in the early 2000s? And, further still, what happened to the later record of $2.2b spent on mental health by the previous Labor Government? Were those funds useful? Did they produce any new forms of mental health healing? Did they reduce the number of mental health sufferers? The only conclusion one can reach in all cases is a resounding "no". Hence the need for another round of funding "reforms".
About a quarter of the Federal Government's mental health funding goes to the "Headstart" facilities and their operations, which has become the forefront of treatment service. It's chief lobbiest is Patrick McGorry (professor of psychiatry), who champions it as being a "21st-century system". And its supporters want to sell the model to several other countries, including the UK, Canada, and the US.
So what is Headstart all about? it is a model of mental health treatment designed to address the high rate of youth suicide and psychotic symptoms. It strongly advocates early intervention - treating 12-25-year-olds for general mental stresses, and 15-24-year-olds for early psychotic symptoms. Additionally, the provided centres are a brightly coloured, funky, drop-in-style that is attractive to youth. And there is no need for a referral or any psychological analysis - just easily-obtainable assistance. And the general feedback from the participants is favourable.
Headstart critics, though, have noted that there are no follow-up studies on patients, so it is not possible to determine how effective the treatment is - or, indeed, if it may be doing harm. But there are other problems with Headstart. It is claimed to be a non-medical model. Yet, underlying the service is the same old medically-based theories and practices. It's claim for efficacy - that being "early intervention" - is the same as the current trend in medical science. This is the theory that if you can get in early you can curtail a health problem before it festers. But early intervention - as some scientists have openly stated - is not a cure. It is really only just the next best thing to a cure. So when practitioners tout "early intervention" as being the pinnacle of treatment, they are really hiding the fact that they do not have a definitive cure for a problem. Another Headstart issue is that of following "evidence-based" science. This practice is essential in most areas of science - but when it comes to psychology, evidence-based research is often shallow, flimsy, and not very useful. And, yet another problem area is the non-unified science behind it all. One of Headstart's chief proponents, Simon Stafrace (an Associate Professor of Psychiatry), states that, "Part of the problem in finding an approach that works is the nature of mental illness itself. Unlike other areas of health, making a diagnosis is not an exact science. One person's 'unwell' is another's 'unconventional'". In other words, Headstart's practitioners are still searching for an effective treatment approach - which they haven't found yet. Meanwhile, the default treatment in the background is "cognitive-behaviour" therapy. This is a medically-backed therapy based on the false belief that changing your thinking patterns can change distorted behaviours. Like the evidence-based researh that it is based upon, it is a shallow and weak therapy that doesn't work very well.
Headstart is a hodge-podge of thinking. Its sole driving force - to be youthful and funky - is a novelty that would indeed probably work well initially. But its claim to be non-medically-based is clearly confused. And even more confusingly, it even borrows elements from pain-resolving psychotherapy - a treatment that is normally considered to be too radical. For example, from Primal Therapy it borrows the concept of getting away from the stuffy medically-based offices, and talk of unmet needs; while from the laws of pain it borrows the concepts of the social application of mental health treatment, and a "21st Century system". But - unlike those two psychotherapies - there is no new science, no new theories, no new treatment practices. It is a case of the old mental health system trying to update itself to be more like the newly-emerging mental health system. Given this, one can see what is going to happen to Headstart over time. As its practitioners gradually come to realise that people are not really being healed of their mental health problems, the youthful enthusiasm will die down. And the program will gradually be reabsorbed into stock-standard psychology and psychiatry - with out-of-date theories and practices, and prescription drugs to keep mental health problems under control.
By now, Australia should be THE world leader in healing mental health problems - by utilising the laws of pain system. But it is being held back by health experts and politicians who do not fully understand what causes mental health problems or how best to heal them. And the losers in all of this will be the babies of tomorrow - some of whom will unnecessarily have to endure lives full of debilitating psychoemotional pain - for no other reason than our social leaders are too stubborn to accept the inevitability of a new mental health science.
Referemce:
Jill Stark, "Debate surrounds the headspace model of mental health services", The Sydney Morning Herald, (online), Fairfax Media, November 10, 2013,
http://www.smh.com.au/national/debate-surrounds-the-headspace-model-of-mental-health-services-20131109-2x8lf.html
